A Company of Fools - Blog

[EvilGinger]

GMG update

Just a quick post to say that the GMG Beta is now updated to version 2.2

Development blog here

Source: GMG update

[EvilGinger]

Mean while in the Market square of Vayham (part III)

It left with the same soft pop and a whoosh of air as it had arrived and Fawlit was so surprised that he nearly fell over as he was in mid reverse swing and the momentum of the strike that would never land carried him of balance for an instant, there was silence in the square and the fountain of flame guttered like a candle flame drowning in its own wax and went out.

A short time latter Nyasse came round from her swoon in the arms of the stupidly grinning Half Ork, yea gawds he was ugly but Violet always said not to judge a man by his visage for much that seems fair is in truth foul and vice versa, and it meant that she was still alive as did the dull throb where her left fore arm should have been, she wondered what had happened to the creature had Fawlit slain it, had she. That Fawlit said looking at the bloody mess which was her left fore arm needs to go to the hospital. Nyasse found she could not disagree, but paused to pick up her sword and ask what had happened to the creature and did not understand Fawlit’s reply that it had just gone, adding just before he slammed his axe into it again. Then the pair walked side by side through the town where it was a hanging offence even to be a Half Ork as if they had not a care in the world, despite her gashed and still bleeding arm and his torn surcoat and shouldered axe still stained with ichor and on that morning none challenged them from the few they passed on the street going towards the great hospital.

Source: Mean while in the Market square of Vayham (part III)

[EvilGinger]

The Unexpected Sewer so far explored

for the eventual write up but here it is for now

Source: The Unexpected Sewer so far explored

[EvilGinger]

An interesting Article from one of the Blogs I read

as a Gamer of similar antiquity I am afraid I have to agree whole heartedly with the following

Wading In: "Builds"

What was memorable about this guy?

Point-Buy games have had "builds" for a long time - Hero, Gurps, etc.  With 3rd Edition D&D all of a sudden D&D had "builds" and one of  the plagues of the modern age of gaming fully flowered and has yet to  really die down.

I'd say for most players, one of the attractions of RPGs is the  opportunity to play a character that does things you do not do in your  normal life - sticking swords into monsters, throwing magic, or flying a  spaceship. D&D 3E (and later) and Pathfinder are very good at  letting us do that with tons of options and per-level multiclassing and  point buy attributes - compared to the old "roll up your stats and  figure out what to play" days it's a paradise for those who like to  craft their character to match their specific vision. That's nothing but  a positive. Well, almost...

The coal-filled stocking in this approach is that there are a lot of  people who, once exposed to your vision of Abercrombie the Barbarian  Prince will quickly point out all of the places it could be improved  mechanically and all of the less-than-optimal choices you have made in  creating him. "Why does he need a 16 Charisma - dump that to 8!" is  among the kinder things you may hear. Communal min/maxing is just as  annoying as individual min/maxing  when it overwhelms the original  concept. Much like MMO players, groups of players around the internet  will quickly determine optimal approaches to specific classes and  combinations whenever new rules or options come out and are often  regarded as "experts".

If you're playing some kind of arena combat game against other players this may be useful.

If you're playing any other kind of game, it's of limited usefulness at best.

Sure, push your DPS way up there, that's really impressive. Hey, now we  need an assist on this diplomacy check - oh, you have a negative? Ok,  never mind. How about Stealth? Knowledge? Religion? Most optimized  "builds' I have seen sacrifice a lot for increased efficiency in one  particular area and that's not always the best answer to the things that  go on in a campaign and they can get to be on the boring side when  you're not slamming through one combat after another because that's a  lot of what they focus on. Also it can warp the rest of the party. If we  assume the tornado of steel barbarian can solo any monster in the game,  the rest of the party may de-emphasize combat capability to try and  shine in other phases of the game. Then the barbarian's player misses a  session and suddenly combat goes horribly wrong .

Now you do get the opposite problem sometimes where someone takes a bard  or a rogue type character and turns them into the jack of all trades and master of all trades too. That's not great for the rest of the party and rather than one player getting bored you have all but one player bored.

A lot of these overpowered builds rely on stitching together very  specific abilities from across different classes and supplement books so  one way to keep a lid on it is to limit options. Pathfinder has  probably the biggest active universe for this kind of thing right now.  Sure, the Technology Guide is awesome for the Iron Gods Adventure Path,  but if I'm running Rise of the Runelords I probably don't need android  PC's with chainsaws and laser pistols running around so the answer there  at character creation is "no".

I've played and run a lot of games over the years but I have to say I've  rarely seen the need for maxed out PC's. Right now the published  adventures I am reading, mainly Pathfinder APs and the new D&D 5E  adventures certainly do not demand apex character designs. So it's not  pressure from adventure writers that drives optimized character designs.

I have found that campaigns are more enjoyable when people are playing a  character they really like and that is often tied to designing it  themselves. "Interesting" and "memorable" do not necessarily equal  "efficient". Even when looking for power combos, if you find some  combination of abilities that is particularly effective how much more  satisfying is that than finding it out from some guy on the internet  before the game ever starts? For Delve Night at the FLGS an  internet-optimized hurricane of evocation may be fine but in an ongoing  campaign it's different. Can you live with that character for a year?  How about two?

Seeing it discussed online almost constantly I feel the occasional need  to push back against the pressure to optimize everything.  Ideally  players find a balance between "fun/interesting to play" and  "mechanically effective" that works for them and for the rest of the  people in their group. Hopefully they take a little time and consider  the non-mechanical aspects of the character to round things out.

Original article  and Splendid blog Here

Source: An interesting Article from one of the Blogs I read

[Snakes in the Tiki Lounge]

Interesting article.
On the other hand, a counter point of sorts;

I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

Note, unless I'm very much misunderstanding one or both of the above, I don't think the two points actually contradict each other, and there's a lot in the former article there I'd agree with quite strongly.

[EvilGinger]

Mean while in the Market square of Vayham (part III)

It left with the same soft pop and a whoosh of air as it had arrived and Fawlit was so surprised that he nearly fell over as he was in mid reverse swing and the momentum of the strike that would never land carried him of balance for an instant, there was silence in the square and the fountain of flame guttered like a candle flame drowning in its own wax and went out.

A short time latter Nyasse came round from her swoon in the arms of the stupidly grinning Half Ork, yea gawds he was ugly but Violet always said not to judge a man by his visage for much that seems fair is in truth foul and vice versa, and it meant that she was still alive as did the dull throb where her left fore arm should have been, she wondered what had happened to the creature had Fawlit slain it, had she. That Fawlit said looking at the bloody mess which was her left fore arm needs to go to the hospital. Nyasse found she could not disagree, but paused to pick up her sword and ask what had happened to the creature and did not understand Fawlit’s reply that it had just gone, adding just before he slammed his axe into it again. Then the pair walked side by side through the town where it was a hanging offence even to be a Half Ork as if they had not a care in the world, despite her gashed and still bleeding arm and his torn surcoat and shouldered axe still stained with ichor and on that morning none challenged them from the few they passed on the street going towards the great hospital.

to be continued......

Source: Mean while in the Market square of Vayham (part III)

[EvilGinger]

Mean while in the Market square of Vayham (part IV)

Back in the square the guards at the keep slowly recovered form there terror and snuck out to investigate now it was all over and shortly they where joined by the Count and his body guards the chief priest of the Founder and his remaining knight in full armour and the senior priests of the true and the handful of their men who where on the day watch. The leaders of the town who had not long retired after a night on the walls having been roused when the eruption of fire occurred. The market guards who had fled at the demons first terrifying war cry and some of the braver traders returned to join them. All looked at the fresh spilt blood on the stones the gauge the demons sword had left on the ground and the spilt ichor. Finally congregating around the hole which was where the flame had erupted from, finding a seemingly bottomless pit some fifteen feet across and which was beyond the first few feet lined with worked stone.  It looked for all the world like a well, the count looked at the founder’s priest on his right hand and asked was there ever a well in the market square. The priest scratched his head and thought no my lord that I know of but I may have forgotten something in the temple achieves, I will need to check.  With that he bustled off to do just that. Every one else stood and looked those who could see and those who could not tried to over hear what was being said by those who could, or speculated wildly whilst other just tried to catch a glimpse of what all the fuss was about.

to be continued......

Source: Mean while in the Market square of Vayham (part IV)

[EvilGinger]

Cool Reply Tiki - Reposted it on the blog and will post my own thoughts on the subject when I have slain another small horde of jobs I need to get done by tomorrow 


 Ginger

[EvilGinger]

An interesting Article from one of the Blogs I read

as a Gamer of similar antiquity I am afraid I have to agree whole heartedly with the following

Wading In: "Builds"

What was memorable about this guy?

Point-Buy games have had "builds" for a long time - Hero, Gurps, etc.  With 3rd Edition D&D all of a sudden D&D had "builds" and one of  the plagues of the modern age of gaming fully flowered and has yet to  really die down.

I'd say for most players, one of the attractions of RPGs is the  opportunity to play a character that does things you do not do in your  normal life - sticking swords into monsters, throwing magic, or flying a  spaceship. D&D 3E (and later) and Pathfinder are very good at  letting us do that with tons of options and per-level multiclassing and  point buy attributes - compared to the old "roll up your stats and  figure out what to play" days it's a paradise for those who like to  craft their character to match their specific vision. That's nothing but  a positive. Well, almost...

The coal-filled stocking in this approach is that there are a lot of  people who, once exposed to your vision of Abercrombie the Barbarian  Prince will quickly point out all of the places it could be improved  mechanically and all of the less-than-optimal choices you have made in  creating him. "Why does he need a 16 Charisma - dump that to 8!" is  among the kinder things you may hear. Communal min/maxing is just as  annoying as individual min/maxing  when it overwhelms the original  concept. Much like MMO players, groups of players around the internet  will quickly determine optimal approaches to specific classes and  combinations whenever new rules or options come out and are often  regarded as "experts".

If you're playing some kind of arena combat game against other players this may be useful.

If you're playing any other kind of game, it's of limited usefulness at best.

Sure, push your DPS way up there, that's really impressive. Hey, now we  need an assist on this diplomacy check - oh, you have a negative? Ok,  never mind. How about Stealth? Knowledge? Religion? Most optimized  "builds' I have seen sacrifice a lot for increased efficiency in one  particular area and that's not always the best answer to the things that  go on in a campaign and they can get to be on the boring side when  you're not slamming through one combat after another because that's a  lot of what they focus on. Also it can warp the rest of the party. If we  assume the tornado of steel barbarian can solo any monster in the game,  the rest of the party may de-emphasize combat capability to try and  shine in other phases of the game. Then the barbarian's player misses a  session and suddenly combat goes horribly wrong .

Now you do get the opposite problem sometimes where someone takes a bard  or a rogue type character and turns them into the jack of all trades and master of all trades too. That's not great for the rest of the party and rather than one player getting bored you have all but one player bored.

A lot of these overpowered builds rely on stitching together very  specific abilities from across different classes and supplement books so  one way to keep a lid on it is to limit options. Pathfinder has  probably the biggest active universe for this kind of thing right now.  Sure, the Technology Guide is awesome for the Iron Gods Adventure Path,  but if I'm running Rise of the Runelords I probably don't need android  PC's with chainsaws and laser pistols running around so the answer there  at character creation is "no".

I've played and run a lot of games over the years but I have to say I've  rarely seen the need for maxed out PC's. Right now the published  adventures I am reading, mainly Pathfinder APs and the new D&D 5E  adventures certainly do not demand apex character designs. So it's not  pressure from adventure writers that drives optimized character designs.

I have found that campaigns are more enjoyable when people are playing a  character they really like and that is often tied to designing it  themselves. "Interesting" and "memorable" do not necessarily equal  "efficient". Even when looking for power combos, if you find some  combination of abilities that is particularly effective how much more  satisfying is that than finding it out from some guy on the internet  before the game ever starts? For Delve Night at the FLGS an  internet-optimized hurricane of evocation may be fine but in an ongoing  campaign it's different. Can you live with that character for a year?  How about two?

Seeing it discussed online almost constantly I feel the occasional need  to push back against the pressure to optimize everything.  Ideally  players find a balance between "fun/interesting to play" and  "mechanically effective" that works for them and for the rest of the  people in their group. Hopefully they take a little time and consider  the non-mechanical aspects of the character to round things out.

Original article  and Splendid blog Here

Source: An interesting Article from one of the Blogs I read

[EvilGinger]

The Demon in the square

The Demon of the Sword - Vaesehanesresics (that which delights in the slaughter of the
unresisting and  the terrified)

Alignment: Chaotic Evil
Initiative: -2
Speed: 9
Reach:+2 feet ( 8 feet with sword)
Attack: +8
Damage: 2d12p + 5 Sword
2d3p + 5  with claws on hands or feet or 3d3p+ 5 bite
Special Attack:  Demonic battle cry (same as Grell war cry) Sweep attack can strike all in a 180 degree ark on an aggressive attack ,and causes +1d3p damage to helpless targets.
Weakness: takes +5 damage form good aligned items and +5 damage from lawful ones the effects are cumulative and may be turned as undead.by any good or lawful priest regardless of them having the ability to turn undead
Defence: +2
Special Defence: Teleports if on half damage or more less instantly (takes one second) but can only do this once per day
Damage Reduction: 12 - 4 weapons of legend
Hit Points: 30+4d8
ToP Save: n/a
Will Factor: 10
Size: large
Move: 15 feet/second at a walk and can Teloport at will over long distances as many times as it likes in a day but the ritual to do so takes 3d6p minutes during which it is unable to defend itself without aborting the process and beginning again the maxumum range on such a teleport is eight days march
EPV: 1200 (Nb never counts as half for there only being one opponent as its well able to deal with multiple foes)

Notable skills  Intimidate 50 torture 30

Description

This demon or may be type of demon for they are commonly found during the initial phases of any abyssal invasion and this may indicate that there are some numbers of the foul things. However given its ability to teleport freely over long distances and that in every reported case only one has been encountered may mean that is is indeed a unique monster.

This demon ranges ahead of the abyssal horde and is drawn to accumulations of unarmed or poorly armed non-combatants who it delights in terrifying with its abyssal war cry and then slaughtering wholes sale. Unlike many demons it is not one for property damage for its own sake however it will do so to further terrify its victims and to get to those who might be hiding in buildings etc.

As a demon it does not need to eat however it will often consume victims messily in order to further terrify its other victims

other stuff to add once I have had a look at the Hob for layout and the like

Source: The Demon in the square

[EvilGinger]

A Reply An interesting Article from one of the Blogs I read

An Reply posted to an interesting Blog Article first posted on the feed form this Blog to the Big Bang Burger bar

 Posted By Forum User Snakes in the Tiki lounge

Interesting article.
On the other hand, a counter point of sorts;

I  still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference  between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted  multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in  their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school =  roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people:  Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is  ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and  have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much  about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new  logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like  the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I  admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who  refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil  and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag  without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples.  The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations  hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements  rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors  in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to  produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a  player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A  person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something  powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing  in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you  participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot  roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of  roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing  the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In  one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization  tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not  see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other  extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules,  and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not  necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the  fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts  -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get  the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out  of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me  funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't  need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a  role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent  completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this  isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing.  If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or  regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of  the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes  differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the  setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion:  D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay  in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any  role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They  go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of  all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the  meantime.

Note, unless I'm very much misunderstanding one or  both of the above, I don't think the two points actually contradict each  other, and there's a lot in the former article there I'd agree with  quite strongly.   

Cheers old chap

Source: A Reply An interesting Article from one of the Blogs I read

[EvilGinger]

A Reply to An interesting Article from one of the Blogs I read

An Reply posted to an interesting Blog Article first posted on the feed form this Blog to the Big Bang Burger bar

 Posted By Forum User Snakes in the Tiki lounge

Interesting article.
On the other hand, a counter point of sorts;

I  still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference  between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted  multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in  their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school =  roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people:  Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is  ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and  have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much  about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new  logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like  the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I  admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who  refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil  and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag  without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples.  The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations  hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements  rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors  in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to  produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a  player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A  person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something  powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing  in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you  participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot  roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of  roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing  the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In  one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization  tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not  see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other  extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules,  and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not  necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the  fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts  -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get  the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out  of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me  funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't  need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a  role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent  completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this  isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing.  If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or  regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of  the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes  differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the  setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion:  D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay  in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any  role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They  go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of  all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the  meantime.

Note, unless I'm very much misunderstanding one or  both of the above, I don't think the two points actually contradict each  other, and there's a lot in the former article there I'd agree with  quite strongly.   

Cheers old chap

Source: A Reply to An interesting Article from one of the Blogs I read

[EvilGinger]

D - Day

Buisiness expansion 

In the real world today is the day when my customer base increases by 20%  all at one go so the rate of blog updates may very well slow down at least for today. However I will still be doing what I can and there is life in the blog yet

Source: D - Day

[EvilGinger]

Sorry about the Purple above - but the full article is already on this thread above and can be linked to on the blog as well

 Ginger

[EvilGinger]

D - Day

Business expansion 

In the real world today is the day when my customer base increases by 20%  all at one go so the rate of blog updates may very well slow down at least for today. However I will still be doing what I can and there is life in the blog yet

Update 

Well despite the fact it could have gone better mostly a massive foul up on the part of my suppliers who had carefully ignored the changes I had painstakingly made to my order and taking the better part of an hour to sort this all out I got trough it and am as you can see now back to the Blog.

Which will take my mind off the possibility for a repeat foul up tomorrow

Source: D - Day