Update #74: The Mob Rulers: Wizards and Druids and our Partnership with Paradox

[tajerio]

 

 

Once Stun and Hiro have both posted multiple times in a thread, it's usually time to abandon ship.  I occasionally read on for the lolz.  

 

Thanks for highlighting my point tajerio. Unable to abandon the ship without taking one last swipe at others (Stun and myself) and Lephys liking your post.

 

 

No no no, you misunderstand me.  I am still most amused and thus not abandoning ship.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 

 

Once Stun and Hiro have both posted multiple times in a thread, it's usually time to abandon ship.  I occasionally read on for the lolz.  

 

Thanks for highlighting my point tajerio. Unable to abandon the ship without taking one last swipe at others (Stun and myself) and Lephys liking your post.

 

 

No no no, you misunderstand me.  I am still most amused and thus not abandoning ship.

 

 

No no no, you misunderstand me. I am not talking about abandoning the ship (with posting comments) and not reading the thread. I'm talking about still taking those swipes at people with your posts. Thus, still continuing to not just be part of the ship, but also contributing to this sinking further with your swipes at others. So while you may feel amused at taking cheap swipes and attacks at people, I'm sure others aren't.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

How dare you negatively comment on someone else's posting behavior, Tajerio. Gyah... your posting behavior is abhorrent!

[tajerio]

No no no, you misunderstand me. I am not talking about abandoning the ship and not reading the thread. I'm talking about still taking those swipes at people with your posts. Thus, still continuing to not just be part of the ship, but also contributing to this sinking further with your swipes at others. So while you may feel amused at taking cheap swipes and attacks at people, I'm sure others aren't.

 

I would love to contribute to the debate on save-or-die/instant death/however-we're-terming-them spells, but there simply isn't a debate.  It's a largely subjective slanging match, in which the participants all angrily talk past each other.  And that's been adequately demonstrated the last ten times the topic came up.

 

So when it comes up again, I choose to stoke the hilarious absurdity.  Is it kind?  No.  Do I pretend it is?  No.  Does it gratify me?  At this point, hell yes.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I would love to contribute to the debate on save-or-die/instant death/however-we're-terming-them spells, but there simply isn't a debate.  It's a largely subjective slanging match, in which the participants all angrily talk past each other.  And that's been adequately demonstrated the last ten times the topic came up.

 

So when it comes up again, I choose to stoke the hilarious absurdity.  Is it kind?  No.  Do I pretend it is?  No.  Does it gratify me?  At this point, hell yes.

 

Okay. So you troll and enjoy it. Thanks for the confirmation.

[tajerio]

 

 

I would love to contribute to the debate on save-or-die/instant death/however-we're-terming-them spells, but there simply isn't a debate. It's a largely subjective slanging match, in which the participants all angrily talk past each other. And that's been adequately demonstrated the last ten times the topic came up.

 

So when it comes up again, I choose to stoke the hilarious absurdity. Is it kind? No. Do I pretend it is? No. Does it gratify me? At this point, hell yes.

Okay. So you troll and enjoy it. Thanks for the confirmation.

If only the save-or-die debate could be characterized by such succinct and accurate summation.

 

I'll add, in fairness to myself, that I resist the temptation to poke the "hardcore" fanbase on just about all other topics but this one.

Edited April 9, 2014 by tajerio

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

If only the save-or-die debate could be characterized by such succinct and accurate summation.

 

I'll add, in fairness to myself, that I resist the temptation to poke the "hardcore" fanbase on just about all other topics but this one.

 

 

So again, you admit you troll this topic specifically and try to resist the temptation to poke the "hardcore" fanbase on just about all other topics. How about stop trolling and either don't participate in the discussion or ignore it completely. People are debating the issue and points are being raised and refuted. What the discussion doesn't need is someone like you jumping in trolling the discussion just because you get some enjoyment out of it.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Ineth]

B) I'm dead serious. If there's no such thing as an effect that's too extreme, I want the functional equivalent of balefire. If I see a spider queen, and a bunch of spider soldiers, I want to be able to balefire the spider queen, and all the spider soldiers cease to exist, too. It'll be a really high level spell, and you'll probably have to soften up the target's willpower for an actual success, so it'll be perfectly reasonable. It'll also be just as tactically deep of an option as actually killing all the spiders to death via conventional means and a lot more actions.

 

Well...

 

Provided that the availability of the combined "softening up the target's willpower + balefire" action is limited (i.e. requires spending multiple once-per-day spells or similar), and pulling it off requires investing...

1. a non-negligible amount of long- to mid-term strategic resources (i.e. character build, equipment, and spell-memorization choices) at the expense of other goals that could have been achieved, as well as...

    

2. a considerable amount of in-combat tactical resources (i.e. rounds wasted for casting the corresponding spells etc.) at the expense of other goals that could have been achieved (like actually defending yourself against the enemy's imminent attacks!!!!)

...so that trying this tactic against too powerful enemies will likely get you killed before you manage to pull it off, and on top of that most actual bosses are out-right immune to it, so that its usefulness becomes very situational (i.e. with some luck you'll be able to use it to win one medium-difficulty battle each day, at the expense of making all other battles slightly more difficult due to the aforementioned binding of strategic resources)...

 

...then yes, it just might be a "perfectly reasonable" combat option...  

[Stun]

Give me a second to sift through all the whining and pick out something worth responding to...

 

B) I'm dead serious. If there's no such thing as an effect that's too extreme,

In the IE games there wasn't, no. As those games were designed well (contrary to your incessant bashing). And how about a little perspective, now. Extreme is a relative term. It does exist in some RPGs. I'll give you two real examples.

 

Temple of Elemental Evil: ToEE has a weapon called Fragarach. Fragarach does double damage, gives you free attacks of opportunity against anyone who hits you, and it never misses.

 

Skyrim: In Skyrim, at fairly low levels (level 1, in fact), you can craft weapons that do 4000+ damage. You can then use those weapons, at will, to one-shot every enemy in the game with absolute 0 chance of missing. (no to hit rolls in Skyrim)

 

^That's extreme. In both cases there are no checks and balances in place. Thus they break their respective games' combat system. The same cannot be said for Death Spells in the IE games.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

I would love to contribute

So when it comes up again, I choose to stoke the hilarious absurdity.

Do I pretend it is? No. Does it gratify me? At this point, hell yes.

I'll add, in fairness to myself, that I....

I occasionally read on for the lolz.

This thread is All about YOU, Tajerio. JUST YOU. Do us Proud! And give us more! Of YOU!

 

LOL

Edited April 9, 2014 by Stun

[tajerio]

This thread is All about YOU, Tajerio. JUST YOU. Do us Proud! And give us more! Of YOU!

LOL

 

Well, since you asked, I can hardly disappoint you.

 

It seems to be difficult for some experienced veterans of the IE games to make a generalized argument about save-or-dies that works well.  Because people who've played through the Baldur's Gates scores of times just don't see a problem with those spells--they liked them in the first place, or the meta-knowledge that was required to get around them in the first place is so deeply ingrained that it doesn't even classify as meta-knowledge.  So some IE veterans are taking as granted that those spells enhance fun.  And if one starts from that premise, then the argument becomes ludicrously simple.

 

But of course it isn't that simple, because a number of people come from quite the opposite viewpoint--that a spell that causes instant death or doesn't on the basis of a single die roll is not fun.  The hang-up in the whole debate is that people are arguing from two incompatible assumptions.

 

For my part, I don't mind a save-or-die as long as I don't need to face the encounter with it once before having a general idea of how to counter it.  I don't think that save-or-dies inherently bring a whole lot else to the table in terms of a fun tactical challenge, but they don't inherently piss me off either.

[Stun]

Well, since you asked, I can hardly disappoint you.

 

It seems to be difficult for some experienced veterans of the IE games to make a generalized argument about save-or-dies that works well. Because people who've played through the Baldur's Gates scores of times just don't see a problem with those spells--they liked them in the first place, or the meta-knowledge that was required to get around them in the first place is so deeply ingrained that it doesn't even classify as meta-knowledge. So some IE veterans are taking as granted that those spells enhance fun. And if one starts from that premise, then the argument becomes ludicrously simple.

 

But of course it isn't that simple, because a number of people come from quite the opposite viewpoint--that a spell that causes instant death or doesn't on the basis of a single die roll is not fun. The hang-up in the whole debate is that people are arguing from two incompatible assumptions.

 

For my part, I don't mind a save-or-die as long as I don't need to face the encounter with it once before having a general idea of how to counter it. I don't think that save-or-dies inherently bring a whole lot else to the table in terms of a fun tactical challenge, but they don't inherently piss me off either.

First, I *never* make generalized arguments about anything in the IE games. Second, I see, and have pointed out repeatedly, several problems with death spells, but unlike you non veterans(?), I don't advocate that the solution to those problems is to toss the baby out with the bathwater and just get rid of death spells outright. Third, "not knowing" how to counter something is not a design flaw of a game, it's ignorance on the part of the player. (And this is the reason why developers have to dumb down their games btw - because you DUMB casual gamers don't read manuals, don't read spell descriptions, don't study the abilities of the class/race of the characters you're using and don't actually try to *learn* about the game you're playing. You also tend to be the loudest whiners and so, to appease you, developers have to make everything easy and in-your-face Obvious in games. Consequently, the rest of us have to suffer a DUMBED DOWN game with soft, comfortable, non-threatening combat.)

 

Lastly, I can see how someone like you wouldn't think that save-or-die spells bring a whole lot else to a game. After all, this is the same narrow mindset we get from Bioware fanboys who look at Dragon Age 2, with its 2-weapon-types-per-class system, and say: "hey! My warrior can wield 1-handed and 2-handed melee weapons. And that's more than enough.... the addition of Bows adds little else, therefore, we don't need for warriors to be able to wield Bows." <gag>

Edited April 9, 2014 by Stun

[Ffordesoon]

And there's the real problem. For one side, this is about save-or-die spells and whether or not they are in any way useful or fun.

 

(My own answer to that question is "It depends," by the way. In fact, I quite like save-or-die spells, including many of those found in the IE games. My problem is with the AD&D ruleset, which was not designed with computer games in mind and thus didn't always translate effectively, especially if you weren't already a tabletop player. I also have a problem with the excessively obtuse and arcane nature of the ruleset's specifics - which, again, works in a tabletop situation, but doesn't work in a computer game. Neither objection precludes save-or-die as a rule.)

 

But for the other side, this is about the struggle between the Filthy Casuals and the True Acolytes of Gygax. You can't win an argument when one side has prebuffed with a permanent Armor of Faith spell (heh).

[tajerio]

And there's the real problem. For one side, this is about save-or-die spells and whether or not they are in any way useful or fun.

 

(My own answer to that question is "It depends," by the way. In fact, I quite like save-or-die spells, including many of those found in the IE games. My problem is with the AD&D ruleset, which was not designed with computer games in mind and thus didn't always translate effectively, especially if you weren't already a tabletop player. I also have a problem with the excessively obtuse and arcane nature of the ruleset's specifics - which, again, works in a tabletop situation, but doesn't work in a computer game. Neither objection precludes save-or-die as a rule.)

 

But for the other side, this is about the struggle between the Filthy Casuals and the True Acolytes of Gygax. You can't win an argument when one side has prebuffed with a permanent Armor of Faith spell (heh).

 

First time I've been called a dumb casual, though.  So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.  Feels like a badge of honour.  

[tajerio]

 

Well, since you asked, I can hardly disappoint you.

 

It seems to be difficult for some experienced veterans of the IE games to make a generalized argument about save-or-dies that works well. Because people who've played through the Baldur's Gates scores of times just don't see a problem with those spells--they liked them in the first place, or the meta-knowledge that was required to get around them in the first place is so deeply ingrained that it doesn't even classify as meta-knowledge. So some IE veterans are taking as granted that those spells enhance fun. And if one starts from that premise, then the argument becomes ludicrously simple.

 

But of course it isn't that simple, because a number of people come from quite the opposite viewpoint--that a spell that causes instant death or doesn't on the basis of a single die roll is not fun. The hang-up in the whole debate is that people are arguing from two incompatible assumptions.

 

For my part, I don't mind a save-or-die as long as I don't need to face the encounter with it once before having a general idea of how to counter it. I don't think that save-or-dies inherently bring a whole lot else to the table in terms of a fun tactical challenge, but they don't inherently piss me off either.

First, I *never* make generalized arguments about anything in the IE games. Second, I see, and have pointed out repeatedly, several problems with death spells, but unlike you non veterans(?), I don't advocate that the solution to those problems is to toss the baby out with the bathwater and just get rid of death spells outright. Third, "not knowing" how to counter something is not a design flaw of a game, it's ignorance on the part of the player. (And this is the reason why developers have to dumb down their games btw - because you DUMB casual gamers don't read manuals, don't read spell descriptions, don't study the abilities of the class/race of the characters you're using and don't actually try to *learn* about the game you're playing. You also tend to be the loudest whiners and so, to appease you, developers have to make everything easy and in-your-face Obvious in games. Consequently, the rest of us have to suffer a DUMBED DOWN game with soft, comfortable, non-threatening combat.)

 

Lastly, I can see how someone like you wouldn't think that save-or-die spells bring a whole lot else to a game. After all, this is the same narrow mindset we get from Bioware fanboys who look at Dragon Age 2, with its 2-weapon-types-per-class system, and say: "hey! My warrior can wield 1-handed and 2-handed melee weapons. And that's more than enough.... the addition of Bows adds little else, therefore, we don't need for warriors to be able to wield Bows." <gag>

 

I honestly don't understand how you got from point A to point B here.  I say I'm indifferent to save-or-dies generally, and against save-or-dies that would be a total surprise to the player.  And then somehow you transmute that into my being a careless casual gamer?  How does that even happen?    

[Stun]

And there's the real problem. For one side, this is about save-or-die spells and whether or not they are in any way useful or fun.

 

(My own answer to that question is "It depends," by the way. In fact, I quite like save-or-die spells, including many of those found in the IE games. My problem is with the AD&D ruleset, which was not designed with computer games in mind and thus didn't always translate effectively, especially if you weren't already a tabletop player. I also have a problem with the excessively obtuse and arcane nature of the ruleset's specifics - which, again, works in a tabletop situation, but doesn't work in a computer game. Neither objection precludes save-or-die as a rule.)

 

But for the other side, this is about the struggle between the Filthy Casuals and the True Acolytes of Gygax. You can't win an argument when one side has prebuffed with a permanent Armor of Faith spell (heh).

Really? and what, pray tell, is the difference in application (or implementation) between Death Spells in table top AD&D and Death Spells in computer games like BG2?

 

I'm all ears.

 

 

I say I'm indifferent to save-or-dies generally, and against save-or-dies that would be a total surprise to the player.

A total surprise to the player? Anything can be a total surprise to a player if he doesn't bother to read the manual, learn the rules, read spell descriptions. What the hell kind of moronic caveat is that? Should we eliminate every game feature/effect (even one we're OK with) if it could conceivably come as a surprise to someone who fires up a new game he's never played before and mindlessly dives right in with his blinders on??

 

 

First time I've been called a dumb casual, though.

That's not true. I've called you one before. Edited April 9, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

But of course it isn't that simple, because a number of people come from quite the opposite viewpoint--that a spell that causes instant death or doesn't on the basis of a single die roll is not fun.

I don't even think that it isn't fun. It's fun to kill something instantly. But it's also fun to have infinite hitpoints, or cleave mountains in twain with a giant laser beam. My core argument is simply that it isn't as unique as almost anything else in the system. Thus, since the decision has already been made for such effects to be absent, the system isn't really suffering from its loss as much as people think.

 

I feel like some (not all) people advocating insta-death-type effects sort of forcibly twisted everything around into "there's absolutely no reason to have such things, at all, ever; they're not fun, they don't do anything different at all, and they never should've been in any game ever in the first place," and just pretended the argument was simply attacking such effects for no apparent reason and somehow trying to get them removed from the game.

 

But, *shrug*. It's clear, in here, that if you don't get the exact same ideas, down to a T, from everything that's been typed, then you've obviously got sub-par cognitive skills and deserve to have everything you've ever said picked apart as nonsense, rather than simply being corrected on some individual mistaken note in the midst of a lot of other notes.

 

Honestly, I feel like Stun and Hiro justify their spiteful moves by just assuming that everyone else is intentionally being spiteful from the get-go, and trying to win some battle or something. I mean, you suggest that some detail was misunderstood (in toneless text on the internet -- how could that be?!), and they act like it's a personal attack and retaliate. And you point out "I see that you're saying A, but I'm saying B, and I don't think you're considering B," and the response you get is "LOLZ! Oh, so I guess A doesn't exist, and B is the ruler of the universe?! WHAT NONSENSE!"

 

I don't know what to say anymore, and I think that just warrants further derision on their part, rather than any amount of constructive effort, whatsoever, in co-operating on finding the disconnect.

 

That is not a personal attack. I realize you guys may really be trying, but that's how it comes across, for what it's worth. And, when I go out of my way to clarify the tone of what I'm saying, and you just tell me that you know better than I do what I meant and what I didn't, that's just... not cool at all, really. I mean, what can I possibly say to that?

 

I've seen both of you make excellent, excellent posts... in threads where no one's really emphatically presenting an opposing perspective. It seems like the second someone just sees something from an angle you don't, it's all of a sudden some Thunderdome situation.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Honestly, I feel like Stun and Hiro justify their spiteful moves by just assuming that everyone else is intentionally being spiteful from the get-go, and trying to win some battle or something. I mean, you suggest that some detail was misunderstood (in toneless text on the internet -- how could that be?!), and they act like it's a personal attack and retaliate. And you point out "I see that you're saying A, but I'm saying B, and I don't think you're considering B," and the response you get is "LOLZ! Oh, so I guess A doesn't exist, and B is the ruler of the universe?! WHAT NONSENSE!"

 

The fact is Tajerio has admitted he trolls and enjoys it.  And I called him out on it and I called you out for liking his troll posts against people like myself. The one that's spiteful is you. You're the one that's being intentionally spiteful as there's no reason to like a troll post. Nice try to aim it on us but it won't work. And you continue with posts by attacking us with being 'spiteful'? The nonsense is all on your part and trying to deflect it on us.

 

 

I don't know what to say anymore, and I think that just warrants further derision on their part, rather than any amount of constructive effort, whatsoever, in co-operating on finding the disconnect.

 

That is not a personal attack. I realize you guys may really be trying, but that's how it comes across, for what it's worth. And, when I go out of my way to clarify the tone of what I'm saying, and you just tell me that you know better than I do what I meant and what I didn't, that's just... not cool at all, really. I mean, what can I possibly say to that?

 

 

No Lephys. All you do is backtrack and try to weasel your way out when you do get caught out.

[Lephys]

^ Exhibit A.

 

Oh well. I tried.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

^ poster who likes Troll posts.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

^ poster who likes Troll posts.

Feel better now?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Feel better now?

 

 

Do you?

[Lephys]

 

Feel better now?

 

Do you?

 

Not as much as if you'd answered the question. But, yeah, a little.

 

Let me ask you this:

 

Is there any possibility of an actual continued discussion here? Or are you just going to mock/berate everything I say?

 

I just presented a completely honest critique of how it is you've come across in this discussion, in case you didn't realize how it was being received and it was unintentional. To which you just respond that I'm lying, and a spiteful person who doesn't actually care about presenting constructive feedback so that we can work out communication.

 

Or, better yet, here's another honest question: If you were me, right now, what would you do? What would be the right thing to say, to which actual-you wouldn't respond with derision?

Edited April 9, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Not as much as if you'd answered the question. But, yeah, a little.

 

Let me ask you this:

 

Is there any possibility of an actual continued discussion here? Or are you just going to mock/berate everything I say?

 

I just presented a completely honest critique of how it is you've come across in this discussion, in case you didn't know and it was unintentional. To which you just respond that I'm lying, and a spiteful person who doesn't actually care about presenting constructive feedback so that we can work out communication.

 

Or, better yet, here's another honest question: If you were me, right now, what would you do? What would be the right thing to say, to which actual-you wouldn't respond with derision?

 

 

I've shown you how some people troll these forums and you 'like' their posts. I suspect, mainly because those posts are against those you disagree with. Someone trolls against Hiro or others you disagree with, you 'like' that post. And yet you accuse others of being spiteful and not yourself.

 

And what discussion would that be? The actual thread topic? The discussion that was being had prior to Ffordesoon's troll bait off topic post? And then when the topic did get back on topic and I was continuing the discussion with my posts, Ffordesoon continues to troll. Despite that I still continue with the discussion with another post even though Ffordesoon admits he doesn't want to engage in the topic and just attack people by back bench moderating. And what's your contribution when we try and get it back on topic? Your first post is a troll post as well. What was the point of this post? Why didn't you engage in the topic instead of swiping and attacking? Just seems you can't help yourself and want to take off where Ffordesoon left off which is what you did.

 

And a completely honest critique? I've also presented a completely honest critique of you. And you are lying when you won't admit to what I've shown, you dodge and weave and then fling that back onto other people.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

I'll take that as a "no." Good day.