Ask the Mormon

If you want to publicly ask a specific member a question, do so here.
User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7043
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby Deepfreeze32 » Fri May 01, 2015 6:34 pm

Then this might interest you. Two of those games (RIP Galaxies...) in a collection with other classics.

The X-Wing games are also on Steam, but the Gog versions seem to be "Better" right now.


So in that vein, X-Wing or TIE Fighter? (Mostly the games, but others are applicable)

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby ArcticFox » Sat May 02, 2015 10:44 pm

That's a pretty awesome bundle... I already have the GoG X-Wing but to get Rebellion again might be worth it. I LOVE that game.

I liked X-Wing better than Tie Fighter. At first, TF had better graphics and play because it was released later, but I liked being the good guys better. Later, X-Wing was re-released with the same graphics quality as TF so that took care of that.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22960
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby Chozon1 » Thu May 07, 2015 6:30 am

So much naps needed, not enough times have?
Image

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby ArcticFox » Thu May 07, 2015 1:53 pm

Amen and amen.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22960
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby Chozon1 » Fri May 15, 2015 6:20 am

Making money outside of a business environment just isn't as easy as they make it look on TV?
Image

User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7043
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby Deepfreeze32 » Fri May 15, 2015 3:32 pm

Merge conflicts can be the worst thing ever?

I spent the entirety of Tuesday trying to merge code that some of our remote guys did...and it was made worse by the fact that an auto-merged part of the code, the merge algorithm decided I didn't need a closing brace for a function. Errors I had never seen before flooded the screen.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby ArcticFox » Tue May 19, 2015 5:04 pm

Making money outside of a business environment just isn't as easy as they make it look on TV?
Yup. Unless you're making money convincing people that it's easy to make money...
Merge conflicts can be the worst thing ever?

I spent the entirety of Tuesday trying to merge code that some of our remote guys did...and it was made worse by the fact that an auto-merged part of the code, the merge algorithm decided I didn't need a closing brace for a function. Errors I had never seen before flooded the screen.
It's a serious pain in the rumpus. Usually we try and have only one person responsible for a given piece of code at a time to minimize that,but it's never 100%.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22960
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby Chozon1 » Sun May 31, 2015 3:59 am

Hand forged swords?
Image

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby ArcticFox » Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

It's the ONLY way to forge a sword (that matters!)
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7043
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby Deepfreeze32 » Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:30 pm

So at the risk of invoking a flame war.... (Don't worry, this won't be political. I'm stepping away from those debates for now. :P )

Let's talk D&D editions.

First off, my only experience with AD&D 2e has been a little mini-campaign with some friends (Just an encounter or two for an evening) and Planescape: Torment. As strange as it is in a post-3.0 world, I actually like the THAC0 system. (Coincidentally, do you pronounce it "thack-oh", "tahh-ko", "thack-zero", or something else?) It makes the math a little bit easier, in my opinion, than the d20 system in 3.x and 4. I'd genuinely like to play more of it, but finding groups who aren't dead set on Pathfinder or 5 is...difficult.


I had arguably the worst experiences with 3.x, mainly because of the players (IRL, not our little group here), but also because of the sheer complexity of the rules. Building a Wizard is stupidly hard, for instance. The SRD is complete and total crap for learning the rules. At least for me. I'll take examples for 300, Alex. It reads like a cheat-sheet, not a handbook (which is what I think it was meant for anyway). Also, there are so many hordes of rules for special circumstances that evaluating some challenges can take /forever/. And don't get me started on the sheer number of supplements and sorting out those rules. And the problems that result from power-building a character... 3.x is, frankly, bloated. I hear Pathfinder fixed some of those problems, so maybe I'll give that a try someday. If I can ever work past the players of 3.x. Which leads me to...

The players of 3.x. Oh. My. Goodness. I have never in my life encountered a more stuck-up, elitist, snooty group of individuals (Not even in political discussion, shocking as that may seem) than the (seemingly) vocal majority of 3.x players. Most of my friends who play it are fine, but some...oh man. The last time I tried to play 3.x, which was mostly with strangers, the DM was an absolute rule nazi. We're talking "If there isn't an explicit provision in the book, you can't do it. Suck it up." Then there were the players. I have never, not even in MMOs (I've logged more time in WoW than I care to admit...), seen such a band of Maleficent, Manipulative, Min-Maxing Munchkins (Try saying that five times fast) as I did in the 3.x crowd. If you didn't min-max, you were derided, your character was useless for the campaign, or most likely both. Then there was the (if you'll forgive my somewhat rude turn of phrase) collective masturbation over how "superior" 3.x was to every other gorram system. Yeesh.


Now let's talk about 4e. Because of incredibly sour experiences with 3.x, I decided to try playing games with friends in 4e, since they had the books for it, and were willing to play it. I played four campaigns with 4e, and enjoyed each and every one of them. 4e is not a perfect system. Essentials should have probably been a new version (4.5, wot), looting was a bit strange, and the customization options were a bit constricting. But combat was so many miles more interesting to me (NOTE: I said "Interesting", not necessarily "better") than it was in 3.x. It's faster and smoother. It was also fun, as it kind of reminded me of Table-top Wargames. 4e is, in my mind, a fusion of a miniatures combat game and a role-playing game. And I think it works pretty well if you view it as such.

There's one criticism of 4e that I just don't get, however. "It's too WoWish". I really have to question if the person who makes that claim has actually played WoW, because they are quite a bit different. Ignoring the fact that comparing a board game to a video game is an apples to oranges comparison (Would make a little more sense if it were Neverwinter Nights vs 3.0), they also function differently. The "powers" that are often maligned aren't necessarily comparable in my mind, as the "cooldown" on 4e powers has more in common with D&D than with WoW (Are there any 8-hour cooldown spells that have combat uses? I certainly don't remember any). And looking at Video Game vs. Tabletop, I just don't see it. An MMO doesn't inspire nearly the same sense of camaraderie and dire peril that a tabletop game does. 4e at least has the same social qualities that other editions have, and has way more opportunities to use skills outside of combat. Seriously, MMOs severely underutilize non-combat skills, and at least 4e kept skills and had plenty of non-combat uses for them.

I've even heard people claim "There are only powers, no basic attacks!" which makes me question if they even read the bloody manual, as they pretty clearly state that there are "Ranged and melee basic attacks" which function exactly how you might expect normal bleeding attacks to work in other D&D editions. The DM is more than capable of bending some rules if it makes the game more fun. For instance, Prestidigitation normally can't be used to make tools, but in a particularly hairy case, the DM allowed us to use a Prestidigited object as a tool because it made the situation more perilous and massively entertaining. It was a one-off bend, but it made for one heckuva story. Same thing with some rituals. (in-character, the explanation was that physics didn't work the same way in the feywild. :P )

I've also heard that the powers "Inhibit role-playing". I call BS for two reasons: Reason number 1: Role-playing is somewhat diminished in a combat scenario, even in good games I've played. The only system I've played that seems conducive to it is White Wolf's World of Darkness. And 2: You can role-play with nothing but your imagination, or with World of WarCraft, so how does this "inhibit" role-playing? If you seriously cannot role-play with powers, then no offense, but you aren't a very good role-player. :P

All of this to say: With a good, flexible DM, and a good group of players, I think 4e is a fine RPG. It's combat is more miniature-centric, sure, but it doesn't actively tell you not to role-play. It just means that the group needs to be willing to be more imaginative. It's not perfect, it's got flaws, and yes, it does oversimplify. But I don't think the outright disdain is warranted. It restored my faith in Tabletop RPGs after 3.x for dang's sake. XD



Anyway, now that I've ranted...how much of a flame war have I started? :P

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby ArcticFox » Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:57 pm

"thack-oh"

I don't think that's flamebait... since prettymuch everybody other than the 3.x snobs would probably agree with a good bit of what you said.

My son plays Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 and he says the same things... the rules are bloated, broken and a playground for min/maxers. It's one of the reasons I quit DMming 3.0 and went back to 2.0. Your example of the DM who was a real rules stickler is understandable, in a way, when you consider that 3.x was an effort by WotC to have a rule for EVERYTHING, which sold mountains of books. Last year, when I was helping my son move, we had to move his collection of D&D books... man... dozens and dozens, all 3.x sourcebooks. There probably was an actual rule for everything somewhere in there. I also happen to know there were some books my son avoided buying, like the Book of Vile Darkness because of its content.

I can't speak from much personal experience when it comes to 4.0. I have the first 3 core books, and my son and I created characters just to see how that would work, and we were blown away by the complexity. I see what you mean about a tabletop RPG not being the same as an MMO, but people's perception of 4.0 being wow-like was mainly because of the way the various classes had a variety of combat and non-combat powers that were on a cooldown timer, which is reminiscent of the way MMOs work. It felt like the line between a Wizard and a Fighter were blurred because they both had a set of powers to draw from, which may have been very different in fluff, but the game mechanic wasn't so clearly differentiated.

I have fallen in love with 5e, because it has the feel of 2.0 but streamlined, and kept some of the improvements from 3 and 4. Feats are still a thing, but are optional, and as a DM I don't allow them. Feats are a mechanic that can get out of control very easily, and I'm glad 5e seems to be designed to be played as a power game with feats if the players prefer, or as a more roleplaying-centered game. My group is pretty casual so we go without feats.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7043
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby Deepfreeze32 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:00 pm

Ever hear of Project 1999?

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:35 pm

No I haven't, but that's really cool. I didn't really play EQ but if they do one for EQ2 that would be something I could get into...
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7043
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby Deepfreeze32 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:18 pm

The EverQuest games have always left me curious. I was too young (according to my parents, anyway) to play the first, and the second never really crossed my radar. But then I hear things about the game on forums, or reddit, or even from the Extra Credits guys, and I think: Man. I should try that.


Should I try them out?

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3480
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Ask the Mormon

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:44 pm

Yeah you definitely should, especially now that it's free to play EQ2. If you decide to go ahead and try it, you're welcome to join on the server we have a guild on and we'll get you set up.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens


Return to “Ask The Members”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron