What is your "Fight Me" thread?

[Svata]

The D&D 5E Saving Throws system is garbage. Unless you're proficient in it, you're MORE likely to fail a save against a level-appropriate encounter the higher level you are. And just as likely to fail a save from a CR 1 opponent at level 20 as at level 1. This is really, really stupid.

[pwykersotz]

The D&D 5E Saving Throws system is garbage. Unless you're proficient in it, you're MORE likely to fail a save against a level-appropriate encounter the higher level you are. And just as likely to fail a save from a CR 1 opponent at level 20 as at level 1. This is really, really stupid.

Hey, this is one of my "fight me" subjects!

Using misleading or overly simplified statements to make a point that is excessively hyperbolic. Especially when it's trashing something.

Also, maligning the devs, which rarely contributes to a discussion.

Edit: Change of phrasing to focus on the act, not the person.

[Alberic Strein]

While many things make me tick, for example Shadowrun 5th edition, which I consider absolute crap (due to having a campaign that did not go one session without the GM and me facepalming about the rules, the rule placement, or some utter bullsh*t) in the end if you have fun it's good for you and I'll graciously excuse myself out of the conversation instead of piledriving into your skull that Shadowrun 5th edition is utter trash and could only be improved by publishing it on toilet paper so at least when you wipe yourself with those rules (the only legit course of action to take) it doesn't chafe.

So, if I had to choose my "fight me" subject would be bashing D&D 4E. The common arguments against it are dishonest bullsh*t and the system is, well, good. And doesn't deserve the flak it got.

[Silus]

Two big "Fight Me!"/"U WOT M8?" things for me:

"Rules trump Story all the time, every time. If it ain't in rules you can't/shouldn't do it." - To hell with that I don't wanna play with you if I can't get inventive.

"Your character wouldn't do X because they're blah-blah-blah." - Telling me how I HAVE to roleplay my character, with VERY FEW exceptions (Cosmoknights, Paladins, etc.) is the fast track to me yelling at you to piss off from across the table.

[Quertus]

What do you think is the issue you would have a thread like this about?

My list is too long to post. Maybe I should go home and rethink my life.

As for mine:

The war on railroading has got to stop. The way people identify railroading has gotten way out of hand so that I regularly see extremely reasonable campaign set-ups be considered railroading. Neither is some light bit of railroading a bad thing, as it gives some structure to the campaign. It also allows GMs to properly tailor the players' experience in a way that would be engaging, especially in systems where GM prep can require a lot of work.

As "railroading is bad, period", this forum has opened my eyes, and you hopefully won't see me making that argument. I will still argue a) that conventional wisdom is that railroading is generally a bad plan; b) I personally hate railroading. Is that close enough to at least be a ceasefire in the war?

"you're an idiot, go read the rulebook and play a session before you vomit hasty judgements about a system you're unfamiliar with."
but I'll do so in my "condescending academic" voice because it's snarkier and less likely to get me banned for flaming.

I'm pretty sure I'm one of those people.

Some say that the best way to make sure you've understood what someone has said is to say it back to them in your own words. Me, I find the best way is to attempt to extrapolate from what they've said.

Apologies if this technique has caused you undue stress.

[Lacco]

Mine are....

"I've read a review of the *other than D&D system* done by the guy who obviously did not try playing it and it's terrible because it's not D&D!"

"You can do the same with D&D, you just need *lists homebrew*"

But the worst:

"You can't do a horror in RPG because I don't want to be afraid!"

[Guizonde]

As "railroading is bad, period", this forum has opened my eyes, and you hopefully won't see me making that argument. I will still argue a) that conventional wisdom is that railroading is generally a bad plan; b) I personally hate railroading. Is that close enough to at least be a ceasefire in the war?

for me, railroading is a sign of any 3 things:

-inexperience in the dm who can't improvise or change their battleplan/ scenario off the cuff. we all did it, we all grow out of it. that said, some plots need those lynchpins in order to function, else we wouldn't have the henderson scale of plot derailment to gauge how badly a story got fragged. as a rule of thumb, i'll allow myself 2 railroads per campaign: the beginning "cutscene" where the party meets up, and the ending "cutscene" wherein i do a recap of all the players' actions. sometimes, when they've really deviated, i'll tell them where they went off the beaten path and explain what i had in mind. since one is to launch the campaign, i find it better than "you all meet at the tavern", the other one is just the ending monologue based on the actions of the campaign, so in a sense, it's out of player control since it's things they did or set in motion. i write my beginning and my ending (or where i want my players to end up), and leave the middle of the story firmly in player hands. it may be chaotic, my team still talks and references my campaign 4 years later with rose-tinted glasses. so i must've done something right.

-a sign a story is too written with the scenario in mind, and not the characters. being too story-driven, it negates the actions of the characters. perhaps it's time to let the story live a little, get out of control. it can revitalize a stale campaign going off the rails, throwing the playbook out the window for a session or three. it did wonders for a dnd campaign i did years ago, we went off the rails for 6 weeks irl (playing weekly), we'd almost forgotten we were playing return to the temple of elemental evil. felt great after all the dungeon crawling.

-finally, it's a sign that the dm is on a power trip. if you think this is the reason you've gotten on rails, flee. a dm who'll break the rules of the gentleman's agreement just so he can lord it over other people with his "mighty intelligence" and "unfathomable wit" has neither and i know some people who'd break their ego quite well. that's livejournal-worthy wannabe dominatrix talk. i'd say keyboard warrior talk too, but i've met the wannabes with that attitude in real life, never keyboard warriors. i've also met some of those "dm's". you throw a curveball into their plot? you get a rocket launcher hit to the face playing age of conan. that's not a storyteller or a dm, that's a lonely dude with a superiority complex. leave them alone to die a long and worthless life. i'd be nice and say "they'll grow out of it", but no. i know the exact type of dude, he's been crying on every shoulder for 9 bloody years that he can't find players worthy of his "dm'ing talents". never in 9 years has he even started to think the problem might not be with the players.

like i said in my earlier post, railroading is a necessary evil, but like summoning godzilla, if kept to a minimum, it can be bearable and can even unlock some situations, so long as it's not the go-to solution for the dm.

[No brains]

My fight thread? RIGHT BLOODY HERE! Are you trying to express your grief or frustration? Are you even trying to empathize with me? I'LL TAKE EVERY ONE OF YOU ON! You're not humans! You're just puddles of text on a screen! I'll pedantically pick apart your arguments and not give one picometer on a subject that doesn't personally affect me! I'll smugly put you down to put a veil of intelligence on myself! You're all having imaginary fun wrong! THIS IS A VALUABLE USE OF MY TIME!

Spoiler: War Cry

Show

WHARGARBL!

My browser corrected that word as BLOWHARD and I lmao.
In all seriousness, what bugs me and what I think makes a fight thread is when people make the leap from "I do not enjoy/ would not at my table permit this" to "This is wrong and you're an idiot for thinking that."

[Vitruviansquid]

Well, actually, what I had in mind as your fight thread is both what you will defend to the end no matter how many separate voices disagree with you, and what you think a lot of separate voices will disagree with you on.

Just to be clear.

[Svata]

Hey, this is one of my "fight me" subjects!

People who use misleading or overly simplified statements to make a point that is excessively hyperbolic. Especially when it's trashing something.

Also, maligning the devs, which rarely contributes to a discussion.

I'm not maligning the devs, though? I simply think that this one aspect of their otherwise pretty solid system is bad. Also, what was hyperbolic or misleading, specifically? I want to know, so that I can improve my argument in the future, and not rely on those things.

[RazorChain]

Well, actually, what I had in mind as your fight thread is both what you will defend to the end no matter how many separate voices disagree with you, and what you think a lot of separate voices will disagree with you on.

Just to be clear.

Well I think you are wrong on what constitutes a "fight me" thread. I'm going to make my own definition and stick to it. My definition might not be the same as anyone else's and you and all the other forumites can argue until you get blue in the face but I know that my definition is right because I have all the best definitions.

[Lord Raziere]

Well, actually, what I had in mind as your fight thread is both what you will defend to the end no matter how many separate voices disagree with you, and what you think a lot of separate voices will disagree with you on.

Just to be clear.

Well yeah.

Solar Exalted, Exalted 3e crafting, optimization, alignment, always evil races, fan tiers in any system, Vancian magic and crunch-thinking: All bad. that is my opinion, I'll fight you on all of that, no matter how many people disagree.

Just warning you all.

[ijon]

Well I think you are wrong on what constitutes a "fight me" thread. I'm going to make my own definition and stick to it. My definition might not be the same as anyone else's and you and all the other forumites can argue until you get blue in the face but I know that my definition is right because I have all the best definitions.

all your definitions are wrong and you'll never convince me otherwise

fight me

[Vitruviansquid]

Well yeah.

Solar Exalted, Exalted 3e crafting, optimization, alignment, always evil races, fan tiers in any system, Vancian magic and crunch-thinking: All bad. that is my opinion, I'll fight you on all of that, no matter how many people disagree.

Just warning you all.

I am infinitely interested to see the spiel about fan tiers.

[pwykersotz]

I'm not maligning the devs, though? I simply think that this one aspect of their otherwise pretty solid system is bad. Also, what was hyperbolic or misleading, specifically? I want to know, so that I can improve my argument in the future, and not rely on those things.

Oh sorry! Those were two separate points. You weren't maligning the devs, that was a secondary fight point.

In terms of the saving throws, "garbage" was the hyperbole. Being more likely to fail your saving throws against a level appropriate encounter is misleading. The hyperbole seems self-explanatory, so I'll leave that there. The misleading part about the saving throws is that it twists partially accurate data.

By the way, the subject is the "fight me" part, I realize I used the term 'people' when I should have just said 'using hyperbole and over simplified statements'. Your polite reply reminded me to check my phrasing.

Spoiler: Clarification of 5e saves

Show

It's true that if you face a CR 20 and he targets a weak save, there is likely a greater divide between your bonus and the DC than if you face a CR 2 at level 2. But level appropriate encounters come in more flavors than that. Often you use some multiplier of some lower level of creatures to present a challenge. In addition, the save system works in tandem with a great many class abilities, spells, items, and circumstances (adv/disadv) to go far beyond what it might first appear to be. Analyzing the save system in absence of those is short sighted. Now I'm sure you know all that, and I'm sure you believe your point in spite of it, and I think that's perfectly fine. I just routinely see short quippy posts misinform through omission and spin threads into fights, and I'm not a fan of it.

[ImNotTrevor]

I'm pretty sure I'm one of those people.

Some say that the best way to make sure you've understood what someone has said is to say it back to them in your own words. Me, I find the best way is to attempt to extrapolate from what they've said.

Apologies if this technique has caused you undue stress.

Allow me to encourage another tactic:

If you plan to extrapolate about a 200-page document, you should probably do so with more than a brief paragraph about one small fraction of its total content. That would be like trying to infer the plot of Moby **** based on a secondhand description of a scene therein. (And with no further information to go on.)

In lieu of producing information from whole cloth, look to Socrates and the method that made him famous. Just ask questions. questions that don't assume an outcome.
"So does this mean that everyone has to wait their turn to play?" is a bad question.
"How does this specialization affect the flow of gameplay?" is a good question.

[DataNinja]

So, if I had to choose my "fight me" subject would be bashing D&D 4E. The common arguments against it are dishonest bullsh*t and the system is, well, good. And doesn't deserve the flak it got.

That's close to one of the things that mildly irritates me... I'm fine with 4e bashing, but I'd just like it to be informed. I understand that the system is certainly not for everyone (and would probably be thought of as a better system without the "D&D" label, or maybe as "D&D Tactics" or something), but I'd just like people to at least know what the system does. If you have some experience with it, though, go ahead and bash it all you want. (As long as you're not a person who's saying 'you shouldn't play it', that is. I'm totally fine with you not wanting to play any certain game, but saying other people shouldn't, just because you think something is better... that's not really cool.)

[Lord Raziere]

all your definitions are wrong and you'll never convince me otherwise

fight me

I am infinitely interested to see the spiel about fan tiers.

this ain't the thread for that. this for warning people about the rants, not doing them.

There is no fighting in the war room.

[Pex]

The D&D 5E Saving Throws system is garbage. Unless you're proficient in it, you're MORE likely to fail a save against a level-appropriate encounter the higher level you are. And just as likely to fail a save from a CR 1 opponent at level 20 as at level 1. This is really, really stupid.

While I agree with the assessment for some odd reason I haven't felt the urge to vigorously argue about it.

[Kane0]

The development and intriduction of houserules/homebrew is a perfectly valid way to enjoy the game and such creativity should be encouraged, especially as a solution to a percieved/actual problem with RAW.

Fight me.

[ijon]

The development and intriduction of houserules/homebrew is a perfectly valid way to enjoy the game and such creativity should be encouraged, especially as a solution to a percieved/actual problem with RAW.

Fight me.

I mean... yeah? I might be biased as someone who mods any game that can be modded, but I see no reason not to homebrew if you can't find something to fit your needs. it's certainly cleaner than making some abomination that spans multiple splatbooks per character level.

I don't think I have a single character without homebrew, in fact, and I'm homebrewing up Yet Another Stupid Fighter Fix right now (it's a fun experiment, fight me)

[Guizonde]

The development and intriduction of houserules/homebrew is a perfectly valid way to enjoy the game and such creativity should be encouraged, especially as a solution to a percieved/actual problem with RAW.

Fight me.

you can't make an omelet without breaking a few nerds.

... waitaminute.

anyway, a lot of the homebrews i've seen on these boards help the flow of the game, lighten the rules or make them more easily memorable. call me simple, but i play the game for fun, not for applying arcanely difficult rules or remembering paragraphs of rules that can be done in one die-roll.

this is the reason the "grapple rules" have become a byword for "byzantine and complex rules" isn't it? in my game, we just oppose the two close combat skills of the opponents and solve it with a roll. makes takedowns, flying tackles, and beating in a face using a kitchen sink much easier. it's a hodgepodge homebrew system of 4-5 different systems, with most of the base in whfrp2e. homebrews ftw, if you don't mind me saying.

[2D8HP]

Oh, I think it would be obvious by now.

D&D was nothing but a ripoff of Tolkien!
(Arneson & Gygax had many other inspirations, Anderson, Howard, & Leiber top my list)

Old D&D was...
(by "old" they only go as far back as 2e AD&D if even that far, oD&D did not have THAC0 people!)

D&D is...
(when they just mean 3.5, not my D&D)

I wish someone would make a game that...
(they did, Either Tunnels & Trolls in 1975, RuneQuest in 1978, Champions in 1981, Stormbringer in 1981, or Pendragon in 1985, all generally did whatever it is the complainer wishes "someone" would publish, different games for different complaints)

"Old School" is... Maybe it was, but I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in 1978, Villians & Vigilantes in 1979, and a host of games afterwards, and I remember different.

Why don't you just play a video game? or That's just playing a video game with paper! (take a flying leap please)

Role/Roll/War games
(call 'em Adventure games, and spare us what a "true RPG" is)

200+ pages is not enough, I want even more rules!
(I don't).

Spoiler: Not game related

Show

The powerless are oppressing the powerful, I have a mumbly Youtube video from a college campus that proves it!
(please spare me your spoiled boys whining, I don't care if your feelings get hurt in college, most of the world will never have access to those libraries, you're enjoying a rare priveledge)

..Just ask questions. questions that don't assume an outcome.
"So does this mean that everyone has to wait their turn to play?" is a bad question.
"How does this specialization affect the flow of gameplay?" is a good question.

Sorry @I'mNotTrevor, I don't understand what the second question means, but I do the first.

[Quertus]

My list is too long to post. Maybe I should go home and rethink my life.

Well, actually, what I had in mind as your fight thread is both what you will defend to the end no matter how many separate voices disagree with you, and what you think a lot of separate voices will disagree with you on.

Just to be clear.

Hmmm... Upon further introspection, I see why my list is so long. Far too many times, I have been the one standing against the many, and been proven right (even mathematically proven right, even on this forum). And, also far too many times, I have been one of the many standing against the one, who was later proven right.

So, the number of people who hold an opinion just isn't a good indicator to me as to how valid the stance is, IME. I haven't done the math to see how much of a correlation there is between size of the opposition, and odds that an arbitrary speaker or myself will be proven wrong. However, I feel confident that there is a large correlation between me failing to communicate properly, and people opposing my stance - especially when it's one I know that they generally hold.

So, regardless of the number of people who disagree, I'll stick to my guns, attempting to communicate my idea better, until proven wrong.

Or, at least, that's what I believe to be true about myself, until I'm proven wrong.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

-Snip-

Yep, that's what I mean. Check mah sig, I've done my fair share.

[Zalabim]

There's Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, and I'll usually only call the the latter two actually my hills. For something that's just wrong, I'll mention a correction and drop it. For something that's wrong but constantly repeated like gospel? "4E is tabletop WoW" is a damned lie. Then everything else is just ****ty math, or using good math in ****ty ways to make a tenuous or nonsensical point. Don't abuse math.

And Bell Curves especially piss me off. "The d20 is awful. You should use something with a bell curve because <stupid>." There are valid reasons to prefer a bell curve. Please explain the ones you like instead of repeating unclear or outright nonsensical statements about consistency.

[bulbaquil]

Saying the GM should "always say yes" regardless of the situation, especially at character generation, or implying that the GM should have absolutely no control over his/her own setting.

Implying that everybody should want to play expressive and explorative wide-open sandbox games, and that beer-and-pretzel dungeon crawls or highly narrative-focused games are inherently "wrong" or evil.

Implying that house rules are inherently evil and that RAW is the only way to play (similarly, invoking RAW when it is clear from the context or wording of the post that house rules are in effect).

Declaring that expression of a character idea is impossible due to the lack of an explicit mechanic for it (e.g.: "I can't make a proper bartender because there isn't a Profession (bartender) skill").

[Random Sanity]

Fumble mechanics have no place in tabletop gaming. I've seen systems with them, I've seen systems without them have hamfisted attempts to add them (and let's be honest, it's never NOT hamfisted with this ****). It's never an improvement to add them, it's always an improvement to remove them.

And I have a special hatred for fumble systems that escalate the chance of failure as the character grows more competent otherwise - that is not how things work!

Nobody so incompetent as to stab himself with his own sword would ever survive long enough to gain the system's equivalent of class levels.


Fight me. If you can avoid tripping over your own keyboard.

[Darth Tom]

That would be like trying to infer the plot of Moby **** based on a secondhand description of a scene therein. (And with no further information to go on.)

Exactly! Like the way the forum software just assumes it's inappropriate based on the title alone. What's up with that?!

[Earthwalker]

My fight me response kicks in due to a problem of my own causing.

Its not a subject or a particular rule / system / way of playing that gets my ready to fight its a style of posting.

When someone posts something like.

In a good game....
In a real game...
In a proper game...


When what they mean is

In games I like..
or
In My game...

This is just the example, its the tone of the post that gets me. I now translate in my head people saying, "in a real game" to "in my game".

The reason it gets to me is there is no one true way of playing. Advocate what you like, don't give it the title of "The right way to play" new people to these boards should be encourage to find the style they like not be told "this is the one true way to play"