This is a Rant [Meta-thread]

[Mathew_Freeman]

Adopts world weary tone, points out several previous ENWorld threads dealing with similar subjects, fails to provide links to any of them, makes extremely long winded post about how people endlessly repeat the same threads over and over.

Suggest Baraendur should 'get over himself' and stop whining about something that is obviously a house rule. Makes pithy comment about how it 'wouldn't be allowed in a campaign I was running' with the strong implication that said campaign is far superior to anything other posters could create.

Barely manages to avoid going off on a tangent, subscribes to thread.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Mentions that gaming group has used X rule for a long time, and is only really broken when used by a dual-wielding half-elf ranger/bard.

Points out that dual-wielding half-elf ranger/bards themselves are broken, but that is a different rant. Also notes that it isn't nearly so broken in D&D 3.5, but that, also, is an entirely separate discussion.

Originally posted by Tallarn
Suggest Baraendur should 'get over himself' and stop whining about something that is obviously a house rule.

Flips it back at Tallarn, but doesn't get too involved in the rebuttal, instead changing the subject while insisting that Tallarn's opinion is unfounded and due to an addiction to soylent yellow.

Anticipates the impending arrival of Jdavis to insist that I am absolutely wrong (as usual).

 

[Mark Chance]

I criticize Baraendur for responding to Remathilis and Tallarn while ignoring my highly relevant initial response to Baraendur's rant. I insinuate that if Baraendur weren't afraid of being shown wrong, he would have responded to me and not bothered with other, unworthy messages.

All the while, I am hoping that orbitalfreak, who did respond to my initial post, doesn't see my current post and catch the apparent hypocrisy of my current comments.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Point out that I was not intentionally ignoring Mark Chance, but rather taking some time to consider adequate response to said criticism to my criticism. Explain the rebuttal I've arrived at in detail, then await angry retort.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I interject with the unwelcome suggestion that the game mechanic in question is no more and no less broken then any other mechanic in the game. I further argue that the results which are objected to by the original poster are an "emergent property" rather then a fixed property.

I then proceed to take half a page explaining that an emergent property is something that happens when various game mechanics work together to create unintended side effects.

I continue on to state that the emergent properties that are being objected to do not exist in all games. I also state that in many of the games that they do exist in, the properties do not pose a problem due to specific circumstances of those games.

I conclude by suggesting a solution which one third you will disregard as being un-necessary, another third will regard as creating new problems, and which the last third of you will dismiss as not addressing the original problem.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Starman]

Holds hand with smiling children and sings "Kumba Ya." Mentions that he will report this thread to the mods unless all other posters join in. End with

Starman

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I mention that everone here is a complete idiot because they do not follow house rule triple z, and that all who have any brains have done this years ago. I then go on to make a long winded tangent about how other editions had more intelligent players, and end the entire post with a.

 

[Silver Moon]

...I then proceed to take half a page explaining that an emergent property is something that happens when various game mechanics work together to create unintended side effects.

States that Lord Zardoz's theory about "emergent property" is in reality a reference to the "Law of Unintended Consequences", first defined by Adam Smith in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations, which was in and of itself an expansion of a 1692 theory by John Locke. Points out that the definite work on this theory was conducted in 1936 by American sociologist Robert K. Merton, in an article titled "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action." Attaches pictures of Smith, Locke and Merton. Rambles on for another 1,500 or so words giving a summary of that article's major points.

Raises a point as to Starman's questionable ethics in using both young children and extortion to promote his own personal agenda.

Makes a decision to agree with Baraendur's main statements in this thread, but intentionally misspells his name in the statement of support in order to still annoy him.

Edits typo, making comment that said edit was in reality a follow-up clarification, so as not to imply that I could have been in error.

 

[randomling]

I read the thread, but keep myself from replying because a) I barely understand the mechanic in question and b) I don't know what YMMV means.

(Then I edit my post for incorrect punctuation. Which is funny, because I never made a post in the first place.... um.)

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Baraendur said:
Flips it back at Tallarn, but doesn't get too involved in the rebuttal, instead changing the subject while insisting that Tallarn's opinion is unfounded and due to an addiction to soylent yellow.

Denies addiction to soylent yellow, but replies in such a way that everyone realises he has no idea what soylent yellow is. Blusters in order to cover the fact.

Baraendur said:
Anticipates the impending arrival of Jdavis to insist that I am absolutely wrong (as usual).

Informs Baraendur he is DEAD WRONG, and that Jdavis will no doubt agree with me.

Swears impressively at Starman for his childish attempts to put out the fires. Informs him that he is neither wanted nor needed in this thread, since there is no real argument, since Baraendur is DEAD WRONG.

Ignores everything Silver Moon has said, and claims that Britains were investigating said laws, causes, effects, doodads and thungummies before American was even a country, possibly showing up his ignorance of the people in question, who might be Austrian for all I know.

Makes snide comment about people who can't get their typos sorted out first time, makes elementary spellling errorr, fails to see it.

Edits thread twice for other errors, still fails to spot elementary spelling error.
Departs, smug.