It really irks the fuck out of me when folks keep on about Mild powers when I was talking about Human Level non-powered. You know, it really proves that they didn't actually read a fucking word I said.

If characters with magical powers can't offset the unbalance of one side having a firearm, how in the world would humans fare any better? They're countering your argument by offering even more advantages to the person without a gun, to explain how guns are a destabilising factor in tier balancing because they severely limit what sort of character can be entered into a tournament for example.

And good luck arguing I have an agenda against firearms, because almost all my characters carry them.

It really irks the fuck out of me when folks keep on about Mild powers when I was talking about Human Level non-powered. You know, it really proves that they didn't actually read a fucking word I said.

Does it also irk you that mild powers is a higher tier than no powers, meaning that something unfair at mild powers would, by the basic premise of a tier system, be unfair at any level below it? Or did you miss that part?

I mean, that's how tier works. Something fair at "tier 6" but unfair at "tier 5" would also be unfair at all tiers below tier five because every tier below it subsequently allows for less power. I thought that was self-evident by the fact that we scale them by nonpowered -> mild powers - high powers and so on? To use a less abstract concept, look at an MMORPG. If you can't kill a monster at level 50, why would you be able to kill a monster at level 10? It's literally the exact same premise.

There's no point in discussing how a firearm operates in a non-powered setting when a sufficient argument -- which you've chosen to ignore even though you "technically" agree with every point made other than the conclusion -- has been made explaining why a firearm is unfair at mild powers. Refer again to the MMO concept for why this is.

Again, none of the things you've talked about have any real, meaningful bearing on the logic behind why people disbar guns from mild powers play. It's not about theoretical survival or avoidance, it's about what the weapon provides as advantages versus what a character can do in mild powers. Under no circumstances does a mild power character have a power-set that allows them to throw a projectile at 3,100 ft/s for seventeen posts in a row without any cooldowns, preps, or charges. If you take away the bullets and replace it with fireballs or lightning bolts or ice spears, the basic precedent still exceeds the acceptable scope of power. The fact that it's a mundane item readily available in the real world doesn't change the fact that it's more efficient, effective, and easier to use than most power-sets.

That's it. That's the point. That's why people disbar traditional firearms. It's not because they're cheap, easy, or stupid. It's not even because of their killing capacity. That's icing on the cake, really. It's because how much of an advantage they provide with no meaningful draw-backs compared to what you find in a mild powers powerset.

@Starfall Only if they're referred to as a "punchslinger." All punch-classes accepted. Punchslingers, punch-wizards, punch-clerics.

@Darth
You're raging against a wall here, I'm not continuing this argument.

Then maybe you should stop posting about it? I mean, I don't know, but if I say "I'm not continuing with this argument" I don't try to make obliquely passive-aggressive posts about the person I was discussing something with.

@Darth

Yeah...yeah, I know. Heh, unfortunately this is one of those issues that gets me on a soapbox at the drop of a hat and I let my opinion-spewing get away from me. I've always held that it's up to the individual players involved to decide the best course for their own games. I may twitch when I see shit like "no guns because guns are cheese", and as it turns out I'll also apparently step in and divert discussion for five pages every now and then (sorry about that, really -_-)...but I'm not one to insist that somebody break their own game because I don't care for their prereqs. Especially if I'm not in that game - which I won't be.

I just wish people'd stop perpetuating the stereotypes, I suppose. Which I have not helped by being a ponce so BLAH.

Anyways. @LeeRoy: last night got weird so I didn't have a chance to write a thread. Sorry about that. Will be up before the end of the day today. Will probably be up long before the end of the day, actually; I am in the highly unusual position of generally having more opportunity to write at work than less, so a lot of my posting happens between calls. Huzzah.

EDIT: Damnit Darth stop giving Starfall ideas. Now the 'Punchslinger' is going to be inevitable...@_@

@Darth What the fuck part of: "I'm pissed off about people ignoring my point." Is continuing the argument? An argument needs some sort of substance, and not an off handed comment.

Hop the fuck off, because I just woke up and I'm not a morning person.

@DLL

Nah, it's fine. I just wanted to make it clear that I don't have an issue with firearms in general. Like you said, people get shit on for playing with them in a lot of communities, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't giving that kind of impression. The only issues I have with firearms are in a very specific frame of reference, and it's only in a very broad sense -- there's nothing stopping two people from making it work, even if it doesn't fit the rest of the community's playing trend.

You have to embrace the punch-slinger. It's the only way. Your guns have to learn kung-fu.

@LeeRoy

To use small words: if you make a post towards or about me, I'm going to respond. If you don't want me to respond, don't make the post. Being a morning person doesn't mean you can make a condescending post implying that someone "didn't read muh post" without being responded too, sorry. Maybe a cup of coffee will be more sympathetic to your mood.

Pretty simple.

Fukin savage m8

solid banter, I r8 8/8 m8

8/8 cheeky nando, it's banter and steve not adam and eve, gr8 b8.

etc

EDIT:: On a topic other than being capable of masterful baiting, Netflix has the second Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon movie.

@DarthLemme use just as hamhanded and stupid a point as you did.

Me did not comment to continue argument.
Me comment to point out fallacy.
You comment continuing argument.
You comment again ignore point entirely.

Fucking idiot.

Well this got awfully heated, and I thought some solid banter straight from the archbishop of banterbury himself would cool things off.

@MelonHead You thought banter would make the Ragelord himself not get heated?

@Leeroy Right, you didn't "continue" the argument, you just made a condescending, off-hand comment about the person who disagreed with you. That's not uncouth at all, when someone is perfectly reasonable in having a discussion with you and your response is to go "I'M DONE" but then turn around and make a post about them. Who would possibly respond to that kind of implication?

But no, you're right: any time someone disagrees with you, you should be a poncy cunt about it and make passive-aggressive comments about them. Clearly, no one could possibly ever disagree with the scintillant paragon of logic and rhetoric that is your post, if they disagree it just means that they "didn't read your post." That's right, you're the most special little snowflake in the storm, and no one would ever disagree with you unless, they're just ignorant of your immense sagacity because, you guessed it, they didn't read your post!

Oh, and then after you make a post that has nothing to do with "pointing out a fallacy" and everything to do with taking a sideways swipe at someone, you should then blame them for having the sheer gall and audacity to respond to accusations made against them and pretend as though you never made a comment about them in the first place!

Yes, clearly this is the perfectly reasonable thing to do: say "I'm done with this argument" and then make comments about the person who disagreed with you. Why would they possibly be incensed to respond? You haven't tried to dismiss their arguments by claiming that they "didn't read my post" as opposed to the neigh-unto-impossible scenario wherein they actually fucking disagree with you. No, you never did that -- except for the part where you did!

Clearly, you're a master of reasonable discourse with such piquant repartee as "this is fucking stupid", "boo hoo they didn't read my fucking post" and lastly, the ever popular "you're a fucking idiot because somehow I believed that I could make a condescending comment about you without any response."

I'm rolling my eyes so fucking hard that they're like as to come free from my skull and fly off into orbit, Jesus fucking Christ. It's not a difficult concept: if you don't want someone to respond to you, don't make a fucking post about them you.

There. That's banter. THIS IS CHEEKY NANDO.

Now, I'm going to fuck off and do something better than taking the piss out of you. I expect the thread will have moved several pages by the time I return. If you have such a serious case of fanny-flustering that you really need to respond to me, feel free to send me a PM and we'll hash it out there. But regardless of whether or not you quote me, I'll do what's been the impossible for you until now and actually drop the situation.

There. That's banter. THIS IS CHEEKY NANDO.

Cheeky Nandos m8, do you even no?

That being said, that comment about eye rolling was genuinely hilarious.

@Darth I'm just about to the point where I'm lucid enough to write up a response post. But I've realized that I'm just angry, and being angry doesn't actually help my point. So I won't bother.

@Melonhead Of course it was hilarious. I might be American, but my sense of humor is British, by God.

@LeeRoy If you're angry about some real life shit and just decided to take it out on me, then fair's fair to be honest. I don't hold that shit against people. On the other hand, I more or less have zero chill if someone makes a comment about me, but like I said -- shit's not personal, and come 'round the next day it'll be right as rain and water under the bridge, s'far as I'm concerned.

And, like I said -- either way, I'm not responding. I've got wushu movies to watch.

@Darth@LeeRoy
Nope. This can only be settled by the time-honored tradition of the Food Fight. You will both report to the southern cafeteria at 1700 sharp to resolve this crisis with weaponized lasagna. Last man rendered tasty wins.

I lose by default because I'll just eat all the fucking lasagna.

Or maybe that means I win. Depends on your opinion of lasagna, I suppose.