57 réponses à ce sujet

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

I think critical hits are important for the 'wildcard' effect, it makes combat more suspenseful when the next hit could dramatically change the tide of battle. It also opens up some opportunity to give different melee builds a different style of combat, either the steady grind of wearing down an enemy with base damage or the anxious wait for that one good hit to strike home.

Insta-kill is a different problem, mainly I think players get frustrated because it isn't apparent that they have other options besides running straight into the scythe-master.

I also like to put massive critical damage on my baddies, figuring that the hard-core players would appreciate the challenge, and the normal player would rather just get through the combat without much hassle.

[manageri]

DannJ wrote...

 There's no reason that a module creator can't include items that grant critical hit immunity in the same module that includes scythe-wielding weapon masters from hell.

It is a problem if you ever intend on having challenging sneak attacker enemies, as crit immunity prevents sneak attacks. Of course living undeath prevents those too, overpowered spell that it is. And that's another problem with immunities; In addition to the nasty stuff they you really need them for, they also mess up other, perfectly balanced things. As I said, it's for good reason other systems don't do this kind of crap, not even 4th edition D&D so much anymore from what I've heard (haven't actually played myself though).

[Tchos]

I have to say, I like everyone having critical hits, and what Lugaid called the wildcard effect.  As a player, I want it to be possible that an enemy can crit-kill me, and I definitely don't want people who make modules to soften this or mitigate it in any way, artificially weakening enemies or their attacks and cheapening my game experience.  When it happens, I try again, as Tsongo said.

Modifié par Tchos, 17 octobre 2013 - 05:00 .

[manageri]

Tchos wrote...

I have to say, I like everyone having critical hits, and what Lugaid called the wildcard effect.  As a player, I want it to be possible that an enemy can crit-kill me, and I definitely don't want people who make modules to soften this or mitigate it in any way, artificially weakening enemies or their attacks and cheapening my game experience.  When it happens, I try again, as Tsongo said.

So if I made a module where in every fight there's a 1% chance a meteor destroys the planet and forces a reload, regardless of anything you do or fail to do as a player, that mechanic would enrich your experience? If not, explain the difference.

Trying again because you made a mistake is not the same as trying again because the dice decided you have no chance this time. One is a challenge, the other one's a waste of time.

[Tchos]

The difference, reductio ad absurdum aside, is that critical hits are both believable and a part of the standard D&D rules that I like, and random world destruction is not.

[I_Raps]

Tchos wrote...

The difference, reductio ad absurdum aside, is that critical hits are both believable and a part of the standard D&D rules ...

... and avoidable, once again.

[Arkalezth]

I was playing the other day. My character was fighting an enemy alone, and he was low on health and out of healing items. The enemy didn't hit too hard so I knew I could resist a normal hit, but a critical would probably kill me. That fight would have been less exciting without the possibility of a critical.

Anyway, I understand how you may not like them, but I don't see how they're different from any other mechanics. OK, they're random, but in the end, if you saw a wizard, you would protect yourself against fireballs, and if you saw a scythe, you would protect yourself against criticals. It's a dull strategy, yes, but you can say that about many other things in the game.

[manageri]

The difference between a wizard and a random orc with a scythe is that a wizard WILL throw the spells it's got at the player. A scythe will only crit rarely, especially in the hands of the average enemy that will have a hard time confirming the crit against your paladin in superplate +50. Therefore it is not a mechanic you, as a builder, can depend on the player ever even having to face, unlike that missile storm you gave your wizard (regardless of whether the player deals with it by trying to absorb and/or heal the damage, or by zerging that wizard).

This means that you have to give that orc a healthy amount of melee damage capability on noncrits, because otherwise it's a pathetic pushover on the 90% of fights it doesn't megacrit the PC. That then means that when it does crit, it does such an absurd amount of damage it throws off balance completely. There's simply no way to turn that into a remotely good, or even acceptable mechanic without heavily tweaking the rules in your campaign, like quadrupling all health pools to smooth out those damage spikes and give the player time to react.

It doesn't even require that the player does anything differently (like memorizing a living undeath if they have a cleric) because it's so unlikely to happen again. It's basically the flipside of the strategy where a player just keeps throwing death spells and reloading until the enemy fails because it's bound to happen sooner or later, and it's exactly the same thing that makes it a bad mechanic; Instead of making the player think about and approach the fight differently, like they would have to do if the system wasn't so random that their bad strategy had practically no chance of ever succeeding, they just have to reload and repeat.

[manageri]

Iveforgotmypassword wrote...

You could make yourself a hat like DannJ said that made you immune to criticals then export it to your override and console it to yourself if any module had too many critical hits. That way you'd be happy and other people that don't mind suffering major axe wounds would be too and you wouldn't be cheating because you don't believe critical hits should exist.

- Crit immunity breaks like a dozen other things (sneak attacks being the biggest one).
- It's really not a problem when most enemies aren't wielding 3x, and certainly not 4x crit weapons. I just suggested keeping it that way.
- The point isn't what I like, it's whether gigantic crits are a good, engaging mechanic. No one's said anything remotely persuasive in favor of them yet, or explained how they can be balanced around except by offering immunity, which I already adressed, and which kinda concedes the point they're broken and should just be removed. I mean if I really did implement that 1% meteor annihilation mechanic, the fact I could offer you an immunity item wouldn't mean the mechanic made any sense whatsoever in the first place.

Personally I like handing them out and instant killing creatures with spells/ quivering palms too and you have to admit that doing 100+ damage in one axe blow is rather pleasing.

What makes sense for the PCs doesn't always make sense for the enemies. Not that instant kills are a great mechanic for PCs, but they're completely senseless when given to the enemy.

[Dann-J]

I like RPGs to have an element of randomness about them (even if it results in sudden death). There's nothing more boring than knowing exactly what to expect. If you like dull predictable mechanics and obvious counter-measures, then you'd be better off playing chess.

Modifié par DannJ, 17 octobre 2013 - 10:00 .

[Tchos]

manageri wrote...
- The point isn't what I like, it's whether gigantic crits are a good, engaging mechanic. No one's said anything remotely persuasive in favor of them yet, or explained how they can be balanced around except by offering immunity

Sure they have.  I've been thoroughly persuaded.

As for balance...  No, I don't think anyone is going to say 3.5e D&D is balanced, because it is not balanced.  Further, I don't think it's supposed to be.  It's a party-based game, and no, the different classes can't all take each other down 1-on-1.  That's why we play in groups.

[Dann-J]

One thing critical hits do provide is a sense of realism. An experienced brawler who has survived a thousand bar fights can easily die if someone less experienced gets in a lucky punch, or they happen to trip awkwardly and hit their dead in a certain way. Freak accidents have no regard for experience or ability.

What the game offers is a choice; play in hardcore mode and accept that enemies might critical hit you, or play in normal mode and avoid them. If only real life gave you that option...

[manageri]

DannJ wrote...

I like RPGs to have an element of randomness about them (even if it results in sudden death). There's nothing more boring than knowing exactly what to expect. If you like dull predictable mechanics and obvious counter-measures, then you'd be better off playing chess.

You wouldn't be saying that if the chance of instant, unavoidable reload was 90%. The only reason you tolerate it is because it's so rare, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense. SOME randomness is what keeps a game unpredictable, but giving one die roll too much blatant power takes the skill away. At that point you're just gambling. Between hit rolls and weapon damage rolls there's plenty of randomness in this system.

Tchos wrote...

As
for balance...  No, I don't think anyone is going to say 3.5e D&D
is balanced, because it is not balanced.  Further, I don't think it's
supposed to be.  It's a party-based game, and no, the different classes
can't all take each other down 1-on-1.  That's why we play in groups.

The subject isn't class A vs class B solo balance, it's how to balance a single creature with 4X crits so that it's a good, consistent challenge against a party. You can't do that in this system without heavily bending the rules and guidelines because math is a ****. And again, granting immunity isn't balancing, it's removing.

DannJ wrote...

One thing critical hits do provide is a
sense of realism. An experienced brawler who has survived a thousand bar
fights can easily die if someone less experienced gets in a lucky
punch, or they happen to trip awkwardly and hit their dead in a certain
way. Freak accidents have no regard for experience or ability.

Except that that's not how it even goes since 95% of hits/spells/whatever can't oneshot a character of appropriate level. If a kobold's maximum crit damage is 16 I'm still 100% safe from instant death with 17 hp left.

[Arkalezth]

All things considered, maybe it's just me, but the cases where my entire party was whipped out and I had to reload due to a critical are extremely rare, to say the least. Even then, those criticals may have not made a great difference in the outcome of the battle anyway. Then again, I've never tried to complete Icewind Dale with a level 5 party.

In the end, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion, because:

1) Criticals are there and that's not going to change (unless someone comes up with a way to remove them in hardcore).

2) You can easily avoid them. You can protect yourself or you can play on a lower difficulty. Maybe you don't like this solution, but it's there.

[kevL]

i remember Kaelyn got crit'd by a scythe-wielding deathknight in MotB, for 150. (Pia)

This led to a huge massively epic battle, in which Kaelyn got back up and played a part and I went over it again and again in my head at least a dozen times. ( my party recovered but it was incredibly difficult )

manageri's position makes a lot of sense, it's the way I felt when DnD first introduced criticals. But criticals are also a way to express the ineffable

[manageri]

Arkalezth wrote...

All things considered, maybe it's just me, but the cases where my entire party was whipped out and I had to reload due to a critical are extremely rare, to say the least.

Of course they are when most enemies aren't packing weapons with a crit multiplier over 2.

Even then, those criticals may have not made a great difference in the outcome of the battle anyway.

With the low difficulty of most mods, certainly the official ones, that's true too. It really doesn't matter if that 10 damage your 200hp chars are taking gets quadrupled or not, which seems to be how most mods are "balanced".

Then again, I've never tried to complete Icewind Dale with a level 5 party.

Which is a perfect example of how badly balanced most mods are. Not that I blame them too much as it's mostly the rules' fault for letting tanks so easily get to 95% avoidance. Of course builders could counter that by raising their NPCs' AB way beyond the guidelines, and lowering damage if necessary, to create a more predictable stream of incoming damage (which is how I've modded my game btw and it's a lot more enjoyable that way), but it's not really their job to fix the rules.

1) Criticals are there and that's not going to change (unless someone comes up with a way to remove them in hardcore).

2) You can easily avoid them. You can protect yourself or you can play on a lower difficulty. Maybe you don't like this solution, but it's there.

I don't need tips on avoiding them when they're rarely a problem in practice, and that's not the subject anyway. I've gone over this. This is mostly a theoretical discussion about whether they're a good mechanic, and whether or not builders should sprinkle a bunch of scythe or greataxe wielding monsters around for no particular reason. "You can make yourself immune" is not an answer to the question "is this a good mechanic" (see my meteor example).

[Axe_Edge]

I_Raps wrote...

All of you - LISTEN UP!

PLAY ON HARDCORE! NOW!

Totally agree.  You guys are missing out.

As far as crits go, crits (including instant death) have been in my game  since about the same time I was moving from Holmes to AD&D in '79.  Guess I'm used to it (and learned to roll a character quick).

NWN is easy enough to get through, even with crits and aoe.  When playing a story line, I want the challenge (which lessens once you learn how to play on hardcore).

Truly, you're missing out.


Edit:  Another way of looking at it is crits help make up for a creatures lack of intelligent thought and tactics.  A PnP orc is more deadly than a scripted orc.

Modifié par Axe_Edge, 18 octobre 2013 - 04:16 .

[Arkalezth]

manageri wrote...

Of course they are when most enemies aren't packing weapons with a crit multiplier over 2.

Even if they weren't, I doubt things would change a lot. I am talking about a full party getting killed. In general, when an enemy/group of enemies are strong enough to kill my entire party, they can do it with or without criticals.

I don't know if you always play like in the IWD example I put, but I mentioned it because, obviously, a scythe critical is going to be more noticeable if your characters have 50 HP instead of 150.

"You can make yourself immune" is not an answer to the question "is this a good mechanic".

No, and I don't claim so. It's just a way to say that they're not such a big deal in practice (which is what really matters in the end). I'm not entering theoretical discussions.

[manageri]

Arkalezth wrote...

I don't know if you always play like in the IWD example I put, but I mentioned it because, obviously, a scythe critical is going to be more noticeable if your characters have 50 HP instead of 150.

My IWD tank was at such high AC (or the enemies had such low AB, whichever way you wanna look at it) that very few enemies hit her with less than a 20. As I'm sure you know, this is by no means a rare feat in most campaigns, or one that you need to min/max a character much for either. Assuming no power critical feat, that makes for a crit no more than once in every 400 enemy attacks (maybe less since I'm actually not sure whether a 20 on a crit confirm roll makes for a crit if the result still doesn't meet the target's AC). So no, it's not like this affects me personally much more than anyone else.

I invite you to consider exactly what a balanced damage per hit would be on a 150 hp tank that gets hit 5% of the time, and then see what quadrupling that number would do (EDIT: especially if you assume the player is stoneskinned). Maybe you'll start to see why the system is so bad.

Modifié par manageri, 18 octobre 2013 - 05:44 .

[Tchos]

manageri wrote...

DannJ wrote...
I like RPGs to have an element of randomness about them (even if it results in sudden death).

You wouldn't be saying that if the chance of instant, unavoidable reload was 90%. The only reason you tolerate it is because it's so rare, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.

<_<  Sure, and I wouldn't be saying that either.  And it's not 90%.  It is rare.  No, its rarity doesn't mean that it makes sense, and neither does your ridiculous 90% suggestion show that it doesn't.  You can hypothetically reduce anything to absurdity, but if you really want me to come around to your way of thinking, you're going to have to make me believe that such absurdity is a natural consequence of your argument, and not just some slippery slope or straw man.

You're also ignoring the other party members.  How is a single critical hit death going to cause an "unavoidable reload"?  In the base game, party members just pop right back up like nothing happened when you end combat.  Even in SoZ or more hardcore modules, all you need to do is use a raise dead spell or scroll, or coin of life.

manageri wrote...

Tchos wrote...
No, I don't think anyone is going to say 3.5e D&D is balanced, because it is not balanced.  Further, I don't think it's
supposed to be.  It's a party-based game, and no, the different classes can't all take each other down 1-on-1.  That's why we play in groups.

The subject isn't class A vs class B solo balance, it's how to balance a single creature with 4X crits so that it's a good, consistent challenge against a party. You can't do that in this system without heavily bending the rules and guidelines because math is a ****. And again, granting immunity isn't balancing, it's removing.

Ignore my mention of class and I'm still saying that the rules are not balanced in the way that you think they should be.  I know you're obsessed with creatures wielding scythes because they're one of the scant handful of weapons (4 of them, I think) that have 4x crits.  I don't advocate granting immunity, and I don't see any reason why a single creature with a scythe should ever be a consistent challenge against a party.  Indeed, I don't see any reason why any single creature should ever be a "consistent" challenge to a party.  To hell with consistency in a fight, especially a full party vs. a single creature as you suggest here.

[manageri]

Tchos wrote...

<_<  Sure, and I wouldn't be saying that either.  And it's not 90%.  It is rare.  No, its rarity doesn't mean that it makes sense, and neither does your ridiculous 90% suggestion show that it doesn't.

Reloading because of bad luck is reloading because of bad luck, regardless of how often it happens. If you think that somehow becomes a good mechanic in itself simply because it's so rare, then you'll have to argue that.

You can hypothetically reduce anything to absurdity

No you can't. An argument is either logical or it isn't.

but if you really want me to come around to your way of thinking, you're going to have to make me believe that such absurdity is a natural consequence of your argument, and not just some slippery slope or straw man.

Already did: reloading because of bad luck is reloading because of bad luck. A = A. Literally basic logic. Now it's your turn to explain why that's an inaccurate assessment, and how the scenarios (critical scythe kill and meteor in the face) are in fact different in some RELEVANT way to the player. Your previous answer to this was basically that it's believable that someone can receive a fatal wound at any time in combat, which is a perfectly acceptable answer if you value that kind of reality simulation in a combat game. I don't, and let's be honest, you don't either, else you'd refuse to accept a fight between a halfling fighter and a dragon can end in any other way than the halfling getting eaten in under 2 seconds.

You're also ignoring the other party members.  How is a single critical hit death going to cause an "unavoidable reload"? In the base game, party members just pop right back up like
nothing happened when you end combat.  Even in SoZ or more hardcore
modules, all you need to do is use a raise dead spell or scroll, or coin
of life.

If your tank gets instantly sliced to death by some scythe masters during round 1 then there's really no way in hell the rest of the party can escape their fury if the fight is remotely challenging. If you think that's inaccurate then explain to me exactly how a fight like that might go down, keeping in mind that those crits are rare and hence the builder/dm can't rely on them taking place and incapacitating that tank early on.

Tchos wrote...

Ignore my mention of class and I'm still saying that the rules are not balanced in the way that you think they should be.

The rules aren't intended to be balanced for party PvE? Really? I think that would be news to the devs.

I know you're obsessed with creatures wielding scythes because they're one of the scant handful of weapons (4 of them, I think) that have 4x crits.  I don't advocate granting immunity, and I don't see any reason why a single creature with a scythe should ever be a consistent challenge against a party.  Indeed, I don't see any reason why any single creature should ever be a "consistent" challenge to a party.  To hell with consistency in a fight, especially a full party vs. a single creature as you suggest here.

I haven't said anything about fighting a single creature, as those
kinds of fights are almost always pretty boring and imbalanced one way
or the other. The fight doesn't have to be against one warrior for a 4X
crit to be imbalanced.

Consistent in this context means it's as close as can be to challenging the player every time. Level 20 party vs level 1 kobold is, at the very least RELATIVELY consistently an absolute cakewalk every time. Reversing the levels results in, again RELATIVELY consistently in the party getting butter knifed to death every time.

Obviously the definition of what makes an encounter "balanced" is impossible to nail down exactly, especially when different people enjoy different levels of challenge, but we all know what the extremes on either end look like and can at least agree on the same ballpark. For instance, quite obviously swapping the party's levels for the OC and MotB would result in some seriously unbalanced encounters. Please stop lawyering words when you know what I mean.

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

Criticals are also part of d20's way of dealing with asymmetric combat, like when a mid-level character is facing a bunch of low-level monsters, or a low-level party is facing a high-level monster. The automatic hit on a d20 gives the weaker character a chance to hit, and the critical gives them the chance to actually do some damage. It might just be one substantial hit out of 400, but when 20 little mooks are chucking darts at you, eventually one is going to hit you where it counts. If it weren't for the critical, those little mooks wouldn't be any threat at all, and likewise, that dragon 10 levels above you would be literally impossible to touch.

As for facing down the high-level scythe master, it's always about options. Say the scythe can insta-kill your tank on a critical. How many rounds can he last? Do you buff him up and hope he can last long enough to give the rest of the party the chance to take out the scythe? Or do you focus on killing the scythe before that lucky hit makes contact? It's going to be a gamble, that crit might come on the first round or the 400th. That makes the encounter more of a dice game than a carefully-controlled tactical puzzle, but that's the whole point. It's the uncertainty that's exciting, especially in a game where so many other encounters are statistically predetermined before they even start. The game isn't just about building a party that can win all the time, it's also about playing a party that can bounce back from some really bad luck.

[Tchos]

This will be a long one.

[quote]manageri wrote...
Reloading because of bad luck is reloading because of bad luck, regardless of how often it happens. If you think that somehow becomes a good mechanic in itself simply because it's so rare, then you'll have to argue that. [/quote]
Good, then we're done, because I agree that reloading because of bad luck is reloading because of bad luck, and I don't claim that its rarity makes it a good mechanic in itself.  I said that I like the mechanic.  I don't need to argue personal preference.

[quote]manageri wrote...
[quote]Tchos wrote...
You can hypothetically reduce anything to absurdity[/quote]
No you can't. An argument is either logical or it isn't. [/quote]
That is incorrect.  It's easily possible for a reductio ad absurdum argument to be logically valid, and yet be false due to the premises being untrue or spuriously correlated.  That's common to other kinds of arguments as well.  "Logically valid" does not equal "sound".

[quote]manageri wrote...
If your tank gets instantly sliced to death by some scythe masters during round 1 then there's really no way in hell the rest of the party can escape their fury if the fight is remotely challenging. If you think that's inaccurate then explain to me exactly how a fight like that might go down, keeping in mind that those crits are rare and hence the builder/dm can't rely on them taking place and incapacitating that tank early on.[/quote]
I really have no idea how such a fight would go down, because I've never played a module that loaded things like this.  Nor do I think it's likely that I ever will, based on the ones I have played.  Someone would have to do a series of tests to find out, and that's not going to be me, because I'm not the one who's interested in the kind of consistency or balance that would guarantee a challenging yet not overpowering fight in every instance.

[quote]manageri wrote...
[quote]Tchos wrote...
but if you really want me to come around to your way of thinking, you're going to have to make me believe that such absurdity is a natural consequence of your argument, and not just some slippery slope or straw man.[/quote]
Already did:
reloading because of bad luck is reloading because of bad luck. A = A. Literally basic logic. Now it's your turn to explain why that's an inaccurate assessment, and how the scenarios (critical scythe kill and meteor in the face) are in fact different in some RELEVANT way to the player. [/quote]
Boldfaced for emphasis.  I do not believe that a 10% chance in every fight of a meteor destroying the world is equivalent to a (much smaller) chance of a single member of my party being killed by a critical hit in a fight with an enemy.  If you want to expand this to a whole legion of 20th level scythe masters swarming over a solo character without a party, then you need to start with that premise and see who's willing to entertain your arguments.

If the entirety of your argument is that "reloading because of bad luck is reloading because of bad luck", then I agree, and we're done.  However, you don't stop there -- here you're asserting that the presence of the possibility of any amount of bad luck (a crit-death) equals an absurd amount of bad luck (meteor), and I don't agree with that.

I'll make some further statements on my position: I say that it is worth it to me to have a small amount (that which the rules allow) of uncertainty that make the fights more interesting.  I say that I like having the game this way.  Again and again I will say that I would not like or enjoy your hypothetical module that includes a world-ending meteor or horde of scythe-wielders.  So what?  It's not a problem, because I'm not playing any such module.  If you are, I recommend you stop.

[quote]manageri wrote...
Your previous answer to this was basically that it's believable that someone can receive a fatal wound at any time in combat, which is a perfectly acceptable answer if you value that kind of reality simulation in a combat game. I don't, and let's be honest, you don't either, else you'd refuse to accept a fight between a halfling fighter and a dragon can end in any other way than the halfling getting eaten in under 2 seconds.[/quote]
I have no dispute with your statement that you don't value that kind of "reality simulation", though I would not call it that.  I do dispute your putting words in my mouth.  If you're asserting that I would accept a level 1 halfling fighter single-handedly slaying an average D&D dragon, then you're wrong.  A level 20 halfling fighter, then maybe, but I wouldn't count on it.  I don't see how this relates.  I don't play solo modules, and I don't expect CR15 enemies to be commonly put up against low-level parties.  I enjoyed the dragon fight in the NWN2 OC in Act 3, where I had a full party of mid-to-high level characters.  I had to buff them up to the gills to survive it, and make several attempts, and I had a great time.  There may have been critical hits in there, and there may not have been.  The fight was very different each time I attempted it (with several different party members, buffs, and weapons), and I loved that.  So yes, I value the chance element.  I've said as much.  How does "halfling vs dragon" equate to "party vs scythe master"?

[quote]manageri wrote...
The rules aren't intended to be balanced for party PvE? Really? I think that would be news to the devs.[/quote]
I doubt that.  I haven't heard anyone claim that 3.5e is balanced in any way, so why should I expect it was intended to have been?  And which devs are you talking about?  I'm talking about 3.5e core rules.

[quote]manageri wrote...
[quote]Tchos wrote...
I don't see any reason why a single creature with a scythe should ever be a consistent challenge against a party.  Indeed, I don't see any reason why any single creature should ever be a "consistent" challenge to a party.  To hell with consistency in a fight, especially a full party vs. a single creature as you suggest here.[/quote]
I haven't said anything about fighting a single creature, [/quote]
Yes, you bloody well did.  In fact, you said it was the entire subject of your argument.  And I quoted it in my response so you'd know exactly what I was responding to.  I'll quote it again, this time with boldface:
[quote]manageri wrote...
The subject isn't class A vs class B solo balance, it's how to balance a single creature with 4X crits so that it's a good, consistent challenge against a party.[/quote]
If you're going to move the goalposts or claim not to have said something that there's a record of you saying, then there's no continuing this discussion.  There's no shame in changing your mind, if that's what happened, but do it graciously.

[quote]manageri wrote...
Consistent in this context means it's as close as can be to challenging the player every time.  [...]  Please stop lawyering words when you know what I mean.[/quote]
I agree with your definition (it was never in question), and I understand that your position is that you want that consistency.  Mine is that I don't.  There is no "lawyering" here, but I'm not going to accept bad arguments or false statements directed at me.  If you keep it to personal preference, there's no dispute.  But you're not.  You're making an argument that suggests you want others to take your position.

Modifié par Tchos, 18 octobre 2013 - 09:09 .