My love of pie

[Joe]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I completely agree. There are some fanatical people out there. Heck, I might be considered one of them, given my love of the pie. My point is, shouldn't they be going to the chocolate-covered pretzel support meetings and professing their love of that delicacy instead of doing it at the pie meetings? And if they do attend pie meetings, should they show courtesy to the pie patrons and be disruptive with their love of the dipped pretzels?

That's my point entirely. I don't mind other desserts. All are welcome and meant to be partook in. As I said in my original post - I, and most everyone at my pie meetings, enjoy other desserts on a regular basis. But I think there needs to be a bit more respect when other desserts are brought up at support group meetings of a different "flavor" (pun intended).

We should all practice courtesy but we are all guilty of failing to do so to some degree. But that is an issue that involves slapping the parent of the adult 10-20 years ago. Seeing that Einstein made that impossible for us for the time being (pun intended), we are left to deal with what we have.

I think you should drop in on the cake lovers none the less.

Screw it...may even pay a visit to those crazy salty sweet freaks. You may meet someone to give you a slice of some warm cherry pie.

The whole point is to work out the taffy until it is pliable. Cakes are always better with an added egg. You can't dip a good pretzel into cheap chocolate. Ice cream is better the old fasioned way, and cookies are always best fresh from the oven.

Pies need just the right crust...and then it takes time...time in the oven until it is just perfectly golden brown and steaming with warm goodness.

But even then...

You got to let it cool just a bit.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Tadhg]

Fiffergrund wrote:
Cake is for power-gaming new-schoolers.

LOL!!

OMgosh is that funny!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Tadhg]

Lord Dynel wrote:
My mom used to make these baked onion, and then smother them in beef gravy...so good.

Onions, slow cooked in beef gravy/stock are the key to French onion soup*!! So says Julia . . .
*[Along with 3 TBs of Cognac]

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Traveller]

I like pi this much:

3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989...
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[Go0gleplex]

That's WAY too much PI! Besides...pie is only 2pi. If it was pi, it would only be a half a pie.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Orpheus]

I like pie, I like cake and I like chocolate-covered pretzels. All three are good and I will choose which one I feel like eating depending upon which flavor I have a hankering for that day.

If I go to a pie-centric forum, I don't do so because I want to talk about how awesome pie is because cake sucks. I really just want to discuss the virtue of pie, and all of the cool variations of pie.

The same thing goes for cake. I don't really care for discussions about how bland and boring pie is when compared to the awesomeness that is cake.

I recognize the fact that many folks pick a dessert and then eat it in exclusion of all others. I am also this way with the different variaties of both pie and cake (e.g., I'm a Black Forest man, through and through; but I don't really care of Red Velevt...at all.).

When visiting the pie-centred forum, I find it funny when some claim that cake is a "money grab" for putting out a new flavor, yet the pie zealots have gladly purchased five copies each of the various lots of the exact same pie baked, albeit with minor imperfections each time.

If I were to visit the cake forum and one of the top bakers were to visit and make announcement regarding how well their product was doing in spite of the recession, the pie zealots would probably accuse the individual of using corporate double-speak. Yet, the head pie baker's comments are taken at face value without a hint of bias being mentioned.

In the end, I don't give a rat's ass which dessert you prefer and if the dessert which others prefer is that big of a deal to you then perhaps you should consider what you are doing with your spare time.

It's f****ing dessert people!

[concobar]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I like Castles & Crusades. I go to a Castles & Crusades forum to talk about my love of Castles & Crusades with like-minded Castles & Crusades players. Of course, there are D&D3.5 players, D&D4E lovers, Sword & Wizardry lovers, Labyrinth Lord lovers, AD&D lovers (heh), True20 lovers, and (of course) the Palladium lovers, too. They have their own forums (I think) they visit, but their shared love of Castles & Crusades brings them to the Castles & Crusades forums, too. We all come to this forum because of our love of Castles & Crusades. We talk about Castles & Crusades, the different variations of Castles & Crusades, how we all like to play it, how Castles & Crusades makes us feel, and sometimes we talk about other games, too. But its mostly about Castles & Crusades.

But it usually never fails, someone in our forum brings up D&D4e. D&D4e this, D&D4e that. For one reason or another, D&D4e is brought up and the praises are sung for D&D4e. You know what? I like D&D3.5. I like D&D3.5 better than D&D4e. I dont even like D&D4e all that much, to be honest. But when Im with my Castles & Crusades forum and the topic of D&D4e comes up and how good it is I cant help bringing up my love of Castles & Crusades. Sadly this ends up turning the Castles & Crusades forums into a shambles when D&D4es praises are sung at the expense of another games I happen to like, I cant help taking up the standard of the games I happen to enjoy. If the D&D4e lovers can belittle games I like, then it should be tit for tat. I know its wrong of me, but I cant help it. Im there to talk about Castles & Crusades, damn it. If I cant talk about Castles & Crusades, Im sure as hell not going to talk about D&D4e. Unfortunately, by this time no one is having a good time talking about Castles & Crusades at the forum.

Why do I do this? Why do I feel this way? I dont know. I think part of it is because, like I said, Im there to talk about Castles & Crusades. I try not to talk about my other games (D&D3.5, among others) when Im at the Castles & Crusades forum. If I can slip into a momentary digression about another game thats one thing. Singing the praises of another game? Thats ridiculous at the Castles & Crusades forums. Itd make more sense if they went to another forum. I hear that some are very popular.

Another part of it might be when D&D4e comes up in the Castles & Crusades meetings, its usually done in a manner that belittles D&D3.5, other games or, worse yet, Castles & Crusades itself. I already think any and all D&D4e talk at the Castles & Crusades forum is totally uncalled for, but when comparisons are drawn to other games especially ones I like its upsetting. Its bad enough that comparisons get made between D&D4e and Castles & Crusades, D&D4e and D&D3.5, D&D3.5 and Castles & Crusades, Palladium and AD&D, but when its done in a way that praises one and belittles another, feelings get hurt. But then again, that goes back to the idea that the Castles & Crusades forum actually talk aboutyou knowCastles & Crusades?

Maybe its wishful thinking, but if I was the president of the Castles & Crusades forum, Id forbid other game talk at the forum. I mean, there are D&D4e forum out there. And AD&D forum. And Labyrinth Lord forums. Hell, theres even general Games forums, in case you have no idea what kind of game you want to play. I really have no problems with these other games I play most of them sometimes but at the end of the day, Im there to talk about Castles & Crusades. But Im not the president, and I cant forbid anything. People can talk about D&D4e, D&D3.5, Swords and Wizardry, or AD&D all they want.

I like Castles & Crusades. I go to a forum to talk about my love of Castles & Crusades with like-minded Castles & Crusades players. If you have a shared love of Castles & Crusades, youre more than welcome to come on down and join the discussion. If you come around to talk about D&D4e or D&D3.5 or Labyrinth Lord, Im not sure its the right place for you. Youre still welcome, of course, but try to show the Castles & Crusades lovers a bit of courtesy. Its be much appreciated.

lol... really?

[concobar]

Alright, my thoughts on this.

1. Hiding meaning behind allegory or double talk is absolutely weak sauce. say what you mean and mean what you say otherwise why should any one give credence to anything you say. Be willing to stand by your words.

2. I have purchased sixteen copies of the C&C PHB when all the various printings are combined. last year for Christmas I gave every person in my local game group a copy of the C&C PHB. I personally own one or more copies of each printing of the C&C PHB and the C&C M&T book. The local game store here in Kissimmee/Orlando only carries C&C because I requested it. No other game store I have visited in central florida such as Sci Fi city or Rhubarb games carried the game at all. I know because i do a bit of traveling for my WH40K tourneys.

I think my C&C credentials are as strong enough for me to be on these boards.

3. Siege. If you remove the siege rule from C&C you have basically a stripped down 3.5D&D with some AD&D tropes thrown in. I do not see this evaluation as being negative to C&C at all and one of the reasons I like C&C is because it is exactly as I have said, a simplified 3.5D&D. I believe my evaluation is absolutely objective. That said is the addition of the siege system and the alteration in how saving throws are performed really such a huge change that C&C is in a different category than is any other version or edition of D&D? Maybe that is a point we are not seeing eye to eye on, I perceive C&C as a version or edition of D&D not as a unique game based on that fact that changing a few mechanics does not make a new game. Case in point AD&D1e or AD&D2e.

4. Who here is not guilty of praising new or retro clone games as they have been released on these boards? If every person that talks about great games that are not C&C were to leave these boards there would maybe be three people left. Treebore would be gone as would Serleran Orpheus, Dynel and myself. More commonly on these boards is the usual suspects attacking D&D4e and claiming they are making fair comparisons but why? every time you set down to eat your favorite sandwich do you discuss how much you hate a different sandwich and all the things wrong with that sandwich as a way of justifying your love of the other? Thats pretty much what happens here.

We all like C&C presumably but only a few people on these boards feel the need to justify their decision to support C&C by attacking other game systems. I like C&C for its merits and do not feel the compulsion to justify my fondness for this interpretation of D&D by attacking another interpretation of D&D.

5. Trying to curtail dissenting views especially when those dissenting views are not the cause of the disruptions on these boards is again weak sauce du'jour. I notice a lot of word play and people talking out of the side of their mouths the last week or so and I am aware that in the two more recent threads I am the person that some of you feel should be banned or just leave. Maybe you are correct, maybe after all many of the threads on here would have been peaceful love fests composed of post after post of "I like C&C because D&D3.5 or D&D4e sucks!" Game "A" sucking in your opinion is not a reason to be fond of game "B" it is kinda weak.

Many of us understand that the comparison of pies to cakes to cookies is misguided and completely false. what we are talking about is apple pie compared to cherry pie or key lime pie. Every version of game I mentioned in my translation of your double talk post excepting palladium are so similar that they may as well just be the same game.

6. I am reminded of the time I rick rolled these forums by extolling the greatness of D&D4e and how infuriated some of the community got. Its been a while guys, and that whole thread was a joke.

7. If you are getting your feelings hurt because of something that is being said about a game you are fond of maybe you should get out more. You may have a problem. For my part of love playing the devil advocate and I feel a need to stand up for the truth and defend any thing or one from being unfairly slandered and attacked. Maybe that is why I defend the games I defend on these and other boards (hint.. I have defended C&C quite a bit on other forums)

Maybe I feel like being a fan of one game does not require me to hate or bad talk another game. I am also secure enough in my admiration of C&C and pretty much all the other versions of D&D that I d not require a group of talking heads to agree with my choice in game system and make me feel better about it.

[Go0gleplex]

Sure...it's fun until someone gets their eye poked out.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Lord Dynel]

concobar wrote:
Alright, my thoughts on this.

I can hear the wind blowing now.

Quote:
1. Hiding meaning behind allegory or double talk is absolutely weak sauce. say what you mean and mean what you say otherwise why should any one give credence to anything you say. Be willing to stand by your words.

I do say what I mean and mean what I say. Being smart enough to understand what allegory is and why it's used isn't weak sauce, it's intelligence. Not understanding it and why it's used is "weak sauce."

Quote:
2. I have purchased sixteen copies of the C&C PHB when all the various printings are combined. last year for Christmas I gave every person in my local game group a copy of the C&C PHB. I personally own one or more copies of each printing of the C&C PHB and the C&C M&T book. The local game store here in Kissimmee/Orlando only carries C&C because I requested it. No other game store I have visited in central florida such as Sci Fi city or Rhubarb games carried the game at all. I know because i do a bit of traveling for my WH40K tourneys.

I think my C&C credentials are as strong enough for me to be on these boards.

Anyone can be on these boards. Buying books does not a valued contributor to these boards make.

Quote:
3. Siege. If you remove the siege rule from C&C you have basically a stripped down 3.5D&D with some AD&D tropes thrown in. I do not see this evaluation as being negative to C&C at all and one of the reasons I like C&C is because it is exactly as I have said, a simplified 3.5D&D. I believe my evaluation is absolutely objective. That said is the addition of the siege system and the alteration in how saving throws are performed really such a huge change that C&C is in a different category than is any other version or edition of D&D? Maybe that is a point we are not seeing eye to eye on, I perceive C&C as a version or edition of D&D not as a unique game based on that fact that changing a few mechanics does not make a new game. Case in point AD&D1e or AD&D2e.

We don't see eye-to-eye on this. At. All. you view it as a stripped down 3.5 with the SIEGE engine and different saves. I see it as a completely different game. And while it borrows some of the d20 SRD, the differences in mechanics and feel make it different than every version of D&D. In some versions it shares a bit of the mechanics. In other versions, it shares a little of the feel. But in all it's way different to me.

Quote:
4. Who here is not guilty of praising new or retro clone games as they have been released on these boards? If every person that talks about great games that are not C&C were to leave these boards there would maybe be three people left. Treebore would be gone as would Serleran Orpheus, Dynel and myself. More commonly on these boards is the usual suspects attacking D&D4e and claiming they are making fair comparisons but why? every time you set down to eat your favorite sandwich do you discuss how much you hate a different sandwich and all the things wrong with that sandwich as a way of justifying your love of the other? Thats pretty much what happens here.

I think you're missing my point. It's the usual suspects that come here and sing the praises of 4e during a C&C conversation that confound me. Sure, we talk about how we can't wait for the new version of Warhammer, or M&M, or whatever. Those discussion are insular - a topic about Warhammer, or about M&M. those are fine. It's the ones that start as something else - and being the C&C boards, it's usually a C&C-related discussion - and turn into a conversation about how C&C is d20 based, or C&C is just another retro-clone, or C&C isn't the same/as good as 4e. Those are the conversations that I feel are rubbish and do not belong here.

Quote:
We all like C&C presumably but only a few people on these boards feel the need to justify their decision to support C&C by attacking other game systems. I like C&C for its merits and do not feel the compulsion to justify my fondness for this interpretation of D&D by attacking another interpretation of D&D.

This has nothing to do with the discussion. Unless by attacking other game systems, you mean when other game systems are brought up in a discussion of C&C. Of course other systems come up from time to time. And usually it's in comparison to another game system (which usually one of those systems is C&C). Simple comparisons are not what I'm talking about. It's the fanatic praise of game system X on the TLG boards. Wouldn't it make more sense to go to game system X's forums to sing their praises?

Quote:
5. Trying to curtail dissenting views especially when those dissenting views are not the cause of the disruptions on these boards is again weak sauce du'jour. I notice a lot of word play and people talking out of the side of their mouths the last week or so and I am aware that in the two more recent threads I am the person that some of you feel should be banned or just leave. Maybe you are correct, maybe after all many of the threads on here would have been peaceful love fests composed of post after post of "I like C&C because D&D3.5 or D&D4e sucks!" Game "A" sucking in your opinion is not a reason to be fond of game "B" it is kinda weak.

So then what are the cause of the disruptions? All the disruptions that I've noticed in the past month have been obtuse comparisons of C&C to retro-clones and posts about how glorious 4e is.

I don't really understand your Game A and Game B point. If I don't like Game A, it's because Game A sucks. Let's not beat around the bush - I dislike 4e because I feel it's crap. For all the reasons I've said in many, many posts. What does that have to do with a Game B? The only thing Game B has to do with anything, is it doesn't have the suckness Game A does. Game B stands on its own merits and that's why I would play it over Game A.

Many of us understand that the comparison of pies to cakes to cookies is misguided and completely false. what we are talking about is apple pie compared to cherry pie or key lime pie. Every version of game I mentioned in my translation of your double talk post excepting palladium are so similar that they may as well just be the same game.

Quote:
6. I am reminded of the time I rick rolled these forums by extolling the greatness of D&D4e and how infuriated some of the community got. Its been a while guys, and that whole thread was a joke.

Oh....just like my post here? Yes, your infuriation did bring back memories.

Quote:
7. If you are getting your feelings hurt because of something that is being said about a game you are fond of maybe you should get out more. You may have a problem.

Like you did here? I agree, you definitely do need to get out more.

Quote:
For my part of love playing the devil advocate and I feel a need to stand up for the truth and defend any thing or one from being unfairly slandered and attacked. Maybe that is why I defend the games I defend on these and other boards (hint.. I have defended C&C quite a bit on other forums)

But see, where do you feel you're the judge in what's being unfairly criticized? If I say "4e is not as immersive an rpg because they took out a lot of the skills that were flavorful," or "I don't like 4e because everyone had dailies/at--wills/encounter powers making them all feel like casters," where do you get off telling me that I'm being unfair in my criticism? The same power that deputizes you in being 4e's defender also anointed me in being it's judge, jury, and prosecution. Once you understand that I have as much right vilifying it as you do praising it, we'll get along just fine.

Quote:
Maybe I feel like being a fan of one game does not require me to hate or bad talk another game. I am also secure enough in my admiration of C&C and pretty much all the other versions of D&D that I d not require a group of talking heads to agree with my choice in game system and make me feel better about it.

You're right. It's doesn't require anyone to talk down another game. One game has nothing to do with another. That's one of my big points. Me liking 3.5 or C&C or GURPS or nWoD has nothing to do with me hating 4e. Or disliking True 20. Or Palladium. They all fail on their own merits. But when someone tells me, "Game A is so much better than Game B, because Game A fixes 16 broken things and is perfectly balanced," I'm going to tell you why Game B is better than Game A. Sometimes I won't. Sometimes I'll let that person go on believing that Game A is better. But sometimes, I won't. As long as that person has the right to tell me Game A is better, I feel I'm within my right telling him Game B's better. But then, so-called "defenders" come along and make a mess of things. If a game's so damn good, why defend it al all? I mean, can't it stand on it's own feet, instead of having people try to convince me it's good?

I've never had to defend C&C. I've informed people who didn't know anything about it. I've showed people the system and what it does. But I don't feel I've ever defended C&C. I don't think I ever had to.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Go0gleplex]

Guys. Please. For the sake of peace and tranquility everywhere.

Take the pissing match elsewhere.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Tadhg]

Yep, come on fellas . . yer both great contributors and supporters to C&C and these forums. Don't let the divide in communication of the "internets" foil yer enthusiams o' da game!!

I tend to agree wit da boat of youse, but . . allow for some agreement to disagree.

Peace Frog.

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Tadhg]

Oh yeah, I made the red onion pie tonight and twas fantabulous . . . so I'm switching to 4E. F off C&C!!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[concobar]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I can hear the wind blowing now.

Lol indeed. Ad hominem is a sign of a poor argument and I am more than willing to compare my life to yours education and career wise if you really want to. I mean since we are going to measure units and all and make personal attacks.

Lord Dynel wrote:
I do say what I mean and mean what I say. Being smart enough to understand what allegory is and why it's used isn't weak sauce, it's intelligence. Not understanding it and why it's used is "weak sauce."

I got it. I just think it would have been a bit more mature had you just said what you meant instead of hiding behind allegory.

Lord Dynel wrote:
Anyone can be on these boards. Buying books does not a valued contributor to these boards make.

You don't think supporting the TLG crew monetarily makes a person a valued contributor? These boards would not exist were it not for people buying product.

You are right that anyone is allowed on these boards but thats not what you wish. You would like to curtail all conversation you do not approve of and censure speech, that is pretty weak sauce.

Lord Dynel wrote:
We don't see eye-to-eye on this. At. All. you view it as a stripped down 3.5 with the SIEGE engine and different saves. I see it as a completely different game. And while it borrows some of the d20 SRD, the differences in mechanics and feel make it different than every version of D&D. In some versions it shares a bit of the mechanics. In other versions, it shares a little of the feel. But in all it's way different to me.

Put your money where your mouth is. Write us up a essay and how C&C is different than other versions of D&D. Try to make it objective if you can... Use the SOAP method. It helps.

Lord Dynel wrote:
I think you're missing my point. It's the usual suspects that come here and sing the praises of 4e during a C&C conversation that confound me. Sure, we talk about how we can't wait for the new version of Warhammer, or M&M, or whatever. Those discussion are insular - a topic about Warhammer, or about M&M. those are fine. It's the ones that start as something else - and being the C&C boards, it's usually a C&C-related discussion - and turn into a conversation about how C&C is d20 based, or C&C is just another retro-clone, or C&C isn't the same/as good as 4e. Those are the conversations that I feel are rubbish and do not belong here.

And as I said most of the time these threads that turn into debates start with one of the zealots attacking D&D4e out of the blue. I am missing the numerous threads that have been started to sing the praises to D&D4e but i see the C&C threads that devolve into edition bashing or D&D4e bashing in the name of justifying your fondness of C&C. its weak.

Lord Dynel wrote:
This has nothing to do with the discussion. Unless by attacking other game systems, you mean when other game systems are brought up in a discussion of C&C.

Most of the time they are brought up by you or another specifically to attack them. rarely if ever are they brought up in different circumstances.

Lord Dynel wrote:
Of course other systems come up from time to time. And usually it's in comparison to another game system (which usually one of those systems is C&C). Simple comparisons are not what I'm talking about. It's the fanatic praise of game system X on the TLG boards. Wouldn't it make more sense to go to game system X's forums to sing their praises?

I think you are confused about exactly who is being the fanatic here.

Lord Dynel wrote:
So then what are the cause of the disruptions? All the disruptions that I've noticed in the past month have been obtuse comparisons of C&C to retro-clones and posts about how glorious 4e is.

Get over it maybe? Most of the disruption I have seen lately are started by you randomly bashing 4e in C&C threads that should never have involved D&D4e.

Lord Dynel wrote:
I don't really understand your Game A and Game B point. If I don't like Game A, it's because Game A sucks. Let's not beat around the bush - I dislike 4e because I feel it's crap. For all the reasons I've said in many, many posts. What does that have to do with a Game B? The only thing Game B has to do with anything, is it doesn't have the suckness Game A does. Game B stands on its own merits and that's why I would play it over Game A.

The point is you seem incapable of discussing the merits of C&C or D&D3.5 without attacking D&D4e. why?

Lord Dynel wrote:
Oh....just like my post here? Yes, your infuriation did bring back memories.

I wasn't infuriated. I actually think that post was pretty hilarious and it pretty much expressed my thoughts concerning your inability to be objective and your repeated intellectual dishonesty concerning C&C, D&D3.5, and D&D4e

Lord Dynel wrote:
Like you did here? I agree, you definitely do need to get out more.

Again, my feelings were not hurt, I did not take it personal, I did not make further posts trying to attack you and hiding behind allegory. I do not post edition war posts and then try to hide behind a disclaimer that my blatant attack on another board member or another edition of D&D was a joke. I do not do those things because I choose to act like a grown man and stand by my words.

Lord Dynel wrote:
But see, where do you feel you're the judge in what's being unfairly criticized? If I say "4e is not as immersive an rpg because they took out a lot of the skills that were flavorful," or "I don't like 4e because everyone had dailies/at--wills/encounter powers making them all feel like casters," where do you get off telling me that I'm being unfair in my criticism?

Point one would be that your complaints are subjective.

Point two would be that you are being a hypocrite by complaining about a lack of skills in D&D4e and being a zealot for a game that does not have skills at all.

Point three would be that I expect people who run and play these games to be able to modify the games to better fit their desires. I added the craft skills to D&D4e when I played. Why didn't you?

Point four I have much more experience with D&D4e than you. It is clear that you do not understand some basic concepts and mechanics of the game which is all the more funny considering your love of D&D3.5

Lord Dynel wrote:
The same power that deputizes you in being 4e's defender also anointed me in being it's judge, jury, and prosecution. Once you understand that I have as much right vilifying it as you do praising it, we'll get along just fine.

This is where you are wrong. Making accusations about a game that you do not play on a forum that is devoted to another game is more weak than defending a game. Fact is if no one on these boards attacked D&D4e then no one would be compelled to defend D&D4e.

In short you are the antagonist in this discussion, you started it with your poorly backed up opinions of a game you do not have very much experience with and your palpable hatred for said system and its creators. If you devoted your time to talking about and improving C&C there would be no problem.

Lord Dynel wrote:

My captain would kick your captains old bald behind.

Lord Dynel wrote:
You're right. It's doesn't require anyone to talk down another game. One game has nothing to do with another. That's one of my big points. Me liking 3.5 or C&C or GURPS or nWoD has nothing to do with me hating 4e. Or disliking True 20. Or Palladium. They all fail on their own merits.

If this were true why is it that you always bring D&D4e into the discussion? I am not doing it you are doing it.

Lord Dynel wrote:
But when someone tells me, "Game A is so much better than Game B, because Game A fixes 16 broken things and is perfectly balanced," I'm going to tell you why Game B is better than Game A. Sometimes I won't. Sometimes I'll let that person go on believing that Game A is better.

/shrugs

I think its nice that sometimes you will allow people to continue to believe what they believe... tell me, how many people have you actually managed to change the opinions of? You haven't changed mine and I am pretty darn agnostic when it comes to games. It is pretty fair to say that you do not even understand the game these forums are dedicated to. maybe when you write your essay on how C&C is a unique game from every other version of D&D i will be enlightened.

Lord Dynel wrote:
But sometimes, I won't. As long as that person has the right to tell me Game A is better, I feel I'm within my right telling him Game B's better. But then, so-called "defenders" come along and make a mess of things. If a game's so damn good, why defend it al all? I mean, can't it stand on it's own feet, instead of having people try to convince me it's good?

This is exactly my point.

Lord Dynel wrote:
I've never had to defend C&C. I've informed people who didn't know anything about it. I've showed people the system and what it does. But I don't feel I've ever defended C&C. I don't think I ever had to.

Every time you justify your fondness for a game be it C&C or what have you by comparing it to another game and attacking that other game you are in fact defending and justifying your choice in game.

[concobar]

Rhuvein wrote:
Oh yeah, I made the red onion pie tonight and twas fantabulous . . . so I'm switching to 4E. F off C&C!!

Easy now buddy, lets not do anything too hasty. even when i was running D&D4e i always took my C&C stuff to the games. I really liked some of the modules and have ran them with C&C, D&D4e and BECMI/LL.

[Lord Dynel]

Rhuvein wrote:
Yep, come on fellas . . yer both great contributors and supporters to C&C and these forums. Don't let the divide in communication of the "internets" foil yer enthusiams o' da game!!

I tend to agree wit da boat of youse, but . . allow for some agreement to disagree.

Peace Frog.

Agreed. I don't want this to be taken personally. I haven't on my end. But I can't speak for you, conc. I've agreed with you on the past and disagreed with you as well. If you taken this disagreement between us personally, I apologize. I was taking a few jabs in the above post, but nothing I felt was too nasty. If you interpreted that way, good sir, please forgive me.

But I do think it's time to agree to disagree. Maybe we can come to an agreement - should we post any particular likes or dislikes about a given edition (be it 3.5 or 4, specifically), maybe one shouldn't rebut the other. At least for a while, until the tension settles. Maybe turning the other cheek in this matter is wiser. Or maybe, for the sake of both our sanities, maybe we shouldn't participate in any edition-specific conversation on these boards for a bit. I'm all for some C&C-focused conversation, anyway!
So, I am willing to bury the hatchet with you, brother concobar...are willing to do the same?
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[concobar]

Lord Dynel wrote:
Agreed. I don't want this to be taken personally. I haven't on my end. But I can't speak for you, conc. I've agreed with you on the past and disagreed with you as well. If you taken this disagreement between us personally, I apologize. I was taking a few jabs in the above post, but nothing I felt was too nasty. If you interpreted that way, good sir, please forgive me.

But I do think it's time to agree to disagree. Maybe we can come to an agreement - should we post any particular likes or dislikes about a given edition (be it 3.5 or 4, specifically), maybe one shouldn't rebut the other. At least for a while, until the tension settles. Maybe turning the other cheek in this matter is wiser. Or maybe, for the sake of both our sanities, maybe we shouldn't participate in any edition-specific conversation on these boards for a bit. I'm all for some C&C-focused conversation, anyway!
So, I am willing to bury the hatchet with you, brother concobar...are willing to do the same?

Of course I am, I think we can both agree that we like C&C and perhaps we should discuss the merits and flaws of that game with out feeling the need to make comparisons to other systems unless those comparisons are made in a way that would be positive to the discussion like importing AD&D thief skills or what have you.

[Lord Dynel]

concobar wrote:
Of course I am, I think we can both agree that we like C&C and perhaps we should discuss the merits and flaws of that game with out feeling the need to make comparisons to other systems unless those comparisons are made in a way that would be positive to the discussion like importing AD&D thief skills or what have you.

What?? Are you effin' crazy? Importing the thief skills into the greatness that is C&C? Are you nuts??

Just kidding!! I've actually been very tempted to import the 2e thief skill system into C&C. I totally loved the point allocation system...but I digress.

I agree with your post 100%. I love C&C and there's plenty to talk about with that system to keep us both busy for quite some time. I agree that other systems inclusion should be in a positive and constructive manner.

Even if it's a non-C&C system conversation (like the ones in the "Other Games" section), I'll either try to be a constructive poster - like always - or at the very least I'll be courteous...or absent from the conversation altogether.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Orpheus]

concobar wrote:
Easy now buddy, lets not do anything too hasty. even when i was running D&D4e i always took my C&C stuff to the games. I really liked some of the modules and have ran them with C&C, D&D4e and BECMI/LL.

Holy shit! I actually did this tonight while running Dragora's Dungeons for 4th Edition.

When the guys came upon a gelatinous cube, the warlock asked if the cube had any weaknesses. I was thinking, "well, sure they do, but what?" Neither the write-up in the module nor the Monster Manual listing had anything.

I just happend to have my copy of Monsters & Treasure sitting there and I checked it: "Aha! Partial immunity to cold! I knew it!" One of the players asked me what that book was so I told him.

A lot of talk tonight drifted towards a discussion of The Tomb of Horrors, and I think that when this module is over we will take a break and play something else. I'm considering mentioning running some old modules with C&C after our conversation tonight and due to the great help that M&T provided for a moment.

Well, either that or D6 Star Wars.

[concobar]

Orpheus wrote:
Well, either that or D6 Star Wars.

If only you lived in orlando...

I love me some WEG D6 star wars.

I ran Keep of the borderlands with C&C. worked flawlessly I use the knight class from C&C PHB in my LL AEC games.

[Lord Dynel]

I haven't played D6 Star Wars in I don't know how long. We've been enjoying Saga Edition down here.

Nice story, Orpheus! Good to see the C&C books come in handy even when playing a different rpg!
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Orpheus]

Yeah, I haven't played D6 Star Wars in years, but one of my players just goes on and on about it at the table. He and I are the only two of us who have actually played. The others are up for it, but man are there so many games that I want to play and get going.

Deadlands: Reloaded (Savage Worlds is just plain awesome and I think of it as being a nice middle ground between something like C&C and 4th Edition: enough detail to make characters different and allow for tactical combat without getting bogged down into too much detail which 4th Edition, admittedly, can do at times)

Pirates of the Spanish Main (Savage Worlds; my kid watches Pirates of the Caribbean a lot, so I often find myself wanting to do something with pirates. Argh!!!)

Space 1889: Red Sands (should be released at GenCon, to which everyone in my group is going but me, so hopefully I can get them to pick up a copy for me when they open up pre-orders; apparently it's going to be at GenCon and then unavailble in regular distribution channels for a while)

Castles & Crusades (probably running some D&D/AD&D modules for some good fun without too much fuss after our 4E sessions; either that or doing some C&C in Aventurien if I can get something worked up by then; then again, I may just want a nice rest from some fantasy....)

Aventurien with Savage Worlds (I found a document online for converting Das Schwarze Auge to Savage Worlds; couple that with the Fantasy Companion and we're good to go)

Realms of Cthulhu (Yeah, Savage Worlds again; hopefully, I can get the guys hooked on Savage Worlds, because it's a great system and there are just so many good settings available for it)

@Lord Dynel: I own a few of the Star Wars Saga Edition books, and a fair amount of the mini's. While I really enjoy Saga Edition, I just have a ton of the old adventures at hand to use and I just don't really feel like converting them. That was the cool thing about D6 Star Wars: the lack of levels. Any character could play any adventure, but an advanced character could do more within a round to dispatch the bad guys.

I need to play something that will really get my players thinking less along the lines of let's-kill-it. The module we're playing right now is intended to be old school-esque module to really test the mental acumen of the players rather than their characters' abilities.

Last night there were several instances where I just wanted to stand up and yell, "The portal is open and that damn gelatinous cube will not reach you in time to keep you from getting there. Just f***ing run!!!!"

I may have to kill someone to teach them a lesson.

[concobar]

Orpheus wrote:
I may have to kill someone to teach them a lesson.

That happens a lot in my game.

Things said around the game table since I started running this campaign

"Its only a ten foot jump over the falling block trap, I can do it" SQUISH.. reroll. This happened twice.

"I will stay behind in town and meet the rest of the party tomorrow at the dungeon" ATE BY A TROLL. reroll

"Everybody stand back while I set off this trap, how bad could it be?" Poison gas trap filling 10x10x10 area. thief fails save... reroll

Cleric to fighter "I can heal you if you need"

Fighter "I am not that wounded (4hp of 7hp total) and they are just goblins.

"there are six of us and only ten goblins, this should be a breeze, get them!" Goblin rolls a crit hit with his spear on the fighter doing 7 damage. fighter dies.. reroll

"We are only level one, no way that is a real hill giant it must be an illusion" Thrown boulder crushes the thief "RUN!!!"

ect ect

[Joe]

WAIT JUST ONE COTTON PICKIN MINUTE!

Does this mean we are not REALLY talking about food after all?

Well that just stinks! now i don't know what the heck is going on!

Courtesy sounds like the key here. If folks practiced that they would not need mile long posts obscuring thinly veiled swipes. If someone is haranguing and harassing (even in a "respectful" manner) is it any less harassing?

You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake so get over your bad selves already.

Also, despite the flavor and quality of the recipe, I think it is the fact that it was shoved down throats and forced all the other cafeterias to throw away their food. Whether it tastes good or not, no one wants it stuffed down their gullet.

What kind of "Leading" food outlet forces the others to toss perfectly good pie for some carab and nutrasweet concoction?

The kind that will follow the last party that decided "let them eat cake."
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[serleran]

Time is a piece of wax falling on a termite that's choking on a splinter.

Now, that is a metaphor or five worth being said.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Sir Osis of Liver]

serleran wrote:
Time is a piece of wax falling on a termite that's choking on a splinter.

Now, that is a metaphor or five worth being said.

Such imagery...I'm still trying to wrap mind around that one.

[capitalbill]

serleran wrote:
Time is a piece of wax falling on a termite that's choking on a splinter.

Now, that is a metaphor or five worth being said.

"In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey..."
_________________
The cheese stands alone...