G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Mmmm...nope. Read it again, and still disagree.
D&D General The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)
Mmmm...nope. Read it again, and still disagree.
Aldarc
Legend
Elfcrusher is hardly a crew, and he claims that he wasn't around for the Edition Wars. However, that doesn't seem to stop him from making up for lost time.
That's fine. It's not as if there has much you've said in good faith that has been worth agreeing with anyway.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Heh. The entire time I was playing FFXIII, I kept thinking those party roles would be better for 4e than the actual 4e roles.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Elfcrusher is hardly a crew, and he claims that he wasn't around for the Edition Wars. However, that doesn't seem to stop him from making up for lost time.
The name is exorbitantly familiar from the wotc boards, believe him if you like... he is a parrot at best maybe even a sock puppet so they can get their ewar and not get banned but since the banning isnt happening anyway they can just laugh and laugh
Lanefan looks to be his ahem mentor to me.
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
LOL you are way too.... never mind bud. He is pulling from a play book and I know damn well you have read it
Aldarc
Legend
Okay. I was not a regular enough visitor to the WotC forums to know who was or wasn't a part of the forums.
He most definitely isn't. Lanefan isn't the biggest fan of 4e and we definitely don't often see eye-to-eye on various issues, but he is not an edition warrior. Honestly, most of this discussion probably does not even affect his games, because his group (mostly) plays with his 1e house rules, though [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] can correct me here.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
OK I will buy that... however the e-warrior meme was often not about what you play as much as about tearing down what other people play - they didnt even read the game and frequently pushed things in direct opposition to things explicitly in the game books. And it was on many many subjects in the game.
Just like the oh I didnt read it somebody just told me about it - insert Lanefan justifying that because terminology is quirkie here
Basically hearsay becomes valid criticism in the ewar
During the development of 5e people were claiming 1e had no flanking or opportunity attacks. After showing quotes in the DMG from AD&D ( sometimes buried in prose and away from players eyes named slightly different maybe) they actually seemed to stop bringing it up. Now picture the same thing where you show quotes in the players handbook and they start a new thread or inject in a new thread the same assertion they made in the other... that was e-war. Disinformation is your friend.
Last edited:
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Aldarc said:
Garthanos said:
Excuse me, but I'm not the one behaving outrageously here. Re-read the thread. In a fairly long response to the OP I had one sentence saying "I still hate the Warlord", and then went on to talk about other stuff. I got some pushback on that, and on 3rd or 4th post reiterated my reasons. I may not be very generous toward the Warlord, but I'm not attacking any poster. I'm criticizing a character concept in a game. Not even the mechanics, just the most common (that I see) form of the fluff. And yet in return I get told I'm being selfish, I'm imposing my playstyle, I'm wrong, I'm absurd, I'm a troll, I'm a jerk, I'm a dick, I rage-quit. I hide behind internet anonymity. (On the other hand, yes of course I don't want some of you people knowing who I am. Based on the totally irrational, even psychotic, reactions I'm getting, I would be genuinely concerned about some of you harassing me and my family in real life.)
And now I'm a "sock puppet" and a liar. Yes, I've posted 4,200 times on Enworld for the purpose of trolling warlord fans.
Garthanos is behaving despicably: putting me on ignore and then denigrating me behind my back. If he wants to ignore me he should ignore me.
One again, a reminder: I'm criticizing a concept in RPG design. If there's been a theme to my posting, it's that I'm vehemently opposed to any sort of imposition of thoughts/emotions/actions on my characters. Maybe I'm too fanatical on that position. Like Emerikol is about "disassociative mechanics" or Saelorn is about using out-of-character knowledge or Tony is about the need for non-magical abilities. That's my thing, and I'm 100% consistent about it (or at least I think I am) and I adamantly oppose anything that starts to infringe on it.
If that gets you so angry you have to make personal attacks to combat it, you need help.
FFS.
EDIT: @Morrus. I'm sorry for "going there" in this thread. I just shouldn't have even said the world warlord. I will try to just stay away from this topic completely from now on. It irks me that I have to be silent on something I care about just because some people just can't handle it, but I will try to do so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony Vargas
Legend
Heh. Three of those are just radically anachronistic. "Synergist" is a good example of how a label can be much more accurate and precise, but horribly off.
But, I have long thought that it'd've made sense to break out a Blaster (AE damage) role from the Controller.
For a term that need never be used in character, not bad.
Inspiring Leader, the PDK, Rally maneuver (among others), and Social Skills, all have that same issue with rankling Player Agency, IFF the player subject to them isn't given an out. But, they're in the game, and people deal with them routinely without issue. In particular, Inspiring Leader feat and PDK are opt-in optional.
Backgrounds can outright grant superior social status or legitimate authority, the mere /implication/ of which is cited as impinging on this same area of Player Agency.
Abilities that force saves, and change the PC's actions or emotional state or internal life or whatever violate the same final redoubt of Player Agency, and they do so mechanically. The distinction that they're bad, and generally happen 'because magic' is not meaningful to that issue: Agency is still lost.
And CHA is an attribute that affects how others are supposed to perceive, feel about, and react to the character.
So they're all examples of intruding on the same narrow realm of the PC's decisions & internal life to which Player Agency is arguably limited in 5e.
Ultimately, it's a "5e isn't a good enough system to handle this" argument. Which is, IMHO, pretty mean-spirited (we are all supposed to be fans of the game, here), and which ignores that players & DMs /can/ work together to iron out any conflicts.
But it can be made.
"Roleplay" is the entire activity, saying "this will be solved by roleplay" is meaningless. What you mean is, the mechanics at issue would have to be superseded by a negotiation among the players. In that case, you're really sacrificing one player's Agency for another. One player has invested resources in making his character persuasive, or a good liar, or whatever, and another, who has invested no resources in making his character insightful or willful, can just override all that. It's like the player of an 8 STR character being able to insist that his arm-wrestling with the 20 STR character always ends in a tie.
That's ultimately an intractable problem with CHA & social skill checks. It's not as intractable a problem with abilities like Rally or Inspiring Leader - the ability is not nullified by a player who decides not to accept it, it can still be used on any other PC (or even allied NPC), it's no more a ding to the agency of the player who chose the feat than declining a heal or buff from a cleric for "RP reasons." Worst case, if it's a single-target/limited-use ability, and is declined, the DM could be nice and rule the ability isn't expended (again, much like if the PC had said "keep your god-blessed glowing hands off me.")
In 5e, fluff vs mechanics is a dicey distinction, anyway, so it's important to phrase anything like that carefully, and we can only hope a hypothetical 5e Warlord were designed with sufficient circumspection.
In 4e, fluff was a non-issue, and could be changed by the player. So if characters had a relationship dynamic (fierce rivals, reluctant hero & enthused side-kick, cooperating only out of necessity, ... IDK, contractually obligated? whatever), other than they blithely-assumed "allies" (which was jargon, in it's own right, anyway), then the player was more than free to adjust the fluff to fit that dynamic.
Re-fluffing in 5e is sometimes suggested, but not strongly spelled out as an option nor encouraged (the DM of course, can re-fluff /and/ re-write rules), but I'd think an agreement between two players about their relationship, and how it plays out in their respective headspaces when they cooperate, would not be unreasonable - and could have some RP potential.
Even though it shows you don't really know what you're doing?
I'm vehemently opposed to any sort of imposition of thoughts/emotions/actions on my characters. Maybe I'm too fanatical on that position. Like Emerikol is about "disassociative mechanics" or Saelorn is about using out-of-character knowledge or Tony is about the need for non-magical abilities. That's my thing, and I'm 100% consistent about it (or at least I think I am) and I adamantly oppose anything that starts to infringe on it.[/quote]I'm sorry, but I can't accept your use of my insistence that concepts that call for magic v not magic NOT be forced to the opposite side of the distinction and asked to 'refluff' as an example of fanaticism comparable to those (especially not Saelorn's - c'mon, his thing with whatever he means by 'metagaming' doesn't even make sense, like, you can't even parse it).
It's very simple: magic vs not /has mechanical meaning in D&D/. You can't re-fluff that, end of story. It's a reality of the system in every edition.
I am, OTOH, /fine/ with taking the exact same power in Hero System, and 're-fluffing' (in Hero it's called a 'special effect') it as magic for one character and something else (martial arts, technology, mutant power, whatever) for another. In that system, anything you designate as magic in it's F/X interacts with advantages, disadvantages, & limitations calling out magic as such. There's no mechanical issue.
D&D just takes some things that probably rightly /should/ be fluff, and hard-codes them. Even 4e, which let you endlessly re-fluff your powers, didn't let you change their Source Keywords, so Martial was Martial, and Divine was Divine and there's no pretending one is the other. Heck, if 4e were designed like Hero in that sense, it would have only had 4 classes.
But, you can still use me as an example: I'll admit to my "fanaticism" (I prefer 'zeal,'), in this context, which wanting to see 5e live up to it's goal of inclusion of fans of all past editions, including fans who clamor for things I'd never been able to stand, myself, which I'd always felt should have no place in the game.
And, yeah, I acknowledge how annoying that can get.
Convert's Zeal, like I copped to earlier, yeah. It's not easy to be this inclusive and this cynical /at the same time/.
Last edited:
happyhermit
Adventurer
At the same time, if someone saying; "I don't like this thing and think the game is better without it." results in them being piled on with attacks and attempts to shut down any discussion, then that probably needs to pushed back against by someone. The fact that you can say you hate things from every edition except 4e (and this happens much more frequently) without getting such a response is even weirder. I wasn't around the internet for the 4e edition war either, but there are certainly some on the 4e side who are proud of their contributions to it, still looking for anything that might look like grounds for an argument. Simply sharing an opinion that someone else had years ago gets you labelled and dismissed (logical fallacies be damned) but not ignored. It's kinda gross.
