I never felt old before, until I read this...

[Ixancoatl]

(and yes, this was me being a d1ck ... or as my friend has called me, a bad shepherd.)

[David Marks]

Ixancoatl wrote:

(and yes, this was me being a d1ck ... or as my friend has called me, a bad shepherd.)

Don't worry, once you croak we get all your stuff. ;)

[Trent Slabaugh]

Callous Jack wrote:

In the same vein as this thread, I was at a Pearl Jam concert recently and they began to play the song "Alive" which came out in '90 or '91 when I was in highschool. It suddenly dawned on me that almost all the teenagers around me hadn't even been born yet. That was mildly depressing.

This reminds me of when I Guns N Roses remade Sympathy for the Devil.. got tired of hearing "Hey have you heard that new GNR song.. it rocks" to which I'd promptly reply "Yeah it is an awesome song but the Stones did it better"

Trent

[doppelganger]

Dread wrote:

Same campaign, one of the players was a friends son who had gone all out rules lawyering the very baddest fighter he could make using a Scythe....I wanted him to experience thinking outside of the iterative attacks...and crossing a rope bridge, I had him 'drop' the scythe into the chasm....

Dread wrote:

now now now, youre making some assumptions here...for your information It was totally done in game, and he could just as viably found an alternate way around what was going on...It was a three rope bridge, and if youve ever crossed one, you know you have to use at least one hand on a rope to maintain balance...and two hands are best. He tried to walk across it and hold the scythe in his hand, instead of a couple alternatives that were givien. because he was the meatshield, the party voted he go first he made the choice, he rolled the dice, he dropped the scythe...... I didnt arbitrarily do anything.

You certainly don't have to justify anything, but I will point out that the story that you tell here does not match the earlier claim that you had the player 'drop' his weapon. In this version it is clearly the characters fault, in the earlier description it seemed more 'DM fiat'.

[Dread]

doppelganger wrote:

The kid showed up to have fun wielding a scythe. The DM took it away for his own jollies and then complained that the kid complained.

Would you complain if your DM told you that your wizard character developed a brain tumor and could no longer cast any spells?

Grow up.

This wasnt about my jollies, it was about challenging the player and the character. First he wasnt a kid, he was a young man. I wouldnt have done the same thing to a kid...second i didnt cut his arm off or anything, I disarmed him for a combat....If a player cant think his way out of that...whats the game world coming to.

hehe Ive done worse to Wizard players.... and theyve had fun.

Gaming is fun when you overcome adversity without having victory GIVEN to you.....

read any fantasy novel...watch any movie...the good guys win by overcoming adversity...not by yawning and saying I won!...

sheesh.

[Ixancoatl]

David Marks wrote:

Ixancoatl wrote:

(and yes, this was me being a d1ck ... or as my friend has called me, a bad shepherd.)

Don't worry, once you croak we get all your stuff. ;)

on the contrary ... when I die, my will shall have me burned on a pile of my gaming stuff. A true pyre to be seen for many miles.

[doppelganger]

Ixancoatl wrote:

Thank you for demonstrating the predicitbility of the younger generation. If I had actually bet my friend here when you would respond to my bait, I could have made some cash. I told him it would take you only a few minutes to respond, and you did. THAT'S the difference in generations; you're easy to predict.

You're welcome. Thank you for showing off why older gamers have the social reputation that they do.

Ixancoatl wrote:

on the contrary ... when I die, my will shall have me burned on a pile of my gaming stuff. A true pyre to be seen for many miles.

Maybe a viking boat funeral? All those old books should be highly flammable!

[Dread]

David Marks wrote:

In doppel's defense, it did sound like a dick move. Had the scythe been taken within the context of the game (disarmed and stolen; sundered) it wouldn't be so bad. But from dread's description, it comes across as a completely arbitrary ruling on his part. I'd be pretty cheesed at having my character effectively neutralized in such a manner as well.

If I make a Wizard and the DM arbitrarily decides I can't cast spells for some reason (places the entire adventure in an anti-magic field, frex) his "challenge" to me is going to get old fast, probably before the end of the second session, possibly even the first.

I've always understood that simply negating a character's abilities is bad form, and poor DMing. Especially if done to one character, while the rest of the party's goodies are spared. And even party wide negation leads to frustrated players more often than a challenging adventure. The "you've all been captured and must escape without your stuff" plotline has its time and place, but needs be used sparingly and carefully, IMO.

oh good lord, I didnt realize i ahd to type in the exact verbage and include the die rolls of an encounter and how it came to be....

OK whos played Forge of Fury...the first in the 3.0 scenarios? It was the encounter they had to cross the rope bridge to get to the archers behind the pillars.

he had choices..

1. he could say no, i wont go first.
2. he could have said, I tie the scythe down on my back.
3. he could have tied a rope to the scythe.
4. He could have let someone else carry it.

all the choices would have had him cross the brige and not be able to use the scythe for a couple of rounds as he recovered it....but he chose to carry it across and failed his dex checks...

I could have let him plummet to his death or at least fallen and not been able to help the party in the fight.

instead i had him make a check to see if he dropped the scythe and grabbed the rope with that hand..and he did.

sheesh

[David Marks]

doppelganger wrote:

Ixancoatl wrote:

on the contrary ... when I die, my will shall have me burned on a pile of my gaming stuff. A true pyre to be seen for many miles.

Maybe a viking boat funeral? All those old books should be highly flammable!

The accumulated oils of years of nerd-handling will make for a great bonfire indeed! :P

[doppelganger]

Dread wrote:

sheesh

Calm down old man.;) Your first description made the event sound like much worse experience for a player than it actually was. Read it yourself while pretending you don't know what actually happened and see what conclusion you make from it.

[David Marks]

As doppel said, that is a more reasonable scenario, and a player complaining in that instance is just b!+&*ing. But it is a good step away from how you initially described it. Not saying you had to explain yourself of course, but if you're trying to make a point with an example, best to actually give the entirety of the example, or risk people misunderstanding what you mean. :)

[Dread]

doppelganger wrote:

Dread wrote:

Same campaign, one of the players was a friends son who had gone all out rules lawyering the very baddest fighter he could make using a Scythe....I wanted him to experience thinking outside of the iterative attacks...and crossing a rope bridge, I had him 'drop' the scythe into the chasm....

Dread wrote:

now now now, youre making some assumptions here...for your information It was totally done in game, and he could just as viably found an alternate way around what was going on...It was a three rope bridge, and if youve ever crossed one, you know you have to use at least one hand on a rope to maintain balance...and two hands are best. He tried to walk across it and hold the scythe in his hand, instead of a couple alternatives that were givien. because he was the meatshield, the party voted he go first he made the choice, he rolled the dice, he dropped the scythe...... I didnt arbitrarily do anything.

You certainly don't have to justify anything, but I will point out that the story that you tell here does not match the earlier claim that you had the player 'drop' his weapon. In this version it is clearly the characters fault, in the earlier description it seemed more 'DM fiat'.

yes. I, for brevity sake, left off all the details. I set up the encounter so he would have to go at least 2-3 rounds without his scythe. "to challenge the player"...I didnt think id get this kind of backlash for the statement. just wow.

[Matthew Koelbl]

underling wrote:

See, as you have continued the discussion, I think you drifted away from your original argument. You originally expressed agreement with the idea that a 3.x fighter is full attack/rinse/repeat, while a 4e fighter has many more options.

In examining the rest of the thread, I think it clear that you (and others!) are not comparing the editions on an equal playing field. It was clearly stated above that the OPTIMAL path for a 3.5 fighter was most often to pursue a full attack with no use of feats or combat options.

Later, when speaking of 4e, you mentioned that there are many VIABLE builds, regardless of stats, skills, or paths. Now, obviously, there are many viable designs in both editions, but how many of those power choices would be optimal?

All of them. Each level had multiple choices where, if I was building a purely damage-dealing two-handed weapon mace fighter, I would not be able to easily decide which ability to take.

Yes, there are some levels where one power is an obvious winner and others are just terrible. But those seem the exception by far - the powers are remarkably well balanced against each other, and a fighter should have plenty of good options to choose from.

underling wrote:

I think if you examine a generic 4e fighter and compare powers that could be chosen at each level with a focus on optimal performance, you will see that your list is quite a bit shorter. When you take that character into combat and look for an optimal choice from the available list of at wills, I think your choices in combat will look a whole lot more like 3.x

And I disagree. Look at the level 17 Fighter Encounter Powers. You have Exacting Strike, which is an extremely accurate attack. You have Exorcism of Steel, which is decent accurate (it attacks Reflex) and disarms enemies. You have Harrying Assault, which can give you some extra movement (if you have decent dex) and gives you a free basic attack - good for those concerned about pure damage potential. You have Mountain Breaking Blow, which has the highest base damage on the list, and pushes the enemy 3 squares and lets you follow them - great for tactical use and positioning, in addition to the high damage. And you have Vorpal Tornado, a low damage attack on all adjacent enemies - which also knocks them 1 square away, prone. (Which can deprive melee enemies of an entire turn.)

The only useless power there is Warrior's Challenge, which marks a group of enemies, and thus is a good choice for a more defensive build. It also isn't terrible - but is directly inferior to Mountain Breaking Blow for anyone concerned about damage over tanking.

Even with level 23 Fighter Encounter Powers, which is a weapon-specific level, the mace fighter can choose from Skullcrusher (high damage, bonuses for mace users), Warrior's Urging (attack enemies in a 9x9 area? Sign me up!), or Cage of Chains (high damage, attacks Reflex for extra accuracy).

Even when discussing a specific build, you still have plenty of choices. I'm honestly unsure how somehow can look at the potential and versatility of 4E Fighters and come to the conclusion that they are in any way as limited as Fighters in 3.5.

underling wrote:

And as for the faster combat, most 4e supporters complain of how long 3.x high level combat takes, yet compare it to low level 4e combat. With the proven fact that monster HP rapidly out pace damage potential in 4e, its already been shown that, say combat against an epic tier solo takes a VERY long time to finish. Once the dailies and encounters are used up (in just a few rounds), you have 10+ rounds of using the best available at will over and over and over until the beast finally dies.

How is that an improvement?

A lot of claims along those lines have been made, but I haven't really seen it - either when running the game, or when looking over the numbers objectively. A 1st level party has at-will powers that will kill enemies pretty quickly. By level 30, those at-will powers haven't scaled as well as the enemy hp - but by level 30, the party has many more encounter powers, daily powers, special abilities and other resources that make the difference.

I ran a level 24 adventure over a weekend, and almost every combat took around 7-8 rounds. (As opposed to the 5-6 round combats at level 1.) I expect combats to rarely go beyond around 10 rounds - and at least half of that will be filled with using encounter powers, daily powers, and other special abilities.

In the game I ran, characters very rarely used at-will powers - and when they did use them, it was usually for a specific reason rather than because they were otherwise tapped out. (Such as a cleric using his at-will power that can grant an ally a free saving throw.)

And, even if characters end up spending half the combat using at-will powers, they have still gone way beyond the 3.5 fighter who was encouraged to use the same tactics every round of every fight of every day.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Jal Dorak wrote:

I didn't say the rogue should not be deadly, I think they should be deadlier than any class at sneaking up and gutting you unexpectedly, just as you describe. What Kakumei seems to be advocating is that the rogue be able to go toe-to-toe with the Barbarian (the premier brutal damage dealer) and have a fair chance. That is not what D&D rogues have ever been about.

My apologies - I was reading his post as comparing how the rogue and the barbarian both fared when on the same team and fighting enemies, rather than going toe to toe directly.

In that regard, I can see both your side and his. I think the thing to keep in mind is this: In 3.5, a average rogue going toe to toe with an average barbarian is almost entirely unable to harm the barbarian - without sneak attack, the rogue's daggers will do miniscule damage to the barbarian.

In 4E, a rogue without sneak attack will still probably be at a disadvantage against the barbarian - but they won't be completely helpless. Their attacks will still be felt - just not near their full damage potential, thus giving the edge to the barbarian.

In all honesty, it isn't really an issue of rogue vs barbarian, as much as that the 3.5 rogue had the vast majority of their damage coming from sneak attack - which, since sneak attack was extremely hard to acquire on your own, meant the rogue was absolutely terrible in one-on-one fights, regardless of who they were with!

By ratcheting back the importance of sneak attack, the rogue still might not be at his best, but certainly won't be completely underwhelming in a dueling environment.

[Dread]

doppelganger wrote:

Dread wrote:

sheesh

Calm down old man.;) Your first description made the event sound like much worse experience for a player than it actually was. Read it yourself while pretending you don't know what actually happened and see what conclusion you make from it.

*takes zen crossed legged pose for sitting*

ohhhhhhm ;)

Doppelganger- dropping a scythe isnt a horrible experience

cutting his arm off would have been, for then he wouldnt have been able to use the scythe even if he recovered it...right?

sounds like you made as many assumptions of the situation as i made in not including more details for brevity..... wouldnt you say? hmmmmm?

[Ixancoatl]

I think part of the problem here is the fact that nobody gave Dread the benefit of the doubt that maybe he was trying to avoid expanding his post even more, and nobody bothered to read between the lines. They just looked at the surface and never even tried to think about the fact that maybe, possibly, there was more going on than what was written. People assumed. As a general rule, gamers are supposed to be able to thin things through before acting or reacting. That's what draws many of us to the game: an intelectual challenge. Too many people just want to categorize things into simple terms without careful consideration. Well, life and gaming are neither simple nor easily categorized.

The fact that I knew this going into this part of the thread is how I could bait people. Quit being predictible; try to be more challenging, and give people the benefit of the doubt.

[David Marks]

Dropping a scythe into a chasm sounds pretty permanent to me. Maybe they just have big chasms where I'm from.

[Ixancoatl]

David Marks wrote:

Dropping a scythe into a chasm sounds pretty permanent to me. Maybe they just have big chasms where I'm from.

What? Is it the only scythe ever? Do people no longer carry back-ups?

[David Marks]

Ixancoatl wrote:

I think part of the problem here is the fact that nobody gave Dread the benefit of the doubt that maybe he was trying to avoid expanding his post even more, and nobody bothered to read between the lines. They just looked at the surface and never even tried to think about the fact that maybe, possibly, there was more going on than what was written. People assumed. As a general rule, gamers are supposed to be able to thin things through before acting or reacting. That's what draws many of us to the game: an intelectual challenge. Too many people just want to categorize things into simple terms without careful consideration. Well, life and gaming are neither simple nor easily categorized.

The fact that I knew this going into this part of the thread is how I could bait people. Quit being predictible; try to be more challenging, and give people the benefit of the doubt.

It is ironic that you speak out against categorizing things into simple terms in the same thread where people were categorizing the younger generation as non-intellectual yes-men. ;)

[Matthew Koelbl]

Dread wrote:

yes. I, for brevity sake, left off all the details. I set up the encounter so he would have to go at least 2-3 rounds without his scythe. "to challenge the player"...I didnt think id get this kind of backlash for the statement. just wow.

One thing to keep in mind is that the entire 'experienced players vs youngsters' them going on here has a very heavy vibe of "Our Way is Better!"

The kid in question was clearly having fun playing in his fashion. You wanted to break him out of his mode, however, and try and get him to enjoy other aspects of the game - but your attempts backfired, and he ended up frustrated with everything as a whole.

Now, I'm not saying he was right to throw a tantrum - or even if I'd prefer to play with a gamer who was very focused on one element above all others, as he seemed to be.

But if he was having fun playing, than that was what the game was all about.

D&D isn't survival of the fittest, it isn't a test of skills or something on which you need to meet a certain standard or receive a failing grade. These comparisons to school, or the need to 'diversify or die' are completely absurd - D&D isn't school, it isn't a job, it isn't evolution in the wild.

It is a game.

Some, sure, will enjoy being challenged and forced to rise to the next level. Some will enjoy immersing themselves in one role and focusing on it. Others will enjoy getting in characters, others will enjoy the OOC social environment, others will enjoy the tactics of combat or the character design process.

The point is to have fun - not prove your way of playing is 'better'.

Now, as I said before - I don't think you were specifically out to do this in the example you gave. I think you were trying to get someone to look beyond their standard way of playing, and it ended up not working.

But there does seem to be this attitude running through several posts that this younger generation doesn't know how to game properly. And I think people need to keep in mind that if they are having fun playing the game, that's all they need to do to be playing 'right'.

[doppelganger]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

I ran a level 24 adventure over a weekend, and almost every combat took around 7-8 rounds. (As opposed to the 5-6 round combats at level 1.) I expect combats to rarely go beyond around 10 rounds - and at least half of that will be filled with using encounter powers, daily powers, and other special abilities.

Did any of your combats include a high level solo? I have definitely seen the problem with high level solos that underling mentioned. While I haven't played out anything in the twenties, some friends and I ran a bunch of combats with fifteenth level characters and we noticed a lot of, well, boredom fighting high level solos. After the first several rounds (which were a lot fun and involved a lot of flashy stuff), the fights became dull affairs with the monster moving to avoid flanking by the rogue and the paladin struggling to hold his mark while the monster concentrated on him and the other characters either trying to keep the paladin healed or chipping away at the monster. One of the players compared the solo fights to chipping away at an iceberg with an icepick and we all agreed that it was a good description of what was happening.

[Ixancoatl]

David Marks wrote:

It is ironic that you speak out against categorizing things into simple terms in the same thread where people were categorizing the younger generation as non-intellectual yes-men. ;)

And again ... the bait is taken.

You're making it too easy ;-)

[David Marks]

Ixancoatl wrote:

David Marks wrote:

Dropping a scythe into a chasm sounds pretty permanent to me. Maybe they just have big chasms where I'm from.

What? Is it the only scythe ever? Do people no longer carry back-ups?

It depends really. A high level character might be hard pressed to have a backup as good as his primary, whose loss could be an extremely significant chunk of their total wealth. Plus, depending on how the DM plays encumberance, carrying two scythes may be deemed too unwieldy.

Anyway, if the player had another scythe immediately available, having him drop it in the chasm wouldn't be challenging him to play without it, and he wouldn't be complaining, would he? ;)

[David Marks]

Ixancoatl wrote:

And again ... the bait is taken.

You're making it too easy ;-)

Us youngsters are suckers for irony. Also for the hippety-hoppity music, and loitering on lawns. It is our way. ;)

[crosswiredmind]

David Marks wrote:

Those dang kids! Always playing on my lawn! Listenin to their hippity-hoppity music with their baggy pants! Who do they think they are! The future?!?

Pah! :P

Hmmm. I am currently wearing baggy rocawear jeans and I am listening to MF Doom. Well, at least I am not out playing on your lawn.

[David Marks]

crosswiredmind wrote:

David Marks wrote:

Those dang kids! Always playing on my lawn! Listenin to their hippity-hoppity music with their baggy pants! Who do they think they are! The future?!?

Pah! :P

Hmmm. I am currently wearing baggy rocawear jeans and I am listening to MF Doom. Well, at least I am not out playing on your lawn.

Lol!

[Matthew Koelbl]

Ixancoatl wrote:

Thank you for demonstrating the predicitbility of the younger generation. If I had actually bet my friend here when you would respond to my bait, I could have made some cash. I told him it would take you only a few minutes to respond, and you did. THAT'S the difference in generations; you're easy to predict.

I'm really puzzled by your claims of 'predictability' here - what was your prediction? That Dopple would respond to your post and defend his original opinion? That has nothing to do with someone's generation - that's a common trait of humanity in general (and the internet in specific.)

Given that you are doing the exact same thing - that we could have predicted you would continue to post in this thread - does that make you just as predictable?

Honestly, who is being more mature here? The person who is intentionally 'baiting' others in order to prove some archaic point, or those who are trying to engage in genuine intellectual discourse?

[Ixancoatl]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

One thing to keep in mind is that the entire 'experienced players vs youngsters' them going on here has a very heavy vibe of "Our Way is Better!"

Funny, I thought it felt more like the ever present "kids these days" ribbing that all old people do. (trust me, in 20 years, you'll be doing it too)

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

The kid in question was clearly having fun playing in his fashion. You wanted to break him out of his mode, however, and try and get him to enjoy other aspects of the game - but your attempts backfired, and he ended up frustrated with everything as a whole.

Part of the point is that this player is far to uncomfortable stepping out of his comfort zone. I see it daily when I try to get my students to take a stand. Risk = reward. That's all we're trying to do when we try to get people to break mode. You learn more when you do something new.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

D&D isn't survival of the fittest, it isn't a test of skills or something on which you need to meet a certain standard or receive a failing grade. These comparisons to school, or the need to 'diversify or die' are completely absurd - D&D isn't school, it isn't a job, it isn't evolution in the wild.

It is a game.

Some, sure, will enjoy being challenged and forced to rise to the next level. Some will enjoy immersing themselves in one role and focusing on it. Others will enjoy getting in characters, others will enjoy the OOC social environment, others will enjoy the tactics of combat or the character design process.

Some of us believe the game can do more than just entertain. It can help teach us about ourselves *while* we are having fun. Why must those be separate?

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

The point is to have fun - not prove your way of playing is 'better'.

their standard way of playing, and it ended up not working.

But there does seem to be this attitude running through several posts that this younger generation doesn't know how to game properly. And I think people need to keep in mind that if...

I don't see the "our way is better" attitude as the primary theme in this thread. I think you are reading that theme into it all on your own. Grain of salt, people. Maybe the fact that we've been kicked around for a few more years allows us to laugh off things that younger people may not since they haven't been kicked around as long. Quit taking offense. If you want a "who's better" debate, tell us how yours is better. Personally, I don't think there IS a "better" ... just a "different".

[Jal Dorak]

Ixancoatl wrote:

When you get a B in class, is it the teacher's fault too?

Sadly, many, many more people are coming around to this mode of thinking - where education is the sole responsibility of the teacher, and the parents and children are not responsible at all.

Can't we have a world without extremes!?

[realphilbo]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

Ixancoatl wrote:

Thank you for demonstrating the predicitbility of the younger generation. If I had actually bet my friend here when you would respond to my bait, I could have made some cash. I told him it would take you only a few minutes to respond, and you did. THAT'S the difference in generations; you're easy to predict.

I'm really puzzled by your claims of 'predictability' here - what was your prediction? That Dopple would respond to your post and defend his original opinion? That has nothing to do with someone's generation - that's a common trait of humanity in general (and the internet in specific.)

Given that you are doing the exact same thing - that we could have predicted you would continue to post in this thread - does that make you just as predictable?

Remember that scene from the Princess Bride? Right before the short guy gets poisoned...

"Never trust a Sicilian when death is on the line....HA HA HA HA..." *falls over dead*

[Dread]

*shakes head*

I feel old

Thanks for the lecture Matt....Dont think I need it though. Ive trained more than a few DM;s over the years, and understand how things go down. I would never ever resot to heavy handed techniques...subtlety is my middle name.

Michael Subtltey Dread...it could only be worse if I had a G for my last names first letter...;)

It was the only scythe he had. Yes the game is about fun...but everyones fun.

The player in question was a long time D&Der, just always with a younger gaming crowd..this was his first foray into a more adult game.

After the encounter I took him to the side and talked with him and he came away with a diferent view. But that was then...at the time it just ended in a tantrum.

Nuff said.

[Squeakmaan]

I don't know if this stuff is so much a matter of Age as playing style. I'm only 22 and yet I agree with most of the self-proclaimed older gamers. Minus Ix enjoying baiting people because he's got nothing else to do until classes start again in September.

And I have to say there are lots of ways to challenge players, like say, fighting a bunch of flying, fire-breathing kobolds on narrow rock pathways suspended above a giant pit of Lava, wouldn't you agree Ix?

[Ixancoatl]

I would like to point out that my first post on this thread about "the younger generation" began with the following:

<sigh>

This was an indication that I was speaking tongue in cheek. I apologize if anyone was unable to discern that. Lighten the frak up.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Ixancoatl wrote:

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

One thing to keep in mind is that the entire 'experienced players vs youngsters' them going on here has a very heavy vibe of "Our Way is Better!"

Funny, I thought it felt more like the ever present "kids these days" ribbing that all old people do. (trust me, in 20 years, you'll be doing it too)

Fair enough! As ever with the internets, seeing the line between playful banter and genuine offense can be hard to note, but I am starting to notice that Paizo tends to stray towards the former. ^_^

Ixancoatl wrote:

Some of us believe the game can do more than just entertain. It can help teach us about ourselves *while* we are having fun. Why must those be separate?

I'm not saying the game can't be more than simple fun - honestly, I'd personally probably enjoy a game run by that philosophy then one run for the 'scythe-wielders' of the world.

But I think it is somewhat overstepping your bounds to try and push that upon others who aren't looking forward - especially when, in doing so, you actively take away the elements they had been enjoying about the game.

[Jal Dorak]

Dread wrote:

yes. I, for brevity sake, left off all the details. I set up the encounter so he would have to go at least 2-3 rounds without his scythe. "to challenge the player"...I didnt think id get this kind of backlash for the statement. just wow.

I think what might have done it was the quotation marks around "lost", that made it seem pretty arbitrary to me too, and I was on your side the whole time anyway!

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

My apologies - I was reading his post as comparing how the rogue and the barbarian both fared when on the same team and fighting enemies, rather than going toe to toe directly.

In that regard, I can see both your side and his. I think the thing to keep in mind is this: In 3.5, a average rogue going toe to toe with an average barbarian is almost entirely unable to harm the barbarian - without sneak attack, the rogue's daggers will do miniscule damage to the barbarian.

I can understand the balancing issues with the Barbarian and Rogue (increasing the Rogues general combat ability but decreasing sneak attack effectiveness). But that takes some of the fun out of the rogue for me - I'm still on the fence about the PRPG sneak attack fix.

But you have to admit, new generations think about things differently (not really news here) and that includes gaming.

It is good for them, and sad for us. The problem is that both sides are inclined to dismiss the others arguments:

"Bah, what do grognards know? They haven't gotten it right the entire time, they don't want to try anything new!"

AND

"Bah, what do youngens know? They always want to change things for changes sake, and they never respect the ideas that came before them!"

Both sides have a point, but both sides need to find a middle ground. Really, this applies to any place in life with generation gaps.

Sorry for the double post.

[Ixancoatl]

Squeakmaan wrote:

I don't know if this stuff is so much a matter of Age as playing style. I'm only 22 and yet I agree with most of the self-proclaimed older gamers. Minus Ix enjoying baiting people because he's got nothing else to do until classes start again in September.

And I have to say there are lots of ways to challenge players, like say, fighting a bunch of flying, fire-breathing kobolds on narrow rock pathways suspended above a giant pit of Lava, wouldn't you agree Ix?

Indeed, Squeekmaan. A highly accurate assessment of the situation. I am indeed engaging in the "idle hands" cliche as I wait for classes. And you must remember that although you did manage to liquify the bad-ass leader of said kobolds before we got to his outrageously crappy init (much like that hydra ... bastard), you did not kill a single other thing in the room. You did however, succeed (mostly) at your task using cleverness to dissolve the chains and drop the big nasty rock into the molten lava before fleeing quite wisely from the scene.

Don't worry, You'll be doin more of that thinkin soon.

[Jal Dorak]

Squeakmaan wrote:

I don't know if this stuff is so much a matter of Age as playing style. I'm only 22 and yet I agree with most of the self-proclaimed older gamers. Minus Ix enjoying baiting people because he's got nothing else to do until classes start again in September.

And I have to say there are lots of ways to challenge players, like say, fighting a bunch of flying, fire-breathing kobolds on narrow rock pathways suspended above a giant pit of Lava, wouldn't you agree Ix?

Sounds like you are the good old exception to the rule. It depends on you and your upbringing. My parents style was a generation behind, so I am about a generation behind in terms of my personality.

Part of the Edition Wars could just be a GenX vs GenY debate.

[Larry Lichman]

David Marks wrote:

Ixancoatl wrote:

And again ... the bait is taken.

You're making it too easy ;-)

Us youngsters are suckers for irony. Also for the hippety-hoppity music, and loitering on lawns. It is our way. ;)

Hey! Git off my lawn!

Dadgum loiterin whippersnappers...

[crosswiredmind]

Squeakmaan wrote:

I don't know if this stuff is so much a matter of Age as playing style. I'm only 22 and yet I agree with most of the self-proclaimed older gamers.

Yep - I'm 40 and prefer the fast cinematic action oriented style of play in 4e. So it may very well be about taste and not age.

[Ixancoatl]

Jal Dorak wrote:

Part of the Edition Wars could just be a GenX vs GenY debate.

Actually, Gen Y would be the 2e-3e generation. The current generation is categorized as "millenials". Gen X = 80's teen; Gen Y = 90's teen; Millenial = 00 teen

(It is important to note that this clarification is, again, me baiting)

[realphilbo]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

But I think it is somewhat overstepping your bounds to try and push that upon others who aren't looking forward - especially when, in doing so, you actively take away the elements they had been enjoying about the game.

Isn't it up to the DM to run the game? Now if every single scythe in the known universe fell down that pit, I'd be upset, or maybe if it was a unique artifact that fell down, ok, be mad.

If I know that module, the rope bridge is early in the dungeon, and a 2 day round trip to buy a new one weapon (maybe get a masterwork scythe) is a gentle reminder of the player to be more careful. If the DM doesn't include the risk of dying or doing a critical fumble - then where is the challenge? I think the DM in this situation gave a suitable challenge.

I personally would've restocked the orc lair to include a scythe or give the ogre leader a magical one to allow the player to 'restock'. I hate running back to town to restock when players (or myself) forget a piece of equipment.

[Ixancoatl]

and the great thing about being a member of the older generation ... My attention span is longer than 30 seconds, so I can't wait for a long time before someone takes the bait.

;-)

[crosswiredmind]

Ixancoatl wrote:

Gen X = 80's teen

Kinda - most define GenX and being born in the years 1965-1980 (ish). Though some define it more narrowly as 1965-1975. But basically it is the generation that "came of age" in the late 80s and early 90s.

[crosswiredmind]

Ixancoatl wrote:

and the great thing about being a member of the older generation ... My attention span is longer than 30 seconds, so I can't wait for a long time before someone takes the bait.

;-)

You know what? I think that have ... Oh look, a Chicken!

... what was I saying again?

nevermind.

[David Marks]

Jal Dorak wrote:

Both sides have a point, but both sides need to find a middle ground. Really, this applies to any place in life with generation gaps.

Au contraire! We can wait. ;)

[doppelganger]

Ixancoatl wrote:

and the great thing about being a member of the older generation ... My attention span is longer than 30 seconds, so I can't wait for a long time before someone takes the bait.

You're right that you can't wait for a long time. That Viking boat is going to be calling soon!

Ooh! Shiny object!

[Ixancoatl]

crosswiredmind wrote:

Ixancoatl wrote:

Gen X = 80's teen

Kinda - most define GenX and being born in the years 1965-1980 (ish). Though some define it more narrowly as 1965-1975. But basically it is the generation that "came of age" in the late 80s and early 90s.

I should get my own fishing show

[Jal Dorak]

crosswiredmind wrote:

Ixancoatl wrote:

Gen X = 80's teen

Kinda - most define GenX and being born in the years 1965-1980 (ish). Though some define it more narrowly as 1965-1975. But basically it is the generation that "came of age" in the late 80s and early 90s.

The whole problem with the "generation" thing is that no-one really agrees on when they stop (but it is more in agreement with when they start).

I've seen GenX as early as 1965 (as CWM said) and as late as 1982. The big problem is that GenX and GenY overlap a bit, and GenY and Millenials even moreso. I don't think the inclination is to label generations by decades, but by massive social movements or upheaval.

Thus, Baby Boomers (my parents) raised in giddy times after WWII by frugal parents who lived through one or two World Wars (and the Depression). GenX raised during change in the sixties, seventies, and early eighties. GenY raised during the new-age trends of the nineties. Millenials the first generation to possible have never known life without a computer.

I consider myself a GenX, even though I was born in '81, but my parents were Baby Boomers and I was certainly not raised in a "modern" home (at the time).

I accept Ixancoatl's correction, I hastily put GenY, but I forgot what year it was. It would indeed be a GenX vs GenY vs Millenial debate (GenX being Chainmail and beyond, GenY raised on 2nd Ed and beyond, and the Millenials coming into the game around 3.5). This by no means accounts for those who pick up an older available version of the game, only the mainstream available D&D when kids usually start heavily gaming.

[GeraintElberion]

Going back to an earlier bit of the thread...

I've never played, or encountered, a character that was interesting because of what they did in combat.

Even if they could carve sonnets in an opponents chest they still weren't as interesting as a character who was interesting out of combat.

The barbarian one-trick-pony bard who can fart folk-songs is still more interesting than "Sonnet-Carver!"

maybe that's just me - but i'm neither young nor old - the cusp is obviously where it's at.