Cantousent

You know, you look at those rules and see a weakness, where I look at them and see a chance to breath new life into the game. First of all, most of us ignore rules we find particularly odious. Hell, I usually axe rules I find somewhat onerous and take a long hard look at those I find mildly distasteful. Samm might have had a point in regards to setting. Changes in the campaign might effect the way others play in your sesssion, but the base rules have always been subject to rule zero. So specific rules aren't really a problem. I don't think it's a problem of rules at all. I think the real source of angst lies in the underlying philosophy. You don't want characters to be invincible. That's the crux, right? I happen to agree. I just don't see where the change in crits, in and of itself, constitutes the demise of permadeath. The only real upshot is that you're less likely to lose low level characters because of single rolls in battles against low level creatures. The threat of death is still there, but the pattern should look much like the mid level range of the current edition. Moreover, the changes I've seen thus far don't really change the challenge for the player nearly as much as they reduce the trials for the DM. A good DM will be able to adjust and balance the early campaign much easier with these rules. Now, having said all that, I don't mind confirmation rolls. I think of them as a way to build suspense during battle. It works wonderfully on both ends, both for the player and the monster. Sure, some folks grouse about losing a roll, but those same folks give a hymn of praise when the monster rolls a natural 20 only to fail the threat roll. In fact, I've given some weapons and monsters a special "sure crit" attribute by which a threat roll automatically succeeds in critting. It's fun for the players to have such a weapon and heightens the drama of fighting against one. As far as permadeath, however, that's another matter from crits altogether. I like permanent death. I don't mean I like to make the players suffer for resurrecting. I don't even give them the option until they're at least 8th level and usually not even then. Assuming I do provide an option for resurrection, the burden of attempting to revive a character makes it significantly easier to roll a new one. What that does is give the players a chance to keep their favorites, while discouraging them from thinking of death as just another number to crunch. There is no "WoW" effect for death in my games. If you go to the grave, you're probably not coming back by any means. Nothing in the crit rules would make much of a difference to the way I treat death other than make it a lot easier for the low characters to make it to mid levels. Frankly, I usually baby lowbies a little so they don't get the chop and have full party wipes at first or second level. I know some of you "real men" out there will gnash teeth and rend garments and curse my name, but you're wrong. The current rules are ridiculously stupid at low levels. I don't personally know of a good DM who doesn't end up having to take a personal hand in low level debacles from time to time. Changing the crit rules and giving the lowbies a bit of an edge is the right thing to do and the tasty way to do it.

The good news is that they arrested the thugs who were physically assaulting folks on the subway. I'm with Sand. They broke the law and now they should stand in judgment. If they'd just been stupid, then it would merely be offensive. When they transcend stupidity to assault others on account of religion, they moved from offensive to dangerous. Anyhow, the guy said "Happy Hanukkah?" Good Lord, even if his intent were to be a jerk (which strains belief in the first place) what would warrant such a response? Idiot sticks.

From a rules standpoint, I agree with the idea that change for its own sake is not always good and very often bad. It's certainly not my favorite course of action. From a business standpoint, it makes sense to change these things every decade or so. I feel for you guys as regards the campaign setting. It's just not a major issue for me. As regards the ruleset, I always sympathize with folks when they think the company is screwing up the rules. I just don't know enough yet to agree or disagree on that topic.

Games with interesting gameplay? I'll be honest, gameplay isn't that big of a concern for me. I mean I want adequate gameplay, which Bioshock has. But I don't care about the challenge of it. At some point in my life, I stopped enjoying challenging games and started looking for games that entertain me. I play almost everything on easy, and I love every minute of it. For a long time, I've played my first game on easy and then replayed on the next higher setting. To be honest, I like games that don't have or require difficulty settings. I still like a challenging game, but I've grown tired of super difficult games. The game should be just hard enough to create a pleasant gaming experience. For some games, like beating the score on minesweeper, the difficulty is part of the fun. For other things, like Bioshock, it isn't. Bioshock wasn't a hall of fame game, but it's certainly not as dismal as our Crashgirl friend claims. :Cant's broad grin icon:

You knew it was going down hill when they modded Gorth. hahahaha Just kidding, Gorth you ol' sod.

That's a great point. The worst you'll have to do is tinker with the old stats to produce a new Mystra. With as much as you guys like to play with the rules, I don't see why that's a problem.

What the hell are you talking about, doofus?

Hey, I like Bullock as much as the next guy, but he's posting here and so his comments are open to the exact same amount of criticism and scrutiny as any other member. Not only that, but I didn't think the comment was witty. On the other hand, I didn't find SFD's comments witty either. Mine sure as hell aren't witty. My comment: They shouldn't scrap the Forgotten Realms setting now. They should have scrapped it about 15 years ago. As far as the ROOLZ go, as opposed to the setting changes, I'll wait to see.

So you get to have your cake and eat it too, huh? Rat bastard. Too bad you're not local, DD. I wouldn't mind seeing a show. Now, as for me, I'm getting ready to demo my counter. I don't really know from where the term "demo" is described, but I supsect it's short for "demolish." Anyhow, I'm going to start with one section today and, if it goes well, I might just demo the whole thing. If it'll take me into this evening, I'll stop and finish tomorrow. Then, on Monday, they'll install my new counter. If I had the skills, I'd do the whole counter myself as well to save the money. Alas, I'm not going to take the chance on screwing up the job. Once the counter is done, however, I might just take a chance with the cabinets. That's just replacing the doors and drawers after all. PS If you manage to get that steampowered computer running, tale, let me know. I might buy one.

After Vista loaded, there was a driver already installed for the network card. It showed a cable plugged into the port, but could not identify the network. I went the abit and downloaded their latest. Same thing. I guess I can try again. Pain in the backside.

When I first installed Vista 64 on my system, my computer was not able to access the DSL router on my network. It's the same router and computer that accessed it properly on XP. At the time, I wasn't particularly concerned about the issue because I'm able to connect via wireless. However, I would rather use the cabled connection and I cannot at this time. I'm running Vista 64 using an abit motherboard with a built in ethernet port. I have a Verizon DSL router. Any ideas, cause I'm stymied by this one.

...But you love me because I have no personality, right?

Congrats Krookie. Go get 'em. :Cant's slapping Krookie on the back while offering him the non-alcoholic beverage of his choice icon: Okay, I'll share something really weird. Mine, unlike the previous couple of pages, is not a dream. Every now and then, when I'm home, I'll take a bath. This is especially true on lazy days like today. So, I'm sitting in the bathtub and one of my cats comes into the bathroom. They sometimes do that, no prob. I'm one of those big, teddybear emo kind of guys who likes cats and takes baths. So, the cat comes in. Fine. But instead of sitting on the close hamper near the tub like she normally does, she jumps on the edge of the tub. ...And starts drinking the bathwater. I'm like: "Get the hell out of here, you dumbass cat! What do you think I am? Soup?" So she runs away, but I hear her bathing herself in the hall. When I got out of the bath, I looked at their water, which I already knew was full because I changed it hours ago. Good Lord.

I agree on point one. I disagree with point two. In fact, I think things would have been far worse had the US withdrawn and then the folks who want to attack the US regardless of its decisions would have been in a better position to do so. Iraq seems like a complete disaster for the US right now. Even if things get better, I think folks will be hostile to the war for a long time. This is especially true since the Bush administration has done some incredibly stupid things. However, we should hope that Iraq develops into a viable democracy. That is in the best interest of virtually everyone, even the folks who claim it can't happen and secretly hope it doesn't because they hate the US more than they love peace. If Iraq does become a real democracy, with institutions and safeguards, then Bush will have been right in the long run. That, more than anything else, will be the basis for judging Bush in the centuries to come. Regardless of his inept and often confusing approach to any number of domestic and foreign issues. finally, I would be suspicious of anyone who painted a rosey picture of Iraq. On the other hand, that works the other way as well. To say that the bad things in Iraq come solely as a result of US intervention while nothing good has come of US action sounds more politically than reason motivated. Yes, the decision of the Iraqi population to oppose al Qaeda is the determining factor. Of course. ...But the best evidence is that the surge has been the most important factor in lending support to the Iraqis in ridding themselves of the unwelcome alQaeda terrorists.

For a long time, several years at least, I've had virtually no cursed items in the game. Oh, some of them can be called "cursed" in one way or another. Some of them even bind to the character in the tradition of old skool DnD. Still, most of the time, I provide items that are powerful but that have some sort of drawback. I've been seeing a lot more of this trend lately, and frankly I love it because it makes a decision to use a magic item far more meaningful for the player. I think the idea of maximum ability scores is also quite good. I haven't done it yet, but I can think of some great items that would be great candidates. As far as your real life example goes, I agree. If you'd said that some folks are strong while others are smart, I would have disagreed. Unfortunately, some folks are both weak and stupid while others are strong and smart. It's not fair, but it's true. However, your example makes sense because it underscores something I've observed over the years. The personality traits that are good about a person are often also bad. The person who is sensitive to others is often oversensitive as well. The strong, silent type is great in some circumstances, but his guarded and reserved demeanor is not always welcome. Someone might be great for conversation, but sometimes you just want them to shut up. I don't even think we should just make it a straight stat conditional. Because it's based on a numerical value, a min/max stat is easy to enforce, but your idea, taking into account personality, makes for some wonderful opportunities in other ways as well.

The door of my xbox, which serves as my DVD player, has a hard time openning or closing lately. I wonder if ME, combined with my ailing xbox, is a good excuse to buy a 360.

I don't think they'd invented the VIP thing before I became a moderator. Anyhow, what would your custom title be if you could have one, Pidesco?

Walsh, I really love reading your posts, but you're crazy. ...And you owe me a pint, also. rat bastard.

I asked that I have none or, failing that, whatever the normal title would be for my number of posts.

Or when you become a failed moderator. *Looks to the left* :sad: Aw, don't sweat it. You're not alone. :Cant's consoling icon: We'll live through this together, Hassat.

So children should be stoned for being unruly -as should anyone who missuses the word "god"-? Biblical law is both laughable and dangerous at the same time, if only because so many nuts believe in it... Please address my statements, not ones you've fabricated for the purpose of argument. If you are claiming Biblical law is "as valid as any other basis" you should address the material contained within Biblical law and not scoot around it. Do you or do you not acknowledge that stoning children is acceptable under Biblical law and how that makes it "as valid as any other basis?" What the hell are you talking about? So, the problem isn't that the fellow's basis is his religious beliefs, but that he doesn't adhere to them properly. ...And if he did, you'd have a better reason to be offended. Really? Come on. Now, with all those religious nuts who believe in it. I mean, let's look at this: "[a]t this time the right-wing of America is pandering to religious nuts, so they're about the same thing in my opinion...[/b]" So, you've come across a large number of these "religious nuts" who advocate stoning children? To repeat myself, don't put words in my mouth to further your argument. You're the one who brought up stoning, and then only as a cheap ploy to win the argument. Bash biblical law for being inconsistant all you want. Bash adherants to that law for the same reason. ...Just don't pretend that the site in question is dangerous for beliefs they have not stated. Furthermore, a person can advocate stoning children for unruly behavior. That's part of democracy. However, creating such laws and making them public policy isn't going to happen. ...And are you really saying that all those "religious nuts" would back such a policy? Really? This is a test, because I'd like to hear you state for the record that religious folks would vote for a candidate who includes child stoning as a plank in their election platform. Let's get back to a discussion of the ESRB and get away from this ridiculous, fear mongering talk about religious nuts stoning children.

But why link there, and not a "hive mind" type site, were anyone can add their own review, that is similar to all of the other review sites? I could live with this arrangement, personally. I think they'd still have to keep an eye on it for folks who really do advocate violent or dangerous behavior and not just something one person or another find offensive. Hell, I find a lot of stuff offensive, but I usually just shrug and figure that exposure to offensive comments and ideas is the price we pay for living in a free society.

So children should be stoned for being unruly -as should anyone who missuses the word "god"-? Biblical law is both laughable and dangerous at the same time, if only because so many nuts believe in it... Please address my statements, not ones you've fabricated for the purpose of argument. Parents will weigh these views and make an informed decision. By the way, could you please cite, in the material you've presented thus far, where the ESRB or links from its webpage advocate stoning children as a matter of public policy. I know you've gone a bit gonzo over the issue, but let's not fall into complete insanity. :Cant's disappointed icon:

If you are linking recourses that are "websites that provide information about "family friendly" video games" you should not link to a website that is rating things based of their "Christian friendliness." That is deceiving for parents who are simply looking at things that might be good for their child and do not care about whether a game breaks biblical law. I don't understand. We're not only trying to protect the children, but now we have to protect the parents? The parents' obligation is to read this material in order to make an informed decision. Do you contend that religion doesn't exist? Hmm. Since it's clear that religion does, indeed, exist, it becomes an issue for parents trying to weigh views about what their children see. "Blblical law" seems as valid as any other basis for weighing values. I was mostly unconcerned about this topic at the beginning, but I'm starting wonder why exactly this example somehow damages the public in any way. Sounds like your crusading to me. Parents will weigh these issues and ideas and come up with what should be an informed decision. That's how it's supposed to work. What you suggest actually amounts to censorship, since you don't object to the idea of "family friendly," only that religion should not have any say on the matter.

Well, that ought to make the low magic setting crowd happy. haha Seriously, though, I'm sure they'll have magic of some sort. They might even make it easier for your warlock/rogue build you love. :Cant's tongue in cheek grin icon: