PK htiw klaw eriF

Well I hope you and noone are happy together. It must be a bit tough on him to see you eyeing NKKK though.

Well, I hope my new mexican husband treats me right I'm afraid you will be marrying a "Kanadian". His name is Volorun. Have fun.

Yep, I don't like twitch elements. Yep. You must not be very good at spelling. You control everything the PC does. You decide that they will pick a lock. The difference is that in one system success is determined by the characters skill at picking locks, while in the other success is determined by the player's skill at clicking/pressing buttons. And since I have stated that having player skill should not be a factor in the PC's success, this a problem how?

They said that the game would end up being around D&D level 10-12 in power. So yes, referencing what the power level in D&D at that level is relevant to PE. A system that you have not clearly defined. You have not shown how it would work, or given examples of games that have done similar things. Then why bring it up at all? Then post some hard data to show how your system works. You have said your system works well several times but have not shown how it would work or shown a system that did something similarly. Also every single number I used was based around how you said your mod worked or high-end HP at D&D level 12. If you want me to stop using numbers or making assumptions about your system based on things you have said, then actually show us how this system works.

Your paraphrase is off the mark. A more accurate one would be: "If I play drunk and therefore my reflexes are dulled by the effects of alcohol, the PC shouldn't start missing attacks or get worse at lock picking because I am unable to press buttons as effectively." Who the hell is noone? How does (s)he figure in to this? Regardless, control over the PC is should not be removed from the player's hands, because there is no other current way for the character to react according to the player's wishes consistently. That does not mean the player is the PC.

Honestly that interview with Piers Morgan was the worst display, from Alex Jones, of childishness and inarticulateness I have ever seen from a person in my life. I would have cringed looking at my behavior if I was him and studied the interview. I don't think Alex Jones is capable of shame. Or rational thought for that matter. I would be surprised that people actually believe in what he says, but I grew up in Texas(not too far from Ron Paul's district) so I have been exposed to some of the Alex Jones/Ron Paul/Fear porn addicts that believe in these conspiracy theories.

I'm with Umberln on this. Success at anything should be determined solely by the characters skill, the player's skill at pressing buttons should not even come in to play. If I play the game drunk, the character should not hit less or fail at lockpicking because my reflexes are dulled by the effects of alcohol. They aren't drunk, so why would their abilities be dulled? You create the character, you decide what their stats will be, what their personality is like, their beliefs, etc, but you are not the character. The reason you make every decision is because you couldn't completely script the character design in to the game completely and have the character act exactly as you designed them.

Well, if you flatten the power curve, then yes it is. However, we were not talking about a system with a flat power curve. We are talking about a system that has around the same power level of 10-12th D&D characters, and charcters will start off the rough equivalent of level 1 charcters. I didn't say it was. Please do. If your system is easy to balance in PE(with 5-th and 6-th level spell equivalents) do show the rest of us your math. Don't forget that low-level combat will often contain characters that whose high-end damage is 10. Those are higher than 5-th and 6-th level spells. At the D&D level that PE will be close to, 10d6 fireballs are the norm, not meteor swarms and wails of banshees. 40 would be the amount if you were looking to make low-level combat balanced(using your statement that a character could take about 5 good sword hits in your mod). 100 would be the amount if you were looking to make high-level combat balanced. I have. I don't like the idea of static HP. Because you would end up with either unbalanced high or low level combat or a reliance on resist X damage stat/talent which would add a new stat that inflates with level. 1. In D&D a longsword deals 1d8 damage. You said your mod allowed about 5 good sword hits. I figured a "good" sword hit would deal in the upper range, so I took a range and used it to calculate HP. 2. Can you clarify this? "would have" is pretty ambiguous. Wait, you think about 5 good sword hits should kill a character but start them off with 100-150 HP? How much did you inflate sword damage? You don't consider low-level combat tedious if the average character hits on average for 4.5 damage(not counting damage reduction) and has over 100 HP? Say the guy who assumes that reality is what will determine the laws of PE, without any proof. Then goes on and makes several arguments on the basis of what works in the real world and calls out anything else as illogical. LOL.

Next thing ya know, California will make you gay marry an illegal immigrant. Cling tight to your guns! Keep the guiding voice of High Prophet Alex Jones playing all the time!

Ahh, I think I understand your position. Thank you for clarifying. I think that HP does stay around similar values(when damage output is taken in to account) as characters level as well. I'm personally fine with it, because the problems I see with a static HP system are that damage output will be too low at lower levels and result in tedious low-level combat or that HP inflation will be replaced by resist damage inflation, which just adds another stat and unneeded complication. I think that by having an attack roll for spells that can result in grazes and misses(the proposed system PE will be using) is much better than the saving throw system D&D used because it allows most classes to have a better chance of surviving a fire ball assault. I also think that having stamina as a buffer for damage might also help improve survivability in what would be fatal encounters using D&D rules.

Ok, let me explain this to you again. Trashman thinks that certain mechanics should not be included because they make no sense using real world logic. He states that real world logic applies to PE unless explicitly stated otherwise. Essentially, he is stating that the lore of the setting should inform the mechanics. I'm arguing that just because X isn't explicitly stated to work differently from the real world, doesn't mean that X has to work as it does in the real world. The mechanics can prove that X is true, even if there is no lore reason given in the setting. If X functions differently in the setting than it does in the real world, it is an implied truth. I used D&D as an example, which using Trashman's logic that all mechanics should be informed by the lore of the setting and that unless stated otherwise the laws will be the same as they are in the real world, would have a mechanic in it that makes no logical sense. I then claimed that the fact that people get harder to kill as they grow more powerful was an implied truth, not an explicitly stated one, and was just as valid.

sigh......I'm not arguing that a fantasy world has no realistic elements in it or has no basis in reality. I'm arguing that assuming X must be exactly as it is in the Real World is not always true, because there are implied facts as well as explicitly stated ones. I used D&D as an example, because while it is true that someone gets harder to kill as they grow more powerful(HP goes up with level in mechanics terms) it is never explicitly stated in the lore that someone gets harder to kill as they grow stronger. It is an implied fact, it is not explicitly stated but it happens to be true. Trashman has asserted that HP growing as you level up is not logical in PE because it is not logical in the real world. When I asked why he assumed that PE logic must equal real world logic, he stated that unless X was clearly specified you look to the real world. Judging by his posts on this thread Trashman requires that the lore determine without a shadow of a doubt if a non-real world mechanic makes sense in order for it to be acceptable and logical. As for him clarifying his point, I doubt he will. He still hasn't explained how a static HP system would work in a setting like PE, or what RPG had HP combined with armor, dodge, parry, etc.

Are you arguing for a static HP or for a system where HP progression is not affected by class, but still by level? I could get behind the latter, but I have some issues with the former(namely balancing low-level combat without making it tedious). I do agree that balance should take in to account more universal defenses(like saving throws) and non-universal defenses(like class abilities). Also D&D scaling was not very good. Saving throws grew at a much slower rate than spells, so succeeding against a spell was pretty difficult. Anyway my proposed HP/Defense system: HP= 10+Con modifier at level one, with 5-6+CON modifier gained at each level. Stamina is (20+CON modifier)Level. Specific defense values(saving throws) vary by class, but increase at a faster rate than they did in D&D to avoid large discrepancies between the saving throw bonus and the bonus put towards DC. More classes have unique defenses against damage, which vary in effectiveness towards type of damage(a Monk's wound's may not be as effective against magic as an arcane veil).

I really don't know what to tell you. No one's arguing the meaning of "specifically," yet you think that's what this is about. The ruleset "specifically states" that you gain levels with experience, and you gain HP when you gain levels, and how much, and when, etc. That stuff isn't ambiguously stated. It is "stated" in the rulebook. Therefore, that's how that world works. A character in the DnD world gains levels and HP. However, the terminology and concepts of "HP" and "levels" don't actually inhabit the fantasy world. They exist outside of it, as a liaison between the player and the game world. Why? Because the only way we know how to govern interactions with something as dynamic as an entire fantasy world is through math. So, yes, it is specifically stated. In the ruleset. The ruleset governs the game world. The game world exists without knowledge of this governance, because it has no need of such knowledge. If Trashman could've worded it better to prevent confusion, then so be it. But now we're clarifying (and have been for like 5 posts). Words mean what they mean, and he meant what he meant. You're not even arguing semantics anymore, because I've already clarified, and you're saying that my clarification is false and doesn't exist, and that your suggested meaning is the only possible meaning, whatsoever. You're just being silly at this point. I've nothing more to say. I was just trying to help clarify so you didn't have to waste your breath arguing that obviously-misunderstood point of his. It is what it is. *shrug* I don't think you understand the full context of the argument. Because reality is always the starting point. Unless specificly stated that X works differently, you look to the real world. Trashman's entire thing on this thread has been railing against HP increasing with level because it does not fit the laws of the real world(and because he personally doesn't like fantasy that is too fantastical). He is talking about lore in that statement.

I was trying to establish what a figure for the static HP system Trashman wants, so I used what would be 5 god hits as the level. I know that you can defend against good hits. Nothing is wrong with them, but if the game requires you to use them, it is bad. Even worse is when you require resist X damage talents, because that replaces HP increasing with another stat that essentially does the same thing(makes you harder to kill). Yes, but if one caster gets off one successful spell then the whole party is dead. Those are ways to prevent an ambush. I'm talking about getting killed for just getting caught in one. The party should be grievously wounded and/or at a big disadvantage, but they shouldn't be slain out right. I think you misunderstood what I meant by "low-level combat". I meant combat at low-levels, not combat with lower-level foes. So a system where characters gain about 6 HP(modified by CON) per level and start at 10 HP(+CON Modifier)sounds good to you? Because that would be my ideal system.

Finally got around to dealing with some accounts I haven't touched in years. There is a bit of relief in knowing I won't have to do that anytime soon.

No he said SPECIFICALLY. Which means explicitly, free of ambiguity, distinctive, etc. If he meant something else, he should have been more clear, because when using "specifically stated" it has to be stated without a doubt that X is true. They couldn't. But how could they know that level, an abstract concept that they have no way of accurately measuring, is what determines how resilient each person is? He didn't just say "stated", he said "specifically stated". Which greatly narrows the scope of "stated".

Well this looks like it could get ugly........ Hats off to Zoraptor, takes balls to piss on the Steam anthill.

I just really don't think that's what he's saying, in that one particular regard. I dunno, maybe he could come in and clarify. I think you're confused by the specifics of the word "stated," and you're thinking that nowhere does someone necessarily tell you that such things happen. However, in D&D, the ruleset "tells" you how everything works. Basically, health represents your well-being, exactly like in the real world. Only, in D&D, you gain the ability to take a greater number of sword strikes to the torso without dying, unlike in the real world. So... health - based directly on reality (bleeding, unconsciousness, death, poison, abstracted forms of physiological damage, etc.). Increasing amounts of health - completely fictitious amendment to reality's health "system." I really believe that's all he's getting at (again, on that one particular note), and I agree with that, specifically. To quote him directly That statement declares that if something is not explicitly confirmed, then it must work as it does in the real world. As for D&D, yes the rules tell you, but the setting does not. No lore ever confirms that people get harder to kill as experience is gained, but it does happen. It is an implied fact, not an explicitly stated fact.

I'd honestly rather let the federal government have more influence over my home than the one located in Austin, TX. You know the guys who though that getting women considering an abortion to have to wait 24 hours and watch the screen while the doctor explains what the fetus is currently doing was more important than making sure schools were fully funded.

No it isn't. Real World laws do not determine how the PE universe operates, the PE universe laws do. So you have an easier time believing in mind control, various magical creatures, and soul powers being common place than in someone getting more powerful as they gain more power over their soul? Other than "I don't like it" or "It doesn't make sense using real world laws" how? How is attributing supernatural abilities to supernatural power bad? You haven't shown any evidence to support that claim. You haven't pointed to one system(with the equivalent of 5-th level D&D spells) where it has worked. You haven't explained how your system would accommodate increasing powers of spells and soul powers and still keep level 1 foes a legitimate threat. Yes I can. Unbalanced High-Level combat and reliance on resist X damage equipment/talents: Assuming the starting HP will allow a character to survive about 5 good sword hits(the amount you said your mod allowed). Good sword hit= 6-8 damage, HP= 30-40. At level 10, casters would be throwing around fireballs that deal 10-60 damage. On average, the party would be killed by just two castings of the spell, or enemy attacks after the spell has been cast. Sneak attacks would deal 6-36 damage, so rogues could ambush the party and kill them before they had a chance to react. Pretty much any high-level encounter would kill the entire party within 3 actions, unless they were equipped with resit X damage items or possessed resist X damage talents. Tedious low-level combat: HP starts at higher values to avoid characters dying quickly at later levels. Lets say about 100 HP. Enemies take at least thirteen good hits to take down, assuming max damage would be dealt and they were unarmored. Armored(who would probably make up the majority of foes) enemies would take longer, especially if you were not dealing max damage with each blow. Taking in to account that half the hits would likely be grazes, killing one foe at low-level would take some time, group even more. Because you don't get to assume what I want or put words in my mouth. Which you keep doing. Do I have to explain to you again that I don't want the mechanics to be exactly like they were in the IE games or have you finally realized that I do not want to see PE copypasta mechanics from the IE games.

No it isn't. People are not the same in the PE setting as they are in the real world. They are able to call upon the power of their souls to accomplish amazing(would easily be considered supernatural in real world) feats. Something can be true in the PE world without being specifically stated, because there may be no in-setting way of stating "X works differently here than in the real world" because they will have no knowledge of the real world. I believe what Trashman means is that the starting basis for a fantasy world is the real world. i.e. Here's a world, with ground and sky and people who breath air, and there's physics, etc. NOW, let's add in magic and change what needs to be. Let's make some other amendments to the nature of this world. Let's add in a race that doesn't exist (but is still based on facets of real-life humanity). Etc. I don't know of anyone who starts with 100% non-realistic stuff, then works backwards to tie it into our reality so that our realistic human brains can actually feel an affinity for it. That's pretty much the sole reason our fantasy worlds need verisimilitude. Without it, the entire world/lore would not be at all... intuitive, for lack of a better word. Trashman is saying that of X isn't explicitly stated, then it is the same as the real world. Which isn't true. In the D&D settings, it isn't ever explicitly stated that people get harder to kill as they become more powerful, but it happens. In fantasy settings there are both explicit rules and implied rules that may differ from the real world.

A fool? No, he's dedicated statist. If Obama is a statist then he is terrible at being one. Not only has he failed to gain control over all means of production, but he relinquished his hold on those he did possess.

He merely stated that the character was acting as a human shield for another, not that anyone was forcing them to do it. Really, either way, you'd probably still have some degree of a bond form. Whether you hate doing it, or love doing it, protecting someone and preserving their life on a constant basis is going to affect the regard in which they hold you. I got that, I want to see the opposite of that. Which is someone who would be ordered to take the brunt of the damage and become increasingly negative.

Getting the government "out of marriage" sounds like a good idea, but is too complicated to be accomplished anytime soon. For one(in the US) marriage is handled partially by the states some of which have very different polices. Trying to get the majority of Republicans in the south to agree to get out of marriage is an extremely difficult task,because the majority of them rely on campaigning against "the gay agenda" to get elected. Gays should have the right to get married. It is a contract that they should be able to enter with the partner of their choice if they choose to. Don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. As far as the destruction of religious liberty, seriously? The gays aren't going to swarm en masse to force you to marry them and/or sue you. The vast majority would just get married somewhere that would be willing to marry them, then go along and not bother you at all. Those that would try to sue you would not have much of a case, unless they can prove you denied their request for other reasons.