Doctor Destroyer versus Takofanes

[Chuckg]

> Chuckg, perhaps you should look at what you posted. You
> seemed to be gunning for me.

I disagreed with your argument and didn't mince words otherwise. If you consider disagreeing with you to be "gunning for you", then you have a problem.

> Have you noticed how many have come to your defense?
> Have you noticed how many have asked for this to get
> toned down and who they have singled out when they
> choose to single one of us out?

You are a longtime board regular on a forum where I am a relative newbie -- I'd be enormously surprised if anything else had happened, regardless of what the relative merits of our arguments genuinely were or were not.

Appeal to populism won't get you any further than yelling 'Ass! Ass! Ass! Ass!" over and over will. Try something else.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X
Zornwil, I'm being blunt and rubbing it in a bit. That doesn't make me arrogant, hypocritical, or delusional. You're so good at seeing each person's side of the argument.

Well, I didn't want to get into the distinctions, one person's "blunt and rubbing it in" (note the "rubbing it in") can be one person's "arrogant". Anyway, rather than debate what you are or aren't, I felt it easier just to say that you were reacting to provocation and why get into your characteristics at that point? (edit/ps - unless they were out-of-line, which by implication I am saying they are not)

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Chuckg
> I didn't say I inherited a thread. I was merely explaining that
> I'm not going anywhere.

You were also explaining that because you got here first, I had no choice but to either like it or lump it -- IOW, you want authority over me and my arguments by mere fiat of timing.

I invite you to post what I said and explain to me how I told you to "like it or lump it." I believe my meaning was that you shouldn't act dismissively about the posts of others, including me, who have been on this for 100 pages before reading the basis for our conclusions. You came on this board and essentially belittled everything that went before.

Originally posted by Chuckg
To quote Bender -- "Bite my shiney metal ass."

> If you want to go somewhere be my guest.

I do not want you to "go somewhere", I want you to find another argument besides merely repeating the same old insults, tirades, slurs, and double standards... because doing so will do nothing but waste time.

This is well within my rights to ask.

> I'm not an arrogant jerk.

Then you do an amazing impression of one.

> I'm not this blunt with people who disagree with me.
> I'm this blunt with people who behave like asses.

Then start in your mirror.

I have asked pertinent questions about the subject. You have responded to my questions by saying they aren't pertinent. Your reasoning isn't convincing to me, and I doubt most others are convinced.

You might be surprised to know I've issued apologies to posters on the boards before. You won't be one of them because you are in the wrong.

[Chuckg]

> I have asked pertinent questions about the subject. You
> have responded to my questions by saying they aren't
> pertinent.

They aren't. You keep asking me about 42 DC point constructions I've never tried to use(*), arguments I've never tried to make, and rules I don't even begin to interpret in the same way that you do... and are subjective enough that trying to debate them is as futile as arguing over whether or not cheddar cheese tastes good.

I mean, hell, the Entangle-based argument and the NND Does Body RKA argument still languish pages and pages back, abandoned by you, because you changed the subject to 11d6+1 RKA and then used my response to that to get in a huge fight about meta-rules.

So please, spare me the chutzpah of complaining that I dismiss too many pertinent points unanswered.

> Your reasoning isn't convincing to me,

I kinda got that already, thanks.

> and I doubt most others are convinced.

And I doubt you can speak for what "most others" are thinking with any greater degree of accuracy than I can -- which is damn low.

Spare me the 'I have friends, you don't' and 'count noses on this thread' and 'most people would agree' type of arguments... they're all classic Internet debate fallacies that are on the same level as "The lurkers support me in e-mail", and they don't impress me a bit.



(*) I shall expand a bit further on this.

Would I use my OCV Power Pool thing to go for 42 DCs?

Ummm... nope. I actually *do* respect game balance enough not to go that far.

How can you know this for sure? Because I've had the opportunity and yet never tried to.

Hell, I didn't even think of using it go for 34 DCs until after you pulled your own 34 DC from 150 AP Power Framework wonder... up until then, the idea of going over 30 DCs from 150 never even crossed my mind.

Now maybe you understand a little more why I consider your concept of game balance to be biased in your favor, Agent X -- because you invoked it to block a point construction that I never would even have attempted had I had not had your own example to inspire me.

[SomeAsianKid]

Posts on boards are for debating the topic. Please take non-topic arguments to im's guys, you're all filling this post up with pages and pages of nothing but personal attacks.

And has anyone thought about what happened if Dr. Destroyer had dark secret as a disad, and his disad was necrophelia when he meets Tak to fight him? *shivers* If it came down to that I think Tak would just flee.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by SomeAsianKid
Agent X, why on Earth are you allowing Dr. Destroyer push his very first attack? Ok, Dr. D has the KS to let him know who Tak is. But are you trying to tell me that a superego like Dr. D who has both a disdain for magic and vasts amounts of arrogance is going to push his first attack before even seeing what type of attacks Tak can even do? And even if Dr. D does do that, you have already stated that Tak would have a default 0 end desolid in his powerpool. Dr. D 's first attack with a push would definately trigger Tak's danger sense, and without his minions there to guard him, Tak would just abort to desolid.

It all depends on the assumptions made. I've responded to many posters and the circumstances they describe. At the point I brought up the 11d6+1 RKA, the circumstances of what Takofanes was doing was assumed to be different. I'll be happy to continue talking along the line that you and Lord Liaden were discussing a while ago.

Assuming Takofanes is desolid to physical and mental with zero endurance and invisible to Danger Sense with zero endurance. What would this mean for Dr. Destroyer? The desolid has a visible effect. Dr. Destroyer has seen various desolids before. He would probably make his KS: Superpowers roll and not attack Takofanes like that. He would hit him with the 20d6 EB affects desolid.

However, there is a problem with your analysis of Dr. Destroyer: "But are you trying to tell me that a superego like Dr. D who has both a disdain for magic and vasts amounts of arrogance is going to push his first attack before even seeing what type of attacks Tak can even do?" - Dr. Destroyer disdains people who use magic because it "cannot be controlled or scientifically analyzed." pg. 10 CKC. Dr. Destroyer doesn't disdain magic in the sense of underestimating the danger it can pose to him. He disdains it as a tool for weak and foolish men, men like Kal-Turak who end up as undead husks. As to his superego/arrogance that you raise, let's read a little from pg. 9 of CKC, "If he does fight, he begins battle without employing any advanced tactics - he simply stands there and blasts away at his foes, knowing they cannot withstand his attacks for long. He prefers single attacks, but will resort to multiple-power attacks if necessary or to impress onlookers. If his enemies somehow resist, avoid, or counteract his attacks, he quickly adapts, using his intellect and tactical insight to find ways to lay them low. Superheroes who mistake his arrogant approach to combat for a true lack of tactical sense are in for a shock."

But wait, there's more from pg. 8, "Anyone who underestimates his intellect, his capacity for creating multiple-layered plans, or his willingness to do whatever he must to achieve his goals is in for a rude surprise. The same goes for those who consider Destroyer a straightforward combat opponent; in truth, he enjoys manipulating people intellectually and emotionally - especially if, by doing so, he can make them question their ethics or morals."

This is a guy who usually attacks in an arrogant manner because he can afford to do so. If he has reason to believe the opponent can "resist, avoid, or counteract his attacks" he adapts and does "whatever he must."

His real psych lim is this, "Utterly Convinced of his Own Superiority and Destiny to Rule the World" - This is a long psych lim and Long took pains to write it out this way instead of writing down Arrogant. I think he did this for a reason. Dr. Destroyer displays arrogance when he doesn't think it will cost him. He does not display arrogance in tactics against a guy who has killed 7 heroes in one fight. Dr. Destroyer's schtick is to taunt the heroes as he thumps them or to put them in horrible deathtraps while he explains to them his plan to conquer the world. His Psych Lim is a disadvantage because it gives the heroes a chance to escape and thwart his plans. This is a bit different than a broad-brush Arrogant psych lim.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Chuckg
> I have been civil.

As I recall, in the first /hour/ of our debate, you started on the tack that I was an ignorant fanboy with diminished reading comprehension, and haven't let up for a minute since.

If that's "civility", then black is white and day is night.


Addendum -- BTW, is it just me or does the man who told me that he has 'always been civil' and then told me about ten minutes later that 'Oh yes, you should feel insulted' is running with a *severe* cognitive dissonance problem?

If you're always so civil, why should I feel insulted? On the other hand, if you're willing to admit that you're insulting me, why are you claiming the moral high ground of always being civil?

Double standard... /again/.

I think you can be civil and insult someone, if they deserve insulting. It all depends on whether they deserve it and how you explain to them that they have done something that deserves insulting.

[Chuckg]

[snip]
> He does not display arrogance in tactics against a guy who
> has killed 7 heroes in one fight.

You are still ignoring the pertinent point that in that fight, Takofanes had a small army of minions. In this fight, Takofanes is alone. Furthermore, none of those 7 heroes even began to approach Destroyer in power or defenses... I say this with a safe degree of confidence, because virtually /no/ hero approaches Destroyer in either power or defenses.

Your logic as to why Destroyer would assume that Takofanes is that genuine a threat *to him*, becuase of that "7 heroes" fight, is not convincing. Please answer the points above.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Chuckg
Meta-Rule #8, which says that you can't demand that i accept your interpretations of the Meta-Rules unless are the DM of the game I am currently playing in.

Which you are not.

Addendum - as I have said all along, you are not the sole arbiter of what Game Balance does or does not mean. Not even just for purposes of this thread alone. Not even just in an argument between you and me.

If I perceive Game Balance differently than you do, you can either work with that or try gentle persuasion and sweet reason. What you're doing is neither.

You are essentially ignoring the Meta-Rules, not interpreting them differently.

[Chuckg]

Originally posted by Agent X
You are essentially ignoring the Meta-Rules, not interpreting them differently.

This is not an argument, it's just you repeating your original claim.

BTW -- the same people who wrote the meta-rules also wrote Captain Chronos.. to name just /one/ example of /many/ who bend several of those meta-rules into pretzels.(*)

This would tend to support my interpretation that Meta-Rule #8 lets the DM or scenario designer ignore, tweak, or squeeze around the first seven whenever the DM or scenario designer thinks the direction of "more fun" lies down that path. Because that's how the game designers operate in practice.

Furthermore, you're still ignoring my point that two of my arguments that you have been dismissing for a day didn't even go near Meta-Rule #1, so even if I gave you every point you made about Meta-Rules for free just for the sake of argument, you've *still* got some explaining to do.





(*) Since the meta-rules apply to every genre of Hero, likewise the violations of meta-rules from every genre of Hero count for purposes of this particular census.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Chuckg

I mean, cripes, virtually the first words out of his mouth were "Go back and read."

Actually a couple of us said that you were rehashing old arguments.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Chuckg
> It doesn't say anything of the kind in Metarule 8. It does not
> say to ignore Metarules at all.

"You are not required to obey any rule or guideline from this book if you don't want to."

That includes the guidelines on page 348.

Granted, since page 348 is primarily for the Dungeon Master, not the players, that means that the prime rule of gaming -- 'The Dungeon Master's word is law' -- is not superseded by Meta-Rule #8.



By the very same Meta-Rules which you hold to be so inflexible, if I interpret the words on page 348 in a different manner than you do(*), you cannot demand that I change my interpretation to match yours merely because you desire it so. The only way you can do that is to invoke the basic gaming rule that "The DM of a game says what the rules are, and his authority is final."

Except that you are not the DM here, so you /aren't/ final.



(*) Such as, for example, saying that any method of using CVs to get +30 DCs out of a 150 Active Point attack is equally as offensive or not offensive to Meta-Rule #1 regardless of where the CVs happen to come from. If that's my interpretation, you can /ask/ me to change it, you can try to /persuade/ me to change it, but you can't /demand/ that I change it -- unless we are in the same game and you are the DM.

You seem to be well read enough in the game and you frequent these boards yet you claim there isn't a general understanding of what is and isn't part of game balance, that one interpetation is as good as another so you don't have to defend your interpretation. I don't buy that. If you are going to use a different set of guidelines than I am using we need to discuss the issue. There is no way to come to a reasonable comparison otherwise. That's what we had been working toward a couple of days ago when things stalled out.

[lemming]

Originally posted by SomeAsianKid
Now for my latest uber spell, Tak calls in the most powerful summons of all time. Chanting in a dead language, Tak calls forth a morantu demon, beings which no mortal can resist. Instead of blood and brimstone however, Anna Nicole Smith pops out.

Great stuff.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Chuckg
That's not what I said.

What I /did/ say is that you got on the 'Chuckg is behaving like an ass' tack as soon as Chuckg said an argument you didn't want to hear, but one that wasn't actually ass-like.

Not to mention you getting on the 'I got here first' and 'You are ignorant' tack almost the same minute I first opened my mouth.

It wasn't what you said but how you said it that led us down this road. There have been plenty of people on this thread that have disagreed with me and they haven't merited nor received the same response you were given.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Chuckg
Granted, since page 348 is primarily for the Dungeon Master, not the players, that means that the prime rule of gaming -- 'The Dungeon Master's word is law' -- is not superseded by Meta-Rule #8.

Well there's your problem. We're not in a dungeon.