Too bad eight years of explicitly taking that power away from GMs weakens that statement. It's a player driven game now, GMs (unless they're lucky enough to be game designers or never have to scramble for players due to circumstances) are just there to read the boxed text and roll the dice.And if you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't be GMing.(Emphasis mine).
The key word is: Master.
*shrugs* Depends on the group. I spend months picking through players (mostly searching, though) to find ones that fit in, and many of them are willing to go along with anything that I'm willing to run. In fact, most of them are unwilling to chime in as to what they want.
I don't always agree with houstonderek 100%, and I don't quite even with his points here, but he's got some points that I agree with, and more than that, I don't really think he said anything that warranted the responses he got.
I'm kind of wondering why when some of us regulars that are pretty civil in our disagreement make comments, we're getting more terse responses than people that are downright rude.
Are we doing it wrong? Would we get more respect if we were just outright jerks?
|
I don't always agree with houstonderek 100%, and I don't quite even with his points here, but he's got some points that I agree with, and more than that, I don't really think he said anything that warranted the responses he got.
I'm kind of wondering why when some of us regulars that are pretty civil in our disagreement make comments, we're getting more terse responses than people that are downright rude.
Are we doing it wrong? Would we get more respect if we were just outright jerks?
To be fair, I can be an outright jerk in the "section that dare not be named" at times.
I don't always agree with houstonderek 100%, and I don't quite even with his points here, but he's got some points that I agree with, and more than that, I don't really think he said anything that warranted the responses he got.
I'm kind of wondering why when some of us regulars that are pretty civil in our disagreement make comments, we're getting more terse responses than people that are downright rude.
Are we doing it wrong? Would we get more respect if we were just outright jerks?
Personally I found his attacks on anyone who likes anime and japanimation as 'Japanophiles' insulting, especially all but calling half of us creepy 40 yo pedophiles.
I see no reason to be polite to someone who's intentionally posting crap like that. If he can't take it right back, perhaps he should think about what he's posting before he posts it.
Seriously, after two years of some of the most horrific gaming experiences ever in my life, had I not found Kirth and the gang, I'd probably be out of the hobby now.
Ditto. After my last good group moved to freakin' Boston, I was pretty well on hiatus until you started a new Houston thread.
To be fair, I can be an outright jerk in the "section that dare not be named" at times.
I guess I'm just turning into a thin skinned whinny b$#~@ in my old age.
Honestly, houstonderek put me off by his seeming utter hatred of anything to do with Oriental styled classes. It may have been misinterpretation, but he seemed to me to be completely dismissive of any other point of view and, honestly, something of a jerk about it. I very well likely am wrong, given his last couple of posts, but that's how it felt. The people who're outright rude? I completely ignore them for the most part. I think some of either of your points are valid, KnightErrantJR, but in some cases you come across that way to me. I'm primarily a lurker, due to very much not being of the debater mentality. This is just what I've seen from the sidelines.
You're inability to grow a set of cajones...Uh...I'm gonna say this is not HD's problem.
If you want to dictate what get's published because you can't say 'no' to someone in your game, then, I don't know what else to call it without invoking mental illness, which I was trying to avoid. I'd rather assume it's just a lack of backbone, as that at least is something he can fix on his own.
i believe a player and DM should meet halfway at some middleground.
don't ban the ninja because of the attached fluff. try to adapt it's fluff as needed first. not every 'ninja' needs to be japanese. you could have a Hassansin from persia or a germanic guerilla warrior represented by the same class. you could even do a really divinely lucky cutpurse from any culture. a red mantis apprentice works too. i beleive this class could work greatly as a means of representing a special sect of elven arcane imbued skirmish archers.
|
|
My biggest issue is base class bloat. I pointed out several times that that most concepts can be realized with existing rules and just using different fluff. Both concepts could have been the kits or whatever in the APG. I just don't see where it ends. At some point, it will get as unwieldy and crazy like WotC did. We're only in year two, at this point in 3.0 there was hardly any bloat (the five softback books weren't anything serious, and a lot of that wound up in 3.5 core). They didn't start the base class craziness until 3.5. Paizo has a head start on that already.
I believe every game is both the players and the DM having fun, and if you can't DM without feeling like LORD OF THE PLAYERS, you probably won't make a very good DM.
Or a friend, for that matter.
I don't really know much about the mechanics of these new "classes" but I would like to discuss my theory and how they could work...
When I say "Ulfen Ninja" what is your first initial thought?
Sounds silly right? You might think about Viking inspired warriors or the north, singing songs as they go into battle and reeking of honey mead? And when you hear Ninja you think of a japanese man in black pajamas wearing black paint over his skin, a cold, silent killer.
Lets try not to view these classes on how WE look at them stereotypically, but rather, as a "template". Forget all the "lore/fluff" that comes with it and lets just crunch the numbers.
I imagine the ninja class focuses on, well... assassination?
Now historically the germanic tribes (which has many overlapping Ulfen themes) either fought in open battle with the Romans, and usually lost, but also fought guerilla warfare at night (see Battle at Teutoberg forest).They wore little to no armor, painted their bodies black, and used wooden weapons to emphasize stealth.
See where I am going with this yet? Rolling a character that might have been part of a forward scouting group/guerilla warfare/terror tactics who happens to be Ulfen, and who wore little to no armor, painted his skin black, etc etc etc can also overlap some of the themes a "ninja" class brings to the table. A cold silent and utterly ruthless killer.
I guess what I am trying to say is to not use the imagery we know words like "ninja, samurai, gunslinger" and instead just take the core mechanics of this class and look at it as a template.
The GM sits down with all his players and goes around the table asking a bit about their new characters they made for a fresh starting game.
GM: "So Jake, what character are you gonna make?"Jake is about to respond "Ulfen ninja!" but to avoid the possibility of ridicule he instead says...
Jake: "I made an Ulfen who focuses on guerilla warfare and assassination tactics. In short, and Ulfen with the ninja template".Sounds...
This....was a post of beauty
Too bad eight years of explicitly taking that power away from GMs weakens that statement. It's a player driven game now, GMs (unless they're lucky enough to be game designers or never have to scramble for players due to circumstances) are just there to read the boxed text and roll the dice.And if you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't be GMing.(Emphasis mine).
The key word is: Master.
I guess I game in my little ghetto. Someone might note that I don't get to game as much as I'd like, but that's mostly because the people I want to game with aren't available enough or at the sames times I am. Maybe this would be more of my experience if I broadened my gaming circle.
|
|
I guess I game in my little ghetto. Someone might note that I don't get to game as much as I'd like, but that's mostly because the people I want to game with aren't available enough or at the sames times I am. Maybe this would be more of my experience if I broadened my gaming circle.Too bad eight years of explicitly taking that power away from GMs weakens that statement. It's a player driven game now, GMs (unless they're lucky enough to be game designers or never have to scramble for players due to circumstances) are just there to read the boxed text and roll the dice.And if you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't be GMing.(Emphasis mine).
The key word is: Master.
Cirno's post is the attitude I get from people I find a lot of the time. "Oh, you don't allow x? You're a dick!".
It's a lot more prevalent than SKR thinks.
I want to flag this whole thread for nerd rage and excessive hate mongering, but I can only see links to flag posts, and would rather not crap on any one individual just in the interest of seeing the thread locked.
So I'll just post this and hope it gets done.
I guess I game in my little ghetto. Someone might note that I don't get to game as much as I'd like, but that's mostly because the people I want to game with aren't available enough or at the sames times I am. Maybe this would be more of my experience if I broadened my gaming circle.Too bad eight years of explicitly taking that power away from GMs weakens that statement. It's a player driven game now, GMs (unless they're lucky enough to be game designers or never have to scramble for players due to circumstances) are just there to read the boxed text and roll the dice.And if you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't be GMing.(Emphasis mine).
The key word is: Master.Cirno's post is the attitude I get from people I find a lot of the time. "Oh, you don't allow x? You're a dick!".
It's a lot more prevalent than SKR thinks.
Except that's not what I said :)
And you have some advantages over me. You're a famous game designer, a lot of people in the hobby would play with if you told them they had to play a one armed halfling commoner with halitosis.
I have had this policy since I started gaming. If I think someone is a jerk or a whiner, I don't play with them.
Too bad eight years of explicitly taking that power away from GMs weakens that statement.
Either that word does not mean what you think it means, or I missed the part of the book that says "players get to decide what elements a GM can or can't have in his game."
Cirno's post is the attitude I get from people I find a lot of the time. "Oh, you don't allow x? You're a dick!".
To which the proper response is, "Get out of my house. Your mom's coming over."
Heh. I remember once when somebody was being a dick and I blew up and tossed everybody out of my house. And I wasn't even the DM. ;-P
But like I said, far from my usual gaming experience.
Game developers during playtests here are treated like European football [soccer] refs.
No matter what call you make, you're blind, stupid, and deserve to die for your insolence. Only, game developers are just trying to make cool things for people to have fun with.
This makes me sad. How do they find the will to continue?
Too bad eight years of explicitly taking that power away from GMs weakens that statement.Either that word does not mean what you think it means, or I missed the part of the book that says "players get to decide what elements a GM can or can't have in his game."
Too be fair to HD, explicitly can also mean "easily observable." It could be an easily observable outcome of game designing trends, without being an overt intention of game designers.
Game developers during playtests here are treated like European football [soccer] refs.
No matter what call you make, you're blind, stupid, and deserve to die for your insolence. Only, game developers are just trying to make cool things for people to have fun with.
This makes me sad. How do they find the will to continue?
Foghammer: Playtests tend to bring out certain tensions...and certain posters. But don't worry, designers around here get a lot of love, too. Like, crazy love. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going in the other room to play with my Jacobs and Bulmahn action figures. (My SKR one is in the corner right now for talkin' bout my momma.)
|
|
Too be fair to HD, explicitly can also mean "easily observable." It could be an easily observable outcome of game designing trends, without being an overt intention of game designers.Too bad eight years of explicitly taking that power away from GMs weakens that statement.Either that word does not mean what you think it means, or I missed the part of the book that says "players get to decide what elements a GM can or can't have in his game."
This is the meaning I was going for. Like, saying PrCs are "strictly optional" in the DMG, then publishing a bunch of player targeted books chock full of PrCs. That the players paid $30 a pop for.
...I'm going in the other room to play with my Jacobs and Bulmahn action figures. (My SKR one is in the corner right now for talkin' bout my momma.)
That sounds kind of scary, actually... XD
...I'm going in the other room to play with my Jacobs and Bulmahn action figures. (My SKR one is in the corner right now for talkin' bout my momma.)That sounds kind of scary, actually... XD
Oh wait! When I said love, I meant...Not...they're not that kind of action...
Oh my.
Too be fair to HD, explicitly can also mean "easily observable." It could be an easily observable outcome of game designing trends, without being an overt intention of game designers.
Dictionary.com doesn't have anything like that definition.
Like, saying PrCs are "strictly optional" in the DMG, then publishing a bunch of player targeted books chock full of PrCs. That the players paid $30 a pop for.
And how many of those has Paizo done? Zero? Negative zero? Square root of zero?
Also, the Core Rulebook page 374 says, "Some prestige classes are quite focused and heavy on flavor that might not be compatible with your campaign—consult with your GM before you start to work toward qualifying for a prestige class to make sure that the class is allowed." Are there later books that say "No, you can take these prestige classes without asking your GM?"
|
|
Too be fair to HD, explicitly can also mean "easily observable." It could be an easily observable outcome of game designing trends, without being an overt intention of game designers.Dictionary.com doesn't have anything like that definition.
Like, saying PrCs are "strictly optional" in the DMG, then publishing a bunch of player targeted books chock full of PrCs. That the players paid $30 a pop for.And how many of those has Paizo done? Zero? Negative zero? Square root of zero?
Also, the Core Rulebook page 374 says, "Some prestige classes are quite focused and heavy on flavor that might not be compatible with your campaign—consult with your GM before you start to work toward qualifying for a prestige class to make sure that the class is allowed." Are there later books that say "No, you can take these prestige classes without asking your GM?"
My concern is, where does it stop? Y'all need to keep making money and selling book, but there are only so many bestiaries and advice books you can do, and that leaves feats, classes, PrCs, etc.
As to the other part, entitlement doesn't end with a new game. Most of your customer base are 3.5 players, and they didn't stop being the way they are because the name of the game on the cover changed.
And, actually, you'll have eleven new base classes in a year (seven in the APG and four now being playtested), which is eleven more than 3.0 in year two, as far as I can tell. The base class explosion didn't start until 3.5 with the last game.
Rules bloat was a huge problem with 3.5, and I'm praying it doesn't happen here.
|
|
Too bad eight years of explicitly taking that power away from GMs weakens that statement. It's a player driven game now, GMs (unless they're lucky enough to be game designers or never have to scramble for players due to circumstances) are just there to read the boxed text and roll the dice.And if you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't be GMing.(Emphasis mine).
The key word is: Master.That is probably the most ignorant comment I have ever read.
*Pulls out Longspear of Trollslaying +5 and braces for a charge*
Too be fair to HD, explicitly can also mean "easily observable." It could be an easily observable outcome of game designing trends, without being an overt intention of game designers.Dictionary.com doesn't have anything like that definition.
It looks to me like definition 3a in the American Heritage Dictionary. The example given is "an explicit sign of trouble." Webster's New World College Dictionary also gives, "plain to see; readily observable" for its third definition. So it would seem less common than the usage tied to intention, but an extension of it.
My concern is, where does it stop? Y'all need to keep making money and selling book, but there are only so many bestiaries and advice books you can do, and that leaves feats, classes, PrCs, etc.
As to the other part, entitlement doesn't end with a new game. Most of your customer base are 3.5 players, and they didn't stop being the way they are because the name of the game on the cover changed.
And, actually, you'll have eleven new base classes in a year (seven in the APG and four now being playtested), which is eleven more than 3.0 in year two, as far as I can tell. The base class explosion didn't start until 3.5 with the last game.
Rules bloat was a huge problem with 3.5, and I'm praying it doesn't happen here.
A) Where, precisely, is it chiseled in stone that Paizo must emulate how WoTC did anything? Other than the requirements of the OGL?
B) The problem with WoTC's explosion of craptastic garbage was not the amount. If you look at the amount of classes and options available for 3.0 by 3rd parties, it's more than WoTC ever put out for 3.0 and 3.5 combined. The problem with WoTC's stuff was that it was an arms race within the company to produce more and more 'uber' stuff that wasn't balanced against anything else in the rules. I don't agree with a lot of the design decisions on the base classes (the summoner alone makes me want to tear my hair out every time I look at it), but, Paizo is erring on the side of 'underpowering' new additions, not overpowering. Your stance is that anything new is bloat and ergo bad. Things that break the system or are overpowered are bad. Additions to the system that allow variety without boosting the inherent power level are pretty much the opposite of what WoTC was doing at the end of 3.5.
C) Playtests, done publicly, are a huge step towards avoiding the issues in WoTC's splatbookgasm philosophy. A controlled, steady expansion of the system, with playtested balancing is what is required to keep the system (and the company, and it's employees) growing and healthy. Too little, and the game withers and dies and the employees get pink slips. Too much, and power creep gets in and it dies when someone else comes along and uses the OGL to out-Paizo Paizo, in which case, again, the devs get pink slips. In other words, if you want to avoid power creep, give feedback on something you think is too powerful or broken. But ranting and railing about how much you think this shouldn't even be done basically does nothing to help, and hurts your case.
|
I'd like to express, politely, I hope, that the upcoming volumes, "Ultimate Magic", and "Ultimate Combat" appear to not be to my particular taste in gaming. I expect that I will not be purchasing them. Furthermore, the rate at which new base classes and alternate classes is more rapid than I had hoped. This causes me some concern, since although I am not interested in using them in my campaign, I expect some pressure to allow them from interested players. Also, I fear for the quality of such expansions and the effect this will have on the Pathfinder gaming culture a a whole. I hope you will take my concerns into consideration when developing concepts for future products. I trust that Messrs. Reynolds, Radney-McFarland, Buhlman, and Jacobs will not take this statement as a reflection on their talent, skill, or character.
I'd like to express, politely, I hope, that the upcoming volumes, "Ultimate Magic", and "Ultimate Combat" appear to not be to my particular taste in gaming. I expect that I will not be purchasing them. Furthermore, the rate at which new base classes and alternate classes is more rapid than I had hoped. This causes me some concern, since although I am not interested in using them in my campaign, I expect some pressure to allow them from interested players. Also, I fear for the quality of such expansions and the effect this will have on the Pathfinder gaming culture a a whole. I hope you will take my concerns into consideration when developing concepts for future products. I trust that Messrs. Reynolds, Radney-McFarland, Buhlman, and Jacobs will not take this statement as a reflection on their talent, skill, or character.
Extremely well stated. I don't know how anyone could argue with it. Oh and, I agree.
I'd like to express, politely, I hope, that the upcoming volumes, "Ultimate Magic", and "Ultimate Combat" appear to not be to my particular taste in gaming. I expect that I will not be purchasing them. Furthermore, the rate at which new base classes and alternate classes is more rapid than I had hoped. This causes me some concern, since although I am not interested in using them in my campaign, I expect some pressure to allow them from interested players. Also, I fear for the quality of such expansions and the effect this will have on the Pathfinder gaming culture a a whole. I hope you will take my concerns into consideration when developing concepts for future products. I trust that Messrs. Reynolds, Radney-McFarland, Buhlman, and Jacobs will not take this statement as a reflection on their talent, skill, or character.Extremely well stated. I don't know how anyone could argue with it. Oh and, I agree.
Oh, I can argue with it. :) I disagree completely.
However, I think it's probably one of the most politely stated posts I've seen in this thread for 100 posts expressing the opinion. The OP is voting with his wallet, that's the best way to handle it if you don't like the content of a book. Getting on and insulting people and ranting is not the way. It's a refreshing thing to see someone posting their feelings politely.
I do disagree though, and for reasons I've stated before. So long as the expansions are balanced, I believe they are fine. The system has to grow and expand, or else Paizo will go out of business. A steady, healthy, balanced expansion gives everyone the best of all worlds. Those who want variety buy the books and use them. Those who don't like the concept, vote with their wallet and don't.
When I say "Ulfen Ninja" what is your first initial thought?WAY AWESOME!
Almost as good as my Rune Giant Ninja concept. I keep using that to scare my players ever since I saw the Asian touch on Xin-Shalast and its rune giants (and had a minor row with our Japanologist/Sinologist about whether it's Ksin-Shalast or Shin-Shalast. Maybe it's both, like the Xel-Naga in Starcraft) and put two and two twogether, uh, I mean, together.
I'll have to agree with you since I am something of a fictional Viking archetype fanboy, I don't know much about historical vikings, nor does it matter to me, but I see anything crossed with Vikings and I usually go Ape-crap with joy
My concern is, where does it stop? Y'all need to keep making money and selling book, but there are only so many bestiaries and advice books you can do, and that leaves feats, classes, PrCs, etc.
In earnest I ask... What else IS there in the game? Shall we make a list? Setting neutral topics only?
Monsters
Advice
Feats
Classes/PrCs
Spells
Equipment
Combat Maneuvers
Traits
...that's all I got. Sweet. They can make books for all of that? How should they do that? Monsters and advice got their own books (Bestiary and GMG). The other six can be found in the APG. That's 75% of what I perceive to be the meat of the game. Crammed into a single book. I could be missing an element or four, so please correct me here if I have missed something.
I will be honest, and I hope this doesn't hurt anyone's feelings: I don't like Golarion. But I like Pathfinder. I like the products. I can still use the setting neutral stuff like the Witch and the feats in the APG. I don't like using traits, but I don't feel like I've been cheated out of money if I buy a book that devotes 10 pages to them.
I'm rambling and my irritation is showing. I should go.
The whole new classes=bloat thing and Asian-/Japanese-themed thing are re-treading the same old ground.
I've heard this same argument ad nauseum previously as "But what are Asian monks doing in a European-themed setting?" and the various flavors of psionics hate/love. Geez.
If you are the GM and this stuff doesn't fit your campaign, or if your players don't want it... then don't allow it. Persuade the player -- gently, rationally, politely -- to play something else that does fit. If your "whiny player" (not my choice of words) cannot be persuaded, then suggest they find another group that is comfortable with their choice. Your group and that player are probably better off without each other.
By that same token, if you don't like the entire Ultimate Combat (or Ultimate Magic or whatever) because of these three alternate classes being playtested... don't buy it sight unseen. You can always reference it when it goes on the PRD, or browse it in a store, and make a better informed purchasing decision based on its actual content. If you decide to buy it, great. If you still don't like it, that's great too.
Certainly offer your opinions, especially if you have playtest data. But please, do so gently, rationally, and politely. And if you've made your point... please let it go.
|
|
^
|
THIS
Here is something else I've noticed on these boards. Why is it ok for someone to make a barbarian homage to Conan, or a rogue homage to Elric, or even a ranger homage to Aragorn, yet as soon as someone makes a samurai that is like Ruroni Kenshin or a fighter with an oversized sword like Cloud, suddenly they are shunned by the community. All of these are famous fictional characters (Ruroni actually being a real person in history) and yet because one isn't European, suddenly its "bad" and "wrong" and this weeabo needs to make a new character.
There was a game I was in where some one made a spearman fighter. He had based him loosely on Lu Bu (historical and from the game Dynasty Warriors) and was looking forward to his first game with him. As soon as he entered his character, the other players started the name calling. Some of what was said includes "Oh s*** sure is weeabo in here" "Hey this is DnD not DBZ. How about taking this Toonami s*** and go play BESM" and of course, the DM rolling his eyes at the spearman saying "You couldn't make something normal. Had to bring this anime s*** into the game". The player finally left, tired of people berating him. What's worse is, everyone in the store agreed with the DM! People said that the kid "ruined the campaign" and they are glad to not have him come around. It was disgusting and I quit that game soon after.
Sad part is, Im sure some people on these forums would probably not care, or worse, agree with the people above and that "weeabo" deserved.
One has to wonder about a hobby where so many of its members seem to think it's a good thing to chase people out of it.
The capacity for butthurt over someone else having fun wrong never ceases to depress, whether it's someone rolling their eyes over someone wanting to play an elf, and orc, a drow, a paladin, a monk, a bard, a monster race, anything that can vaguely be construed as being "anime" or "videogamey" or the everpopular "WoW".
If it doesn't fit the campaign at all, sure, tell the player and be upfront and not-a-dick about it, but if the player is finally getting to play a character they've really wanted to play for some time, don't give him grief because someone is not having fun to your specifications.
Those guys sound like real winners. I'm sure they'll bring plenty of new blood into the hobby. :\
Store owner should have tossed them out for social maladjustment.
(dude between this and the post about those mild optimizers being ostracized by actual problem players, you've got some real rage inducing articles)
Rule bloat is bad, buy rule lack is bad too.
I find ninja cool not because ZOMGNINJA but because it's a rogue with few sop, smoke bombs, and and awesome stealth capstone which remembers me a PC of a player o mine in a past epic campaign.
Samurai is just a Cavalier order and Vice versa. It's an order with stalwart members, rerollin the heck to succeed. Maybe you didn't need this mechanic I need it for a Knight Templar order in my current absolutely-non-oriental-campaign. They just designed the reroll-stalwart-dude around an archetype for inspiration. Really, calm down.
Next time, Core classes will be converted in oriental ones, or the game will be remade from the ground up for a space campaign.
I needed gun rules my players asked for them for a lot of time and all I had was 3.5 DMG and a dragon magazine issue. And slow fire rate.
Frankly, is quite annoying seeing Paizo giving to me what I want, and people instead of focusing on make things balanced and workable focus on things THATIDONTWANNAINMYGAMESNOWAIIII asking for the same old crap instead.
Moreover, the book is BIG. There is room for a lot of things, these are the ones playtested.
I don't always agree with houstonderek 100%, and I don't quite even with his points here, but he's got some points that I agree with, and more than that, I don't really think he said anything that warranted the responses he got.
I'm kind of wondering why when some of us regulars that are pretty civil in our disagreement make comments, we're getting more terse responses than people that are downright rude.
Are we doing it wrong? Would we get more respect if we were just outright jerks?
Personally I found his attacks on anyone who likes anime and japanimation as 'Japanophiles' insulting, especially all but calling half of us creepy 40 yo pedophiles.
I see no reason to be polite to someone who's intentionally posting crap like that. If he can't take it right back, perhaps he should think about what he's posting before he posts it.
Completely agreed. Lumping everybody who likes Japan, anime and the concepts of Ninjas and Samurai together and insulting them to boot is really not civil discourse of any kind. "Flamebaiting" is more like it.
I don't agree with a lot of the design decisions on the base classes (the summoner alone makes me want to tear my hair out every time I look at it), but, Paizo is erring on the side of 'underpowering' new additions, not overpowering.
Besides the Inquisitor. That class is insane for as long as there are Judgements/Bane/Divine Favours left. :p
|
Completely agreed. Lumping everybody who likes Japan, anime and the concepts of Ninjas and Samurai together and insulting them to boot is really not civil discourse of any kind. "Flamebaiting" is more like it.Personally I found his attacks on anyone who likes anime and japanimation as 'Japanophiles' insulting, especially all but calling half of us creepy 40 yo pedophiles.
I see no reason to be polite to someone who's intentionally posting crap like that. If he can't take it right back, perhaps he should think about what he's posting before he posts it.
I'm doing my best to take it in stride, but it is tempting to bring my reverse-blade sword to our next session... :)
|
|
I'm doing my best to take it in stride, but it is tempting to bring my reverse-blade sword to our next session... :)Completely agreed. Lumping everybody who likes Japan, anime and the concepts of Ninjas and Samurai together and insulting them to boot is really not civil discourse of any kind. "Flamebaiting" is more like it.Personally I found his attacks on anyone who likes anime and japanimation as 'Japanophiles' insulting, especially all but calling half of us creepy 40 yo pedophiles.
I see no reason to be polite to someone who's intentionally posting crap like that. If he can't take it right back, perhaps he should think about what he's posting before he posts it.
Buy some overpriced Pocky to take to the game. ;)
Honestly, houstonderek put me off by his seeming utter hatred of anything to do with Oriental styled classes. It may have been misinterpretation, but he seemed to me to be completely dismissive of any other point of view and, honestly, something of a jerk about it. I very well likely am wrong, given his last couple of posts, but that's how it felt. The people who're outright rude? I completely ignore them for the most part. I think some of either of your points are valid, KnightErrantJR, but in some cases you come across that way to me. I'm primarily a lurker, due to very much not being of the debater mentality. This is just what I've seen from the sidelines.
I'm the complete opposite I have to bite my tongue and not say any thing because I love debating but I get to riled up and just stay out of it. Especially ones dealing with classes and features I like.
I think something needs to be changed in the presentation of the alternate classes, because they are actually just archetypes. You can't be a rogue(ninja)/rogue for the same reason you can't take a level of fighter(archer) and then a level of fighter(free hand fighter), it is the same class. I don't think that is coming across to most people. If we are referring to these as new classes, then every archetype in the APG is a new class.
|
|
Completely agreed. Lumping everybody who likes Japan, anime and the concepts of Ninjas and Samurai together and insulting them to boot is really not civil discourse of any kind. "Flamebaiting" is more like it.I don't always agree with houstonderek 100%, and I don't quite even with his points here, but he's got some points that I agree with, and more than that, I don't really think he said anything that warranted the responses he got.
I'm kind of wondering why when some of us regulars that are pretty civil in our disagreement make comments, we're getting more terse responses than people that are downright rude.
Are we doing it wrong? Would we get more respect if we were just outright jerks?
Personally I found his attacks on anyone who likes anime and japanimation as 'Japanophiles' insulting, especially all but calling half of us creepy 40 yo pedophiles.
I see no reason to be polite to someone who's intentionally posting crap like that. If he can't take it right back, perhaps he should think about what he's posting before he posts it.
Well, I couldn't let the irony of someone calling people who dislike a domestic phenomenon of people who think Japanese culture > any other culture "xenophobic" when the culture they worship is possibly the most xenophobic culture on the planet go.
Poor trolling effort on my part, sorry for the collateral damage.