"Runescarred Berserker" Too good to be true?

[Masakan]

Masakan, please stop tilting at straw men.  Please. 

D&D is an action-adventure game.  It is obviously an action-adventure game.  It has ever been thus.  Indiana Jones is not a raging psychopath.  He is not a chaotic evil murderous maniac.  Yet, he kills plenty of folks.  And, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Nazis are at least no worse than demons from the Nine Hells. 

If I'm ever in a campaign that manages to essentially be "Raiders of the Lost Ark," the Game, you're welcome to come over and call it lazy and a shitty campaign and run by bad DM be murdered to death by everyone at the table for shitting on something that is totally awesome.

Yeah sorry but any campaign you would be interested in would likely be one that i want nothing to do with.
Besides, I prefer to play campaigns where i actually have to think, but if turning your brain off is what it takes for you to have fun then your more then welcome to do so if you like. I know coming up with strategy and going through real thought processes is difficult sometimes not everyone can do it well.

[Nanshork]

Masakan, stop being an ass.  If you would never be interested in pretty much any official campaign that's your business, but if you're going to start trolling other people then you're just going to start getting ignored and people won't want to answer the questions that you keep having.

[Masakan]

Masakan, stop being an ass.  If you would never be interested in pretty much any official campaign that's your business, but if you're going to start trolling other people then you're just going to start getting ignored and people won't want to answer the questions that you keep having.

Yeah your right Sorry for thinking i was allowed to be different. I won't do it again promise.

[Argent Fatalis]

Masakan, you have had a deplorable habit of being outright offensive to the board's members since you arrived, claiming anything and everything that was not your specific brand of "approved flavor" or what-have-you was wrong and then attacking the individuals on a personal level, mostly because anything they presented was in some way optimized or even just contrary to your personal views. In all, I am quite impressed you have received almost no retaliation despite your blatantness.

There really is no doubt that at its core, without all the fluff, that Dungeons and Dragons - particularly the edition this refers to - works on a level where it is steeped in the combat and conflict portion. It is the duty of the characters and Dungeon Master to make it anything but just a mechanical representation of that and actually include story and plot; even without it you could argue it is still Dungeons and Dragons, whereas the other way around everyone is just sitting around playing Magic Tea Party.

Diplomacy is as much a weapon as anything else in Dungeons and Dragons and while it might not deal hit point damage, it is very much in vein with your save or die or save or lose of Hold Person, Charm Person, and other similar fare. Bards and rogues would still have ample reason to exist if Dungeons and Dragons were just a combat game and nothing more and arguing otherwise that they would not be is just silly. I needn't mention that rogues can Sneak Attack or a myriad of other functional things or that the bard's spells selection and chassis along with abilities and feats can make them into a war machine; those points are moot and if you are curious, there's entire handbooks devoted to making those classes more than viable.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a campaign that is about "kill the monsters, get the stuff". In fact, while I was never around for any edition prior to Third Edition, I am fairly certain that archetype of play very much was and still is. The issue is not that, but my aforementioned assessment that you are attacking anything that does not meld with your notions, be it one person's or almost the entire board's.

[Amechra]

That's the problem - if you're waiving those requirements, you aren't playing an Exalted character.

Yeah, just a fun functional one.

Precisely!


Mary Seacole is besides the point - in your "standard" D&D campaign, your job is killing things and taking their stuff (in that order). That's what the system expects you to do. If a player shows up wanting to play Mary Seacole, the DM is going to have to hash stuff out that will make the game fun for them.

At that point, why not just pick up FATE or something where stuff like pacifism or vows of poverty don't break basic assumptions of character progression?

Then just play evil characters all the time. If killing things and taking their loot is all you care about then just rampage the country side and dont give 2 shits about anyone but yourself. sounds like it would fit you perfectly.

Besides if what you say is true and thats all that matters in DnD. Things like diplomacy would be completely pointless, bards would lose any real use outside of being inspire courage engines, and rouge would be considered even worse then they are now.

Besides a Campaign, that's whole focus is Loot, Pillage and kill, where you just have monsters thrown at you without any forethought or strategy just comes off as lazy and is a shitty campaign run by a bad DM.

Masakan. Let me put this in small words for you.

If you want to play an RPG in a purely non-violent manner, D&D 3.5 actively fights you. Combat is literally what the grand majority of your options are focused around. Unless you start fiddling around with alternate systems or spellcasting, everything else is basically a die roll.

What's that? "But roleplaying"? Then play a fucking game that works with you. Don't pull a screwdriver out of the toolbox and yell at people when they tell you that, no, it isn't a hammer, and that using it like one is not the best use of your time.

D&D is one of the best screwdrivers on the market. The screws in question just so happen to be "killing things" and "taking their stuff". It simply isn't the best tool for driving the nails of "non-violent social interaction" into a wall.

At the very least, FATE is free and ultra-hackable.

In all, I am quite impressed you have received almost no retaliation despite your blatantness.

That's because yelling at someone who comes off as a pouty, entitled 13-year-old feels overly cruel. You have to be patient with kids, since they really don't know any better.

[Masakan]

Masakan, you have had a deplorable habit of being outright offensive to the board's members since you arrived, claiming anything and everything that was not your specific brand of "approved flavor" or what-have-you was wrong and then attacking the individuals on a personal level, mostly because anything they presented was in some way optimized or even just contrary to your personal views. In all, I am quite impressed you have received almost no retaliation despite your blatantness.

There really is no doubt that at its core, without all the fluff, that Dungeons and Dragons - particularly the edition this refers to - works on a level where it is steeped in the combat and conflict portion. It is the duty of the characters and Dungeon Master to make it anything but just a mechanical representation of that and actually include story and plot; even without it you could argue it is still Dungeons and Dragons, whereas the other way around everyone is just sitting around playing Magic Tea Party.

Diplomacy is as much a weapon as anything else in Dungeons and Dragons and while it might not deal hit point damage, it is very much in vein with your save or die or save or lose of Hold Person, Charm Person, and other similar fare. Bards and rogues would still have ample reason to exist if Dungeons and Dragons were just a combat game and nothing more and arguing otherwise that they would not be is just silly. I needn't mention that rogues can Sneak Attack or a myriad of other functional things or that the bard's spells selection and chassis along with abilities and feats can make them into a war machine; those points are moot and if you are curious, there's entire handbooks devoted to making those classes more than viable.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a campaign that is about "kill the monsters, get the stuff". In fact, while I was never around for any edition prior to Third Edition, I am fairly certain that archetype of play very much was and still is. The issue is not that, but my aforementioned assessment that you are attacking anything that does not meld with your notions, be it one person's or almost the entire board's.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know being Blunt and straightforward was the same as being "Offensive"
If you want offensive I would say something like "Your free to have opinions, but your opinions are still bad"
This is the same problem i had at gianttip, not because no one agreed with me or anything. I couldn't care less about that. I'm not trying to be offensive, I am DIRECT, to the point, no sugar coat, no bullshit.
But the fact that with the way everyone is talking, the only thing that matters is how easily you can kill people and take their stuff.
And by that logic the only classes that are worth anyone's time to play are God Wizards, DMM Clerics and Planar Shepard Druids

I mean why bother accepting quests and such, when if all you care about is getting loot you just kill the mayor and take his stuff.
No point in trying to peacefully quell a civilian uprising when you can just mow them down with ease right?
I mean realistically if all you care about is getting paid your not gonna really think or care about what you do to get it.
In a good number of campaigns I've played i noticed that a lot of things we wanted we could have gotten the same outcome by NOT killing indiscriminately. But everyone wanted to fight and it often bit us in the ass later on.

I mean to be perfectly honest, I could very easily make a character that could make every encounter completely redundant from day one...but that would simply be too easy. (And very discourteous to the DM)

Like i said if all you care about is killing and looting, that's your preference. Just don't get your panties in a knot when someone challenges or questions that mindset/preference. Not everyone likes a kill everything in sight campaign as theres more than one path to the same goal. and No I'm not saying it should be a purely non violent campaign thats stupid.

[Jackinthegreen]

The combat and such get a lot of emphasis because those rules are both extremely number crunchy and tend to make up the majority of 3.5's text.  The roleplay aspect of the game is much more freeform.  I would expect a lot of the regular and long time people on this board are more comfortable with the numbers part while the roleplaying is just kinda assumed as "It'll happen, try to be creative and interesting, but if you can't do that see if you can fall back on rolling a die so there's no ambiguity in what's going on."

The roleplay notes here often don't go further than "Try not to be an asshole."

But the Book of Exalted Deeds has its own clusterfuck of roleplay rules, and that book is what defines Exalted.  Any deviation from what it defines means you're not playing by the written rules.  For some people there is no room for saying "This is my definition of Exalted" if it does not conform to how the BoED defines it.  To them, if you're changing the rules even a little then you're not playing D&D.  I hope no one in this forum is so rigid in their thinking, but it is possible.  Personally, I say "Use what works for you even if you have to change some rules, but always remember that you are changing the rules and much of the discussion will focus on what's in the book without regard to how people have modified it for their own ends."

About the only advice I can give regarding that is reading and rereading the BoED and then coming back and saying something "I know the BoED says X and Y, but I do not personally find those things to be fun or interesting if I'm playing a game meant for entertainment.  I prefer Z and W."  Pages 5 to 20 in the BoED go into some of the most detail about what Exalted actually means.  Make it absolutely clear you know what the rules are and are choosing to change them and if someone wants to pick a fight with you over that then it's easy to say something like "We clearly have different styles and would be playing at different tables.  So fucking what?"

One of the catches with trying to be realistic in D&D is D&D is not realistic.  Go ahead and play it to whatever standards you call realistic but, as heavily implied above, keep in mind that much of the content is intentionally not realistic.  See the game for what it is and not what you want it to be, but feel free to make it what you want it to be if others are on board with you.  Do not expect random people on a forum to be on board with you.


All that said, please do not make the assumption that just because a given campaign's premise is mainly combat and looting that it won't have meaningful roleplay elements or that it's evil only.  If the DM is competent (and sadly that is sometimes quite a big "if") then it is generally assumed there will be enough diplomacy, intrigue, strategy, and other non-combat things to make it a roleplay instead of a rollplay.  Where that difference lies will vary from person to person and campaign to campaign, but it should never be "all combat, all the time" despite what the constant talk about combat statistics would indicate.  A good DM will give plenty of opportunities for Good players to be Good, and even let those players create opportunities for themselves.

[Masakan]

The combat and such get a lot of emphasis because those rules are both extremely number crunchy and tend to make up the majority of 3.5's text.  The roleplay aspect of the game is much more freeform.  I would expect a lot of the regular and long time people on this board are more comfortable with the numbers part while the roleplaying is just kinda assumed as "It'll happen, try to be creative and interesting, but if you can't do that see if you can fall back on rolling a die so there's no ambiguity in what's going on."

The roleplay notes here often don't go further than "Try not to be an asshole."

But the Book of Exalted Deeds has its own clusterfuck of roleplay rules, and that book is what defines Exalted.  Any deviation from what it defines means you're not playing by the written rules.  For some people there is no room for saying "This is my definition of Exalted" if it does not conform to how the BoED defines it.  To them, if you're changing the rules even a little then you're not playing D&D.  I hope no one in this forum is so rigid in their thinking, but it is possible.  Personally, I say "Use what works for you even if you have to change some rules, but always remember that you are changing the rules and much of the discussion will focus on what's in the book without regard to how people have modified it for their own ends."

About the only advice I can give regarding that is reading and rereading the BoED and then coming back and saying something "I know the BoED says X and Y, but I do not personally find those things to be fun or interesting if I'm playing a game meant for entertainment.  I prefer Z and W."  Pages 5 to 20 in the BoED go into some of the most detail about what Exalted actually means.  Make it absolutely clear you know what the rules are and are choosing to change them and if someone wants to pick a fight with you over that then it's easy to say something like "We clearly have different styles and would be playing at different tables.  So fucking what?"

One of the catches with trying to be realistic in D&D is D&D is not realistic.  Go ahead and play it to whatever standards you call realistic but, as heavily implied above, keep in mind that much of the content is intentionally not realistic.  See the game for what it is and not what you want it to be, but feel free to make it what you want it to be if others are on board with you.  Do not expect random people on a forum to be on board with you.


All that said, please do not make the assumption that just because a given campaign's premise is mainly combat and looting that it won't have meaningful roleplay elements or that it's evil only.  If the DM is competent (and sadly that is sometimes quite a big "if") then it is generally assumed there will be enough diplomacy, intrigue, strategy, and other non-combat things to make it a roleplay instead of a rollplay.  Where that difference lies will vary from person to person and campaign to campaign, but it should never be "all combat, all the time" despite what the constant talk about combat statistics would indicate.  A good DM will give plenty of opportunities for Good players to be Good, and even let those players create opportunities for themselves.

Hmm everything you've said is logically sound. much of what you said is what i was trying to convey, But you're right i shouldn't expect people on an online forum to be on board with me with something like that.

[Unbeliever]

...

Hmm everything you've said is logically sound. much of what you said is what i was trying to convey, But you're right i shouldn't expect people on an online forum to be on board with me with something like that.

Except it's absolutely not what you said.  Hence, the initial comment of a Straw Man.  You took the initial comment to the effect that, to quote Jack "the Book of Exalted Deeds has its own clusterfuck ..." and then called everyone an idiot and insulted them.  And, when told not to be y'know, an asshole about it, you wrapped yourself up in mighty indignation. 

And, this was all on the basis of an extremely obvious, reasonable, and longstanding observation that BoED has, like Paladin's codes of honor before it, provoked a number of derailing, annoying table debates.  Or, as I'd put it, D&D is not a good context to debate moral philosophy. 

And, that's setting aside how weird it is to be high and mighty about those yahoos who post on an online gaming forum while posting on an online gaming forum ...

[Masakan]

...

Hmm everything you've said is logically sound. much of what you said is what i was trying to convey, But you're right i shouldn't expect people on an online forum to be on board with me with something like that.

Except it's absolutely not what you said.  Hence, the initial comment of a Straw Man.  You took the initial comment to the effect that, to quote Jack "the Book of Exalted Deeds has its own clusterfuck ..." and then called everyone an idiot and insulted them.  And, when told not to be y'know, an asshole about it, you wrapped yourself up in mighty indignation. 

And, this was all on the basis of an extremely obvious, reasonable, and longstanding observation that BoED has, like Paladin's codes of honor before it, provoked a number of derailing, annoying table debates.  Or, as I'd put it, D&D is not a good context to debate moral philosophy. 

And, that's setting aside how weird it is to be high and mighty about those yahoos who post on an online gaming forum while posting on an online gaming forum ...

Dude It's not my fault that your easily insulted,or maybe you need to learn not to be so literal about everything. Either way if your not gonna stay on topic you can just leave.

[RobbyPants]

Dude It's not my fault that your easily insulted,or maybe you need to learn not to be so literal about everything. Either way if your not gonna stay on topic you can just leave.

If you want people to stay on topic about the PcC, that's fine, but so long as you are responding to other posters about alignment/exalted issues, I can't slight them for continuing the conversation.

If you want the alignment/exalted topic dropped, you have to drop it, too.

[Masakan]

Dude It's not my fault that your easily insulted,or maybe you need to learn not to be so literal about everything. Either way if your not gonna stay on topic you can just leave.

If you want people to stay on topic about the PcC, that's fine, but so long as you are responding to other posters about alignment/exalted issues, I can't slight them for continuing the conversation.

If you want the alignment/exalted topic dropped, you have to drop it, too.

Honestly my biggest mistake was even picking up that topic in the first place, it was pointless i never should have taken the bait and for that I apologize.
I will not comment on any further replies regarding said topic.