One thing 4e gave us...


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

101 to 150 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012

Heathansson wrote:
What? I'm not eating that drek.

He forgot to point out that it's served with real maple syrup. That's what makes the whole thing awesome! (IMO)

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
So what? Boo-hoo. Someone felt like expressing an opinion. I hear all the time that Obama is a POS from some people and that he is The Man from others. Should I feel offended and confront everyone that disagrees with my view? No. You put up with it and let it slide most of the time because it isn't a personal insult. It is an opinion. Opinions are like __________, everyone has one.

And yet there are certain opinions which probably should be kept to oneself - especially negative, non-constructive opinions.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's a good idea to share it.

Funny; that's what I thought about the 4e dragon pooping on the troll's head.

Silver Crusade

Bulmahnaut #9 wrote:
Bulmahnaut #1 wrote:

We left vikings unslaughtered?

Begins sharpening horns.

Can we raid this thread then?

I wish you would.


Treantmonk wrote:

That is EXACTLY the kind of post I would expect if I was hanging around a Republican forum.

Despite the fact I would disagree, I would never insinuate they had no right to express their opinions on a political platform (Um...especially on a forum specifically created for the purpose of discussing politics), nor would I suggest they shouldn't because I might disagree, and therefore be "offended".

If you want to see the online RPG community become the gaming equivalent of political debates, be my guest. It's not necessary, however, and I don't believe it's healthy for the community.

There is precious little reason why we should feel the need to drag down a game someone else enjoys in order to enjoy or discuss our own game.

Treantmonk wrote:

The "right not to be offended" (a fictitous right) gets taken way to far above the right to free speech too much of the time. Let's get over this idea that we must censor those who might have different opinions.

I agree with having a CoC that prohibits direct attacks on individuals or groups of people, that restricts inappropriate language, and that prohibits harrasment, but if the CoC were to include expressing opinions on games, objects, or types of food as prohibited behavior because someone who disagrees might be offended...really, what kind of commuity do you have left.

I'm certainly not suggesting that it be made part of the rules. It's a matter of mature behavior, and that's up to the individual to take care of. If something you're saying would do more harm than good, you should take pause to reconsider your words.


Heathansson wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
So what? Boo-hoo. Someone felt like expressing an opinion. I hear all the time that Obama is a POS from some people and that he is The Man from others. Should I feel offended and confront everyone that disagrees with my view? No. You put up with it and let it slide most of the time because it isn't a personal insult. It is an opinion. Opinions are like __________, everyone has one.

And yet there are certain opinions which probably should be kept to oneself - especially negative, non-constructive opinions.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's a good idea to share it.

Funny; that's what I thought about the 4e dragon pooping on the troll's head.

Even assuming that was in bad taste, two wrongs make a right...how?

I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Is your argument "They're doing it, too!"?

Liberty's Edge

No,....no argument, just an observation on subjectivity.
Argument is pointless all things considered, especially considering that the thing speaks for itsself.


I won't comment about the edition guerilla.

But about the WotC cartoons, if some were very mediocre, like the troll and the beholder, some others were actually pretty good and funny.
The gnome especially.
And it became an instant classic.

I'm a monster ! Rawr !


Bulmahnaut #9 wrote:
Can we raid this thread then?

Kill the vikings first, but spare the noobs?

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:


Even assuming that was in bad taste, two wrongs make a right...how?

I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Is your argument "They're doing it, too!"?

You're quick on the draw....;)

Paizo Employee Managing Developer

Anyone ever experience deja vu?


Scott Betts wrote:


If you want to see the online RPG community become the gaming equivalent of political debates, be my guest.

Change the whole community? Nah, I just like having the option of making it part of the community. Debating the worth of various RPG systems is enjoyable to some (including me), and an RPG forum seems like a reasonable place to do it.

Debating is actually kind of fun, and it is also a good way to challenge your own set beliefs, which can lead to understanding and better communication. Open dialogue IS healthy. Sarcasm is common in debate, if the sarcasm is unwarranted - challenge it, or return it.

The healthiest response to someone who states an opinion you disagree with is to state the disagreement with their opinion, and explain why you disagree - not telling them to keep their opinions to themselves. The latter will always lead to what we are doing here - the debate of the right to express our opinions vs. the right to not be offended by someone elses opinions, (free speech vs censorship).

If the subject are human beings - that is where the line should be drawn...except for Vikings - I've come to the conclusion on this thread that Vikings are fair game.

Thanks for your blessing though. That was easy. :P

Scott Betts wrote:
It's not necessary, however, and I don't believe it's healthy for the community.

I disagree with your opinion, yet I encourage you to defend it. I believe I've already expressed why I disagree in the first part of my post.

If you think my reasons are faulty, by all means tell me so, and tell me why, and I will likely respond in kind. I will never insult you, nor will I take your responses as a personal attack. If I ever feel insults are my only response, I know I've lost, since I can come up with nothing of value to add to my position.

In the end, either we will come to an agreement, or we won't, but in either case, we will likely understand each other's positions better than we did in the beginning.

How's that unhealthy?

Scott Betts wrote:
There is precious little reason why we should feel the need to drag down a game someone else enjoys in order to enjoy or discuss our own game.

I think we all know the OP was not intended as a personal attack on anyone, it was a light-hearted joke that the OP thought would be taken as such, and maybe give people a chuckle. He was right on the second part at least in my case.

He has nothing to feel guilty about, I regret that he may feel some misplaced guilt that has been laid at his feet, or that he may feel he needs to walk on eggshells before expressing opinion regarding an RPG on these forums.

Scott Betts wrote:
I'm certainly not suggesting that it be made part of the rules. It's a matter of mature behavior, and that's up to the individual to take care of. If something you're saying would do more harm than good, you should take pause to reconsider your words.

The OP should not have caused any harm. If he had included a shot on people who play 4.0, that would be different. If the response had been more to the case of, "I disagree, I think 4.0 is a pretty good system *insert rationale here*" we could be having a meaninful and healthy discussion on that topic right now.


Oddly enough, I find Top Gear to give a reasonable non-RPG analogy to that. For example, their views on cars from Audi. By and large, the presenters, Jeremy Clarkson, James May, and Richard Hammond, agree that they are well-made cars, with some being quite excellent, surprising, and in a few cases, drastically better than the competition.

They also generally feel that Audis are generally bought by c*cks, to the point where one of their "car-themed" christmas gifts was a stuffed rooster with 4 rings stamped on it.

Conversely, they admit that Alfa Romeos are beautifully styled, mechanically dreadful vehicles that are likely to leave you "at the side of the road in a cloud of steam". They also say owning and wanting an Alfa Romeo is the sign of a true petrol-head (car nut) and admit that they - Clarkson and Hammond at least - would take an Alfa as their car of choice over a lot of much "better" cars.

So the quality of a product and what one thinks of its customers are highly subjective and often entirely unrelated. You can think that 4E is a bad or unenjoyable system without thinking the people playing it are jerks. You can think a system is beautiful and refined and never want to play it because of the sort of people who are available to play it with. (I have that for most online games)


Treantmonk wrote:
The OP should not have caused any harm. If he had included a shot on people who play 4.0, that would be different. If the response had been more to the case of, "I disagree, I think 4.0 is a pretty good system *insert rationale here*" we could be having a meaninful and healthy discussion on that topic right now.

Unfortunately, the OP wasn't inviting rational discussion. He was making a joking dig at 4e, not discussing the merit of this or that part of the system.

If I titled a thread, "One thing PFRPG gave us," and then went on to discuss how I use the book as a door stop, there would rightly be hell to pay. It's not funny, it's not cool, and it's disrespectful to the game designers and those who value the game. It's blatantly antagonistic.


Whimsy Chris wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
The OP should not have caused any harm. If he had included a shot on people who play 4.0, that would be different. If the response had been more to the case of, "I disagree, I think 4.0 is a pretty good system *insert rationale here*" we could be having a meaninful and healthy discussion on that topic right now.

Unfortunately, the OP wasn't inviting rational discussion. He was making a joking dig at 4e, not discussing the merit of this or that part of the system.

If I titled a thread, "One thing PFRPG gave us," and then went on to discuss how I use the book as a door stop, there would rightly be hell to pay. It's not funny, it's not cool, and it's disrespectful to the game designers and those who value the game. It's blatantly antagonistic.

Look at it this way, he was jokingly saying that at least he got something out of the purchase to benefit the books he is using. Taking offense at that is silly. If people are that thin skinned I really don't see how they function in the real world. I for one got no real benefit out of my 4e books (used them a grand total of a month). Do I think its a bad system? Not really. Is it for me? No, not really.

As for as the doorstop reference, I suspect the PFRPG core book would be quite useful in that regard. Its durable, got some weight and mass to it. If you can keep its smooth cover from sliding on the floor then it should serve quite well. Also doubles as a paperweight, spider-killer and if you slam the open book shut incredibly useful in scaring the cat!

With a lot of things, going out of your way to find insult is more work than its worth. Its much easier to roll with the joke, find some amusement in the post (especially as he was NOT insulting anyone in particular or even the game really, just that he found some use for his purchase) and move on. Life's too short for needless conflict and its just a game.


Whimsy Chris wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
The OP should not have caused any harm. If he had included a shot on people who play 4.0, that would be different. If the response had been more to the case of, "I disagree, I think 4.0 is a pretty good system *insert rationale here*" we could be having a meaninful and healthy discussion on that topic right now.

Unfortunately, the OP wasn't inviting rational discussion. He was making a joking dig at 4e, not discussing the merit of this or that part of the system.

If I titled a thread, "One thing PFRPG gave us," and then went on to discuss how I use the book as a door stop, there would rightly be hell to pay. It's not funny, it's not cool, and it's disrespectful to the game designers and those who value the game. It's blatantly antagonistic.

No, the OP was not inviting discussion, it was up to the responder who disagreed to create it rather than shutting down conversation.

Someone who doesn't like Pathfinder has every right to come here and tell us they don't like it, however, they better be prepared to back up the statement with evidence, and be prepared that there will be alot of disagreement.

There might in fact be "hell to pay" as I imagine some would respond with personal attacks, and others would respond by demanding they keep their opinions to themselves. However, I would suggest that neither response is appropriate.

I would likely look at their reasons, then challenge them. I've done exactly that in less favorable locations: Like This One

When he stated, "Oh...um yeah, spells are the ONE THING that is backwards compatabile" to cover up the inconsistancy I noted in his argument, I considered myself the winner of that debate. He must have known he lost at that point. Poor Frank...


Michael Miller 36 wrote:
Look at it this way, he was jokingly saying that at least he got something out of the purchase to benefit the books he is using. Taking offense at that is silly.

I did not actually take any offense. The joke doesn't bother me. I guess my point was that if you start out a thread the way he does, you are inviting antagonism.

Michael Miller 36 wrote:
With a lot of things, going out of your way to find insult is more work than its worth.

Am I going out of my way? I think the OP meant to insult 4e. I don't think it's that subtle. Just because it's a joke, it doesn't change it's intentions.

Michael Miller 36 wrote:
Its much easier to roll with the joke, find some amusement in the post...

At the same time, I don't have to be a doormat either (what's my obsession with doors in this thread?). I probably won't directly comment on the OP much more, but I did want to point how his statement is antagonistic for 4e players and invites conflict, just as my doorstop reference would be purposefully antagonistic if I meant it. Some may roll with the punches, but it doesn't change the intention of the post.

Treantmonk wrote:
There might in fact be "hell to pay" as I imagine some would respond with personal attacks, and others would respond by demanding they keep their opinions to themselves. However, I would suggest that neither response is appropriate.

No, probably not. However, if I want real discussion as to the merits of a game system, I wouldn't respond in a thread like this one, but start my own thread with a more appropriate title.

Dark Archive

So funny story. I was in one of the major cities in my state for a job interview and I stopped by a game store up there. About a year ago I went in looking for a copy of the dead tree version of Beta, and they told me that there was only interest in 4e in that area. When I went in yesterday there were three shelves full of 4e stuff and three almost empty shelves where Pathfinder was supposed to be. The guy working the counter told me that they can't keep Pathfinder in stock. I almost spent my food and gas money on their last copy of the bestiary, but I couldn't figure out how I would explain to my wife that I chose buying the bestiary and being stranded 3 1/2 hours from home over getting back to her and the kids. :)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Treantmonk wrote:
Whimsy Chris wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
The OP should not have caused any harm. If he had included a shot on people who play 4.0, that would be different. If the response had been more to the case of, "I disagree, I think 4.0 is a pretty good system *insert rationale here*" we could be having a meaninful and healthy discussion on that topic right now.

Unfortunately, the OP wasn't inviting rational discussion. He was making a joking dig at 4e, not discussing the merit of this or that part of the system.

If I titled a thread, "One thing PFRPG gave us," and then went on to discuss how I use the book as a door stop, there would rightly be hell to pay. It's not funny, it's not cool, and it's disrespectful to the game designers and those who value the game. It's blatantly antagonistic.

No, the OP was not inviting discussion, it was up to the responder who disagreed to create it rather than shutting down conversation.

Someone who doesn't like Pathfinder has every right to come here and tell us they don't like it, however, they better be prepared to back up the statement with evidence, and be prepared that there will be alot of disagreement.

There might in fact be "hell to pay" as I imagine some would respond with personal attacks, and others would respond by demanding they keep their opinions to themselves. However, I would suggest that neither response is appropriate.

I would likely look at their reasons, then challenge them. I've done exactly that in less favorable locations: Like This One

When he stated, "Oh...um yeah, spells are the ONE THING that is backwards compatabile" to cover up the inconsistancy I noted in his argument, I considered myself the winner of that debate. He must have known he lost at that point. Poor Frank...

Oh yes that place.

Dark Archive

Bulmahnaut #9 wrote:
Bulmahnaut #1 wrote:

We left vikings unslaughtered?

Begins sharpening horns.

Can we raid this thread then?

begins lighting torches


THIS IS THE SMURF VILLAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


SMURF RABBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Michael Miller 36 wrote:
Whimsy Chris wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
The OP should not have caused any harm. If he had included a shot on people who play 4.0, that would be different. If the response had been more to the case of, "I disagree, I think 4.0 is a pretty good system *insert rationale here*" we could be having a meaninful and healthy discussion on that topic right now.

Unfortunately, the OP wasn't inviting rational discussion. He was making a joking dig at 4e, not discussing the merit of this or that part of the system.

If I titled a thread, "One thing PFRPG gave us," and then went on to discuss how I use the book as a door stop, there would rightly be hell to pay. It's not funny, it's not cool, and it's disrespectful to the game designers and those who value the game. It's blatantly antagonistic.

Look at it this way, he was jokingly saying that at least he got something out of the purchase to benefit the books he is using. Taking offense at that is silly. If people are that thin skinned I really don't see how they function in the real world. I for one got no real benefit out of my 4e books (used them a grand total of a month). Do I think its a bad system? Not really. Is it for me? No, not really.

As for as the doorstop reference, I suspect the PFRPG core book would be quite useful in that regard. Its durable, got some weight and mass to it. If you can keep its smooth cover from sliding on the floor then it should serve quite well. Also doubles as a paperweight, spider-killer and if you slam the open book shut incredibly useful in scaring the cat!

With a lot of things, going out of your way to find insult is more work than its worth. Its much easier to roll with the joke, find some amusement in the post (especially as he was NOT insulting anyone in particular or even the game really, just that he found some use for his purchase) and move on. Life's too short for needless conflict and its just a game.

Also the Core rulebook makes a great cockroach killer. It is 576 pages of cockroach DOOM. That sucker did not see it coming to him.

I got a whole shelf of 4e stuff, there serving me no use right now. There not even big enough to kill a roach with.


Quick! Kill the vikings and loot the place before it's covered in little blue gnomes!

The Exchange

Scott Betts wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
So what? Boo-hoo. Someone felt like expressing an opinion. I hear all the time that Obama is a POS from some people and that he is The Man from others. Should I feel offended and confront everyone that disagrees with my view? No. You put up with it and let it slide most of the time because it isn't a personal insult. It is an opinion. Opinions are like __________, everyone has one.

And yet there are certain opinions which probably should be kept to oneself - especially negative, non-constructive opinions.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's a good idea to share it.

Sorry mate, I didn't realize that your negative, non-constructive opinions (IMO)were the only ones allowed here. All hail Scott Betts, He who transcends us mere mortals with his unassailable opinions that are never negative or non-constructive.....in his opinion at least.

I'll be the first to admit that occasionally I slip up and decide it'd be more fun to pointlessly drag something that I don't like down. That doesn't make it the mature thing to do, though.

And I'd really appreciate it if you could find another way to communicate your disagreement that doesn't come across as sounding like a sarcastic jerk.

I have voiced my disagreement in better ways and been attacked for it. Guess I just stick with what I am good at.:P

The OP doesn't like 4E. He didn't say that all people who do are _____*insert antagonist name here*. He then got attacked for picking on people, which he never did. He bought a product that ended up un-useful to him and joked about finding a use for it. How is that an attack on people who like that product?
Like I said, if people want to find a reason to be offended they can find one anywhere. Some people need to grow a skin.
I am more offended at how he was attacked for voicing an opinion on a product. That is totally reprehensible and disgusting, especially because it has shackled him with an amount of guilt for "causing" strife.


Bulmahnaut #1 wrote:
Quick! Kill the vikings and loot the place before it's covered in little blue gnomes!

Smurf you Bulmahnaut!


The person who takes offense when none is intended is a fool. The person who takes offense when it is intended is an even beigger fool. So says Mr. T

The Exchange

I got drawn into a very similar thread - the "cold turkey" thread - with basically exactly the same MO as this one. And the same arguments from people who like 4e saying "Hey, we like this game" while others who don't saying "Chill out, it's only a joke".

The thing is, a joke isn't that funny after you have heard it time after time after time after time after time after time after.... You get the picture. It is also the case that actually there is terrific bitterness in parts of the PF community about the end of 3.5, as other threads bewailing (for example) what happened to FR made clear - no one was laughing there, I noticed.

At one level, it would be nice if everyone just lightened up. But that cuts both ways - people who don't like 4e should really get over the whole "I hate WotC and all its works" thing and just move on. Frankly, given that PFRPG is out there, there doesn't seem to be that much to actually complain about - you have 3.5, but better, and a company that actually cares about what you think making it. And I don't like to regularly be on the receiving end of snide comments about the gaming system I like to play anymore than anyone else does.

Paizo Employee Managing Developer

I think this might be the thread where we get it right.

I look to the horizon and see the sun rising on a new day where the smoke from the edition wars cannot shadow its brilliance.

Someone could win!

Spoiler:
All above text should be read with a healthy dose of sarcasm.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

I got drawn into a very similar thread - the "cold turkey" thread - with basically exactly the same MO as this one. And the same arguments from people who like 4e saying "Hey, we like this game" while others who don't saying "Chill out, it's only a joke".

The thing is, a joke isn't that funny after you have heard it time after time after time after time after time after time after.... You get the picture. It is also the case that actually there is terrific bitterness in parts of the PF community about the end of 3.5, as other threads bewailing (for example) what happened to FR made clear - no one was laughing there, I noticed.

At one level, it would be nice if everyone just lightened up. But that cuts both ways - people who don't like 4e should really get over the whole "I hate WotC and all its works" thing and just move on. Frankly, given that PFRPG is out there, there doesn't seem to be that much to actually complain about - you have 3.5, but better, and a company that actually cares about what you think making it. And I don't like to regularly be on the receiving end of snide comments about the gaming system I like to play anymore than anyone else does.

Isn't this thread past the point of rational discussion, I thought that was the point of a Godwin post, kill the thread and let it spiral into absurdity, how dare you try and restate in a rational way the original point.

The Exchange

Apologies - but there still seemed enough snidery going on to justify a post.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Adam Daigle wrote:


Someone could win!

VICTORY!!!

There, it's done. I won this thread and now we can just lock it and be done so the rest of you losers can nurse your wounded pride.


Whoa whoa.

If Sebastian's claiming a victory, we have to break out hostilities all over again.

Liberty's Edge

Sebastian wrote:
Adam Daigle wrote:


Someone could win!

VICTORY!!!

There, it's done. I won this thread and now we can just lock it and be done so the rest of you losers can nurse your wounded pride.

Oh. Nice of you to ride in here on yourself, marshall.

Sling your rear legs over your back and walk on your forelegs like Xabulba. That's impressive.

And with that, I win teh interwebz, teh Hizemans, AND teh noble prize for teh internets.

Liberty's Edge

I bet I move up on the enemies list now.


Smurf Jack wrote:
The person who takes offense when none is intended is a fool. The person who takes offense when it is intended is an even beigger fool. So says Mr. T

How does he say we should feel about the fool? Should we pity the fool?

Smurf

The Exchange

I wonder, with all the um, "horse hockey" that I have seen during parades, it amazes me that someone isn't folowing Our resident pony around to um.. clean up after him. Or am I just missing the shovel boy?

The Exchange

um when did the Jacks get thier own Smvrf? And why didn't someone tell me Hell froze over while I was away?


Adam Daigle wrote:

I think this might be the thread where we get it right.

I look to the horizon and see the sun rising on a new day where the smoke from the edition wars cannot shadow its brilliance.

Someone could win!

** spoiler omitted **

Oh...sorry you missed it. I already won - see the unanswered post at the top of the page ;)

Now we're just being silly...

smurf


Fake Healer wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:


And Fake Healer: Canned spaghetti looks like someone threw up real spaghetti on my plate.

You sir are a cad! :P

BTW, good post Treantmonk, glad you decided to come to the boards. You have a very thoughtful posting style and good game knowledge, you are gonna be a great addition to the community here.

Seconded. The guy seems to have his head on his shoulders.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Frankly, given that PFRPG is out there, there doesn't seem to be that much to actually complain about - you have 3.5, but better, and a company that actually cares about what you think making it.

Yes, it is certainly nice to be able to ignore the outside world.

The Exchange

Galnörag wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Galnörag wrote:
If a person constantly, and baselessly, attacks on of your choices, how can you not take offence?

Who says it's baseless?

And if you take offense on someone not liking what you lke, you have a problem.

As I always say: If you can't say something nice, say something not-nice. Silence is for lambs.

Well damn, it was bound to happen eventually, and I realize it undermines my argument but I'm afraid I will be evoking Godwin's law.

Most people hate it the way PS3 Fanboys hate the XBox 360, how the Nazi's hated the Jews, with no rational explanation, but because it was the cool thing to do. Its one thing to be meh I don't like it, or maybe even dislike it because it doesn't appeal to you, and another thing to create a thread for the soul purpose of making a fact free and pointless dig at a thing.

I've seen players who in the last year vehemently decry WotC and 4e because "it will cost to much to replace all my books how dare they, its such a terrible game" go to "Hey I'm selling all my old 3.5 stuff because it doesn't really fit with PFRPG." Or people thumb through the books and say "I don't like the art, so its not for me" Its all random, arbitrary and hypocritical. The rational for hating 4e seems to be sycophantic zealotry of the worst kind. That kind of ignorant intolerance does nothing to help the pen-paper RPG industry, nor the community. We are already a pretty small minority, and all we can do is squabble with one another.

My extreme dislike for 4E is not based on unthinking hatered. It is based on being a D&D customer for years and years. To take an earlier point you made, say I love corvettes. I have always had one and whenever I get a new car it is a corvette. Now, say I go to the corvette dealer and I am shown a car that does no look like or perform like a corvette. I won't buy that car. It is a similar secnario to what happened to the T-Bird. A classic car that designers mangled so badly that the car line became extinct. D&D 4E is not a progression of D&D or AD&D rules. It is a whole different animal.


LazarX wrote:
smb7777777 wrote:

Hi,

I personally think that after examining the 4E publishing sequence is that it seems you have o buy somewhat more than the customary 3 core books to 'get back' to what I would call core D&D which is a bit mercenary. So, I don't like that and PF seem to be more 'honest' but it is based of 3(.5)version of D&D so it was constrained(?)/supported(?) by a previous version of D&D.

You must have been away awhile. You never saw what a box load of "Complete" 3.5 would entail given PH1 and 2, DMG 1 and 2, Monster Manuals 1-5, and about a dozen "Complete" Books for character classes and options, oh... and I forgot the half dozen or so "Races of " Books.

Actually, no. There might have been other books that had names similar to the core books (PHB 2, DMG 2), and books that were called "Complete", but the point is that with the core rulebooks, you have a complete game. If you're just a player, you won't need the MM, and probably not the DMG.

With "just" the core rules, you get 7 classical races that are all over most D&D campaign worlds (and the MM had more races that are suitable for player characters, if the DM wants you to have that option), you get 11 classes that manage to give you a pretty good spectrum of choices between them, covering all the basics.

Compared to that, the 4e books are lacking. The PHB doesn't contain racial descriptions for half-orcs or gnomes. And while you get tieflings as new core races (though they're not the tieflings we remember; instead, they're apparently all devil-spawn), there are no aasimar to balance the scales (which makes the range of choices lopsided). The classes are similarly incomplete: You won't find bards, barbarians, druids, monks or sorcerers.

If someone wants to continue a campaign or keep playing in their known campaign world, they have to either come up with their own versions of these classes, or say they don't exist any more, or they never existed any more, or buy more books with those races and classes in them.

That's what people mean with incomplete. It's worst if played something like a gnome sorcerer or half-orc monk, since your character doesn't work without extra books, while it worked just fine before.


Scott Betts wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Quote:

And yet there are certain opinions which probably should be kept to oneself - especially negative, non-constructive opinions.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's a good idea to share it.

Hmmm? Could it be that the opinion that others should be expected to withhold their own opinions is an example of a negative, non-constructive opinion?
Nope, really don't think it is.

Nevertheless, it is.


Scott Betts wrote:
sarcastic jerk.

Insults are not allowed for anyone, you know.


Galnörag wrote:


Isn't this thread past the point of rational discussion, I thought that was the point of a Godwin post, kill the thread and let it spiral into absurdity, how dare you try and restate in a rational way the original point.

Entschuldigung, mein Herr! Das ist wahr! Ihr Versuch, dieses Thema abzuschießen, indem sie massenweise Mitglieder dieses Forums beleidigen, und ein ganzes Land noch dazu, wahr wirklich genial! Besser als Blitzkrieg!

Es tut uns schrecklich leid, dass wir Ihrem Befehl nicht nachkommen!

The Exchange

KaeYoss wrote:
Galnörag wrote:


Isn't this thread past the point of rational discussion, I thought that was the point of a Godwin post, kill the thread and let it spiral into absurdity, how dare you try and restate in a rational way the original point.

Entschuldigung, mein Herr! Das ist wahr! Ihr Versuch, dieses Thema abzuschießen, indem sie massenweise Mitglieder dieses Forums beleidigen, und ein ganzes Land noch dazu, wahr wirklich genial! Besser als Blitzkrieg!

Es tut uns schrecklich leid, dass wir Ihrem Befehl nicht nachkommen!

Bien que je ne comprends donc votre juste colère. Dude s'il vous plaît chill.


Crimson Jester wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Galnörag wrote:


Isn't this thread past the point of rational discussion, I thought that was the point of a Godwin post, kill the thread and let it spiral into absurdity, how dare you try and restate in a rational way the original point.

Entschuldigung, mein Herr! Das ist wahr! Ihr Versuch, dieses Thema abzuschießen, indem sie massenweise Mitglieder dieses Forums beleidigen, und ein ganzes Land noch dazu, wahr wirklich genial! Besser als Blitzkrieg!

Es tut uns schrecklich leid, dass wir Ihrem Befehl nicht nachkommen!

Bien que je ne comprends donc votre juste colère. Dude s'il vous plaît chill.

Translation: (more or less) "I won't shut up in a thread just because someone insults me and my nation" That sets a bad precedent for shutting people up.

"THE BARD SUCKS BECAUSE HE CANNOT FIGHT!"
"Well, actually, the bard isn't a fighter. The roles he is supposed to play, he plays well."
"YOU SUCK YOU A##&%~~"
"....
"HAHA! I WIN".

If you don't mind if people insult you, that's your thing.

I do mind. Not just because it is against the code of conduct here.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Dogbert wrote:


So two wrongs make a right?

Nope, but which side of the joke you're on joke makes a big difference whether you think people should just dismiss it as a harmless joke or whether you think any offense taken is legitimate.

RPG Superstar 2012

Adam Daigle wrote:
Anyone ever experience deja vu?

Only once, but I took something for it.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

True story: if you post the same stupid, badly reasoned argument often enough, it eventually becomes non-stupid and well reasoned.

Or, at least there's always hope...

101 to 150 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / One thing 4e gave us... All Messageboards