Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5067786" data-attributes="member: 22779">No RC.&nbsp; What we're claiming is that more play styles than yours actually exist and you are dismissing anything that does not follow your playstyle as being the product of &quot;incompetent DM's&quot;.&nbsp; Sure, your style exists.&nbsp; How common it is is up for grabs.&nbsp; How it's any more valid than other styles is also up for debate.&nbsp; The funny thing is, you ignore anything that counters your points while claiming victory.Look, according to you, a good player will gain most of his xp from treasure, by avoiding encounters.&nbsp; Ok, fair enough.&nbsp; What's &quot;most&quot;?&nbsp; 50 plus 1 per cent?&nbsp; That seems a bit low.&nbsp; Let's say 66%.&nbsp; That's a pretty clear &quot;most&quot;. That means, you can guess the wealth of a character by simply multiplying his xp by 66%.&nbsp; Give or take.&nbsp; So, if the PC has 100000 xp (about 6th level ish), he's going to have about 60-70 thousand gp, at least - because likely he's also going to have magic items that he's kept and not sold.Now, sure, you're going to make him pay level tax.&nbsp; What constitutes the different levels of play is also VERY much up for debate.&nbsp; I recall the examples given of play in the DMG as something along the lines of &quot;Did the fighter run away?&nbsp; No?&nbsp; Then that's excellent play&quot;.&nbsp; This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that two weeks of training was the standard.&nbsp; Then again, I'm basing that on my own anecdotes, but, that's what all this boils down to is dueling anecdotes.For me, Bullgrit's analysis of 1e matched up almost picture perfectly with my own experiences.&nbsp; Now I'm being told that the only reason they do is because the DM was incompetent and none of us knew how to &quot;really&quot; play the game.&nbsp; That's a trifle insulting don't you think?Totally agree with this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5067786, member: 22779"] No RC. What we're claiming is that more play styles than yours actually exist and you are dismissing anything that does not follow your playstyle as being the product of "incompetent DM's". Sure, your style exists. How common it is is up for grabs. How it's any more valid than other styles is also up for debate. The funny thing is, you ignore anything that counters your points while claiming victory. Look, according to you, a good player will gain most of his xp from treasure, by avoiding encounters. Ok, fair enough. What's "most"? 50 plus 1 per cent? That seems a bit low. Let's say 66%. That's a pretty clear "most". That means, you can guess the wealth of a character by simply multiplying his xp by 66%. Give or take. So, if the PC has 100000 xp (about 6th level ish), he's going to have about 60-70 thousand gp, at least - because likely he's also going to have magic items that he's kept and not sold. Now, sure, you're going to make him pay level tax. What constitutes the different levels of play is also VERY much up for debate. I recall the examples given of play in the DMG as something along the lines of "Did the fighter run away? No? Then that's excellent play". This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that two weeks of training was the standard. Then again, I'm basing that on my own anecdotes, but, that's what all this boils down to is dueling anecdotes. For me, Bullgrit's analysis of 1e matched up almost picture perfectly with my own experiences. Now I'm being told that the only reason they do is because the DM was incompetent and none of us knew how to "really" play the game. That's a trifle insulting don't you think? Totally agree with this. [/QUOTE]

Verification