User talk:BackHandOfFate

You know what? I don't appreciate you contradicting everything I say in a rating, then putting it under mine. Please stop such trolling behavior.--Quey 22:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ya got me there. I was indeed trolling. But to be fair, I wasn't the first troll in that chat page. The first troll took it apon himself to 'hate' an article about an imaginary weapon simply because the author did not provide blueprints for how to actually build it. That sure sounds like trolling to me. Do you care so much about the mechanics of a weapon in an imaginary game that you would first give it the lowest rating possible before offering any constructive criticism on how to improve it? Do you think people should be able to justify their 'hate'red of a game concept simply because it does not meet their standard of realism? If you're that kind of guy(girl?), then I have just one question for you: Why in the world do you play D&D? --BackHandOfFate 11:16, 8 August 2012 (PST)

It was not only the description, but also the game mechanics we discussed, as said in my rating. I planned to revise my rating if any changes were made. I'm not trolling, just looking for a reaction, I'm giving my honest opinion. When conversation sprung up, I engaged all comers. As for your questions, my answers are "no", "not usually", and "for fun". Realism wasn't my only concern, though I won't rule out that gross abuses of realism can justify a low rating, if coupled with a lack of explanation. If the mechanics and balance are good, there probably won't be a problem. Where the greater malady is fixed, the lesser is scarcely felt. But if you want to make shoes whose sole purpose is to do something illogical, say, boots of jumping that work by increasing gravity (pulling the wearer down), yeah, I would give that a bad rating due to realism. And I think that's perfectly justified. So while I do play D&D for fun, there isn't much of a point if things don't make sense. I'm willing to accept things like magic and abstractions like HP. We don't play perfectly realistic games, but there is a line somewhere out there between a game that makes sense and a universe with no rules. In addition to D&D, I play other d20 games that try to capture more realistic combat and such, but that doesn't mean I enjoy D&D any less. I enjoy D&D because I can play with blink dogs, the astral plane, surviving a 50 ft fall, bluffing someone into thinking they owe me money, and so on. I'm not that kind of guy who says everything needs to be as realistic as possible. The repeating crossbow is already a stretch beyond the real thing. But when we start breaking laws of physics instead of bending them, things start to get weird. That sets a bad precedent, and I'd rather not have any mundane item do that. Do you think a mundane item should? The way the rapid fire crossbow was when I first looked at it, it created energy out of nothing. A lot of it. The repeating crossbows, well, they sort of fudge how fast you can crank a lever, which isn't as bad. But like I said, this wasn't my only objection. Bleh. I'm up too late. Probably rambling. I'm done for now.--Quey 11:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI Quey, if it matters Tarkis' edit was installed into the description. I don't know if that's what you were looking for or not. Also still don't know why repeating crossbows are unrealistic since they clearly exist in real life.

O HAI BACKHAND. Sup? Here, have his strange polydimensional cat. You can see its back as well as its front at all times. -- Eiji-kun 11:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It'll certainly improve my rating. Repeating crossbows, as presented in D&D, are better than the real examples in history. I believe they mention this in the official FAQ. It's only a slight stretch, though. Not sure what you're trying to say about the polydimensional cat. It certainly makes no pretense about being a mundane creature. However, if we continue this conversation, it'd probably be best to move so as to stop bothering BackHand.--Quey 02:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Rating Abuse

I've deleted your Rapid Fire Crossbow (3.5e Equipment)‎ review. The rating system is intended to be a community moderation and quality setup, and unhelpful ratings like that one have no business in it. "Love" it again if you want to, but please write a non-parody review that is intended help users decide if the item is worth their time. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 23:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding the deletion and writing a much more useful one. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 18:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Chat Game

We can do it today if you are up for it. --Leziad 23:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)