So wait. What you just said was "I don't care what you think, but here's what I think".
In all due respect, if you don't care what annoys him, then why should we care what annoys you?
Forked Thread: Farewell to thee D&D
- Thread starter Tarvis31
- Start date
- Status
In all due respect, if you don't care what annoys him, then why should we care what annoys you?
I'm not asking you to. I'm simply not asking for special treatment, like he is, which WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR IF YOU HADN'T QUOTED ME OUT OF CONTEXT BY CHOPPING OFF THE REST OF MY POST. Otherwise you'd be in a meta-thread, for annoying me right there!
(And what's with the royal "we"? Are you guys really so insecure that you have to pretend you're a congregation? Speak for yourselves, rather than trying to pretend you're a consensus.)
As I said, I read some words, occasionally become annoyed by them, but I don't ask that everyone who annoys me be shuttled off to a meta-thread or sub-forum simply because I'm into censoring the opinion of everyone I disagree with. (Which I'm not.)
Last edited:
It's not special treatment. All threads be treated that way.
Capslock is not a good way to get across your point. It is discouraging, unattractive, and takes away from your argument.
And that's censorship? Censorship is stopping the expression. Or do you think putting 3e rules in its own forum is censorship?
Also, no one is saying everything that annoys them. The issue is very specific.
Last edited:
Goumindong
First Post
Just posting to let you know that 4e is a lot closer to 1e as you describe it than anything else.
There is an emphasis on
1. The system is there to describe how the players interact with the world and help the DM not murder his players on accident
2. The players need to know only the rules which directly influence them and the DM only needs to know what his players can do and what his monsters and environments can do.
3. The system allows for players to improvise in all aspects of play.*
*With skill challenges, and this doesn't come across well in the text, the idea was that players, so long as they can justify using a skill, can make a roll on that skill challenge. So if the player says "knowing the history of this mountain range will surely help us navigate the treacherous mountain pass!" the player can then use history to help on the "traverse the pass" skill challenge
With combats the game lays out a set of guidelines for what effect a players improvised actions might have. E.G. You're fighting in a library and you're level 5. Well, you might try pushing a shelf of books onto an enemy. You would roll a strength versus reflex attack, if you hit, you would restrain the enemy(save ends). You think the attack is painful, but not terribly and they can only do it once since its going to cascade all the shelves down. So its a level 4 or 5 limited damage expression doing 3d6+3(or 4) damage.
Now, all the player has to do is recognize that he can push books on people and attempt to do so and all you have to do is have your book open to page 42 and make a value judgment on what type of attack and damage its going to be, and whether or not its going to require an extra skill roll(like say running to the top of a latter, then knocking the ladder onto an enemy so it pins them in-between the rungs as you fall to the ground(landing without harming you might require a pretty stiff acrobatics or athletics check and do a medium normal damage expression(1d10+4) while immobilizing them till the end of your next turn.)
An example of something that wouldn't require a skill check would be kicking a chair at an enemy. Low normal damage, knocks them prone on hit. (or no damage, just knocks them prone)
Stop lecturing me you patronising pretentious person who likes to pretend he's speaking for "the people", I was TELLING YOU OFF. I DON'T CARE YOU DON'T LIKE CAPS. I LIKE THE IDEA THAT I'M ANNOYING YOU BY USING CAPS.
And quoting people out of context is ruder than using caps. By far.
And lecturing people who are rightly annoyed with you, instead of apologising, is a lot more annoying than using caps.
In other words, back in your box.
Yes, I think shuttling everyone's words off somewhere you can't see them is arguably a form of censorship. The devil's in the details, so don't treat that as a blanket statement, but the seed of censorship is there.
e.g. "You can post whatever you want, so long as it's in the back of a dusty locked broom closet in the basement behind a pile of old shoes and a sign which says 'Beware of the panther'."
That said, seperate forums isn't necessarily a bad idea. The motivation matters, though - "Take these people away because they annoy me" is a motivation that suggests that censorship is indeed the motivation.
Last edited:
"Rightly" annoyed is subject to opinion there. I don't see it as quoting you out of context in the least. Your context was clear.
As said earlier, if you don't care if someone else is annoyed, why should I care if you are annoyed? If their opinion doesn't matter, then why should yours?
You're not willing to be polite. You're more interested in shouting, calling me names, and attributing motives to me. Apologizing would be a wasted effort.
So "Back in your box", indeed.
No, it's not censorship. Being organized, and having designated areas for the sake of convenience isn't censorship. It's reducing spam, and unnecessary, duplicate posts. It's the same reason why two people who post the same link when the same article is put out, they are merged.
The issue is redundant clutter, whether it's pro-this or anti-that. The same with "First impressions of 4e" threads, the twelve different threads a day on the rules forums asking the same question, and so on.
Even worse, threads like this I find rude and selfish. He forked a thread just so he could respond to the OP of the original thread. That is useless and attention-seeking. Celatavian started the equivalent of "Here's what I think of SUVs", and Tarvis felt the need to start another thread saying "In response to Celatavian, here's what I think of SUVs".
I would be guilty of the same if I forked this thread to argue with you! But instead, I am keeping it contained here.
It's the equivalent of being at a party, which has multiple rooms, and walking from room A to room B, tinking on your glass with a spoon, and announcing, "There was a discussion in the other room, and I would like you all to know my opinion and response to what was said."
Forking a thread is for the purposes of changing the topic. That's what fork means - going off in a different direction than the original! Not to just respond to the OP!
Last edited:
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I'm very disappointed by the aggressive and unnecessary behaviour I'm seeing in this thread. You should know better.
Someone posting here doesn't mean that they are open to abuse, and anyone who does launch abuse can expect to be banned.
Gnomeworks is quite right in pointing out that there is no point in reading threads which are going to get you worked up and then being ascerbic.
Rechan is wrong for calling him on that, and stirring the argument.
Semah G Noj and Rechan are banned for 3 days.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
In which case you should really have posted this in his thread, rather than starting a new thread for the same purpose.
Mind you, making one post in 6 years is being pretty restrained!
- Status
