|
Post by Kainguru on Nov 20, 2015 16:06:51 GMT -8
I guess my comment about not being able to make sense of your post pissed you off CreativeCowboy. That explains why I woke up to Angry GM calling me a "one true wayist $#&T head" in my Twitter mentions this morning after you Tweeted him my "Angry? Feh" post on the previous page. (Side note: I didn't know that people who have blocked you can still @ mention you on Twitter.) To be perfectly honest, I read your soup-jazz-Monopoly post. All of it. And I didn't get it. Which I think it part of the point. I get the distinct feeling you write your massive, six-page posts so that you can feel intellectually superior to the people, like me, who don't get what you're saying. Methinks you have been misrepresented on the twatters - your post reads quite the opposite of being 'a one true wayest'. In fact the whole bone of contention in this ongoing bilious diatribe of discordant discourse is everyone else shouting 'there is no right way to play' vs 'there is only one way to play (**CENSORED**)'. FFS: my regretful contributions to birthing this thread can be summed up as "Do what thou whilt shall be the whole of the law, provided everyone is having fun' . . . in fact I shall call it 'GM=OTO' (now let's see who gets that reference ) As to the convoluted logic and misuse of Roget's Thesaurus: your observation is quite correct. In an evolving society the zeitgeist has become clarity of rationale thru concise communication. This because, in ages past, psuedo-intellectual obfuscation to support flawed ideas was commonplace (look at the 'science' of pre WW2 eugenics as an example). Then we discovered a thing called 'evidence based research' - basically that means 'keep it short, keep it brief, let the evidence speak for itself'. The worst fanatics, both left and right wing, always reject this: be it new agers talking shit about the scientific method or knuckle headed adherents of the Fox News world view using semantic fudges ( as linguistic smoke and mirrors) to question any evidence that doesn't confirm their belief system. You can't win this sort of argument nor can it be understood - because confirmation bias is bitch and using reason or logic rendered impotent against the unreasonable and illogical. As Homer Simpson once said: can't win?, don't try . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Nov 20, 2015 16:41:34 GMT -8
I guess my comment about not being able to make sense of your post pissed you off CreativeCowboy. That explains why I woke up to Angry GM calling me a "one true wayist $#&T head" in my Twitter mentions this morning after you Tweeted him my "Angry? Feh" post on the previous page. Yeah, he linked the comments above to Angry as an example of "a load of forum assholes". *smh*
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Nov 20, 2015 17:06:29 GMT -8
Methinks you have been misrepresented on the twatters To be perfectly fair, I was a douche to Angry GM on Twitter a couple of years ago and earned the block he gave me. I can get overzealous in my love for Apocalypse World-based games, and I see now that saying "I don't need D&D; I've got Dungeon World" in a conversation about D&D is shitting all over other people's fun. So, as I said, I earned that Twitter block. Honestly, a big part of my bitterness is because I am a one true wayist to Angry GM because of those early interactions. I've got no one but myself to blame, but it still bugs me. I'll get off the therapist's couch now.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Nov 20, 2015 17:13:04 GMT -8
Ever thought of reaching out to the guy to clear the air?
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Nov 20, 2015 18:39:06 GMT -8
Wait, so what did CC do with Twitter?
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Nov 20, 2015 21:38:03 GMT -8
Wait, so what did CC do with Twitter? Based off of comments in this thread, ran to Angry and told him we were meanies.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Nov 20, 2015 22:43:04 GMT -8
Wait, so what did CC do with Twitter? Based off of comments in this thread, ran to Angry and told him we were meanies. I may be an exception, but Angry GM episodes are my favorite, second only to Bill+Gina+Kimi episodes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2015 22:58:41 GMT -8
I'd like to thank the academy and Jesus, and the fans. None of this would be possible without you. I mean, I'm just so surprised you would all pick me ass the biggest forum asshole. This golden dick award just means the world to me. *Wipes away tears* I just wish my good friend in the ten gallon hat were here today. I couldn't have done it without him. Thank you, thank you. . . *Walks slowly backwards holding out a thumb while the sad music from the end of the hulk plays*
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Nov 20, 2015 23:18:28 GMT -8
Based off of comments in this thread, ran to Angry and told him we were meanies. I may be an exception, but Angry GM episodes are my favorite, second only to Bill+Gina+Kimi episodes. Not the only exception if so. While I wouldn't want him on all the time, to me an occasional dose of his humour is welcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2015 0:56:40 GMT -8
It is not that I am missing the part ‘that the stat score reflects the in-game reality’ because this is not actually what I listen to you say when you write the GM describes stat blocks for players to understand in-game reality. I hear the stat blocks are the reality and not a mere reflection of the in-game reality; that stat blocks determine in-game reality. I hear the in-game reality is predicated upon stat blocks: story is founded on a pile of crunch. I am hearing “ stop talking to my XP” and, ultimately, I hear a story about adversarial gaming, which RPGs were not meant to be. I'm having some difficulty parsing this. It almost seems like English isn't your native language, but it could just be the lateness of the hour and the complexity of the topic. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but there's definitely some miscommunication going on here. When you're talking about a representational game, like AD&D or Rifts or pretty much anything from the 20th Century, the crunch and the fluff are two different languages for conveying the same information. You could say that someone looks like Arnold in his glory days, or you could say that he has a Strength score of 18, and they both mean the same thing. Every number in the book corresponds to a distinct truth about the game world. A preference for one or the other is not an indication of play style. To make myself clear on terminology: in-game conflict and tension is not the same as adversarial gaming. Adversarial gaming is a zero sum game: a winner +1 and a loser -1. Conflict – martial, intellectual or philosophical – is part of the fun of RPGs but it progresses the game along in a manner that every player wins – including the GM, thus not zero sum. Players improve and so do the characters who “level up.” Adversarial gaming pits one stat block of roughly the same value against another stat block, like the sport of boxing, or the game of chess. We can identify adversarial gaming by the term ‘game balance.’ I do not think this is a controversial statement; I think it is obvious. I wish to call attention to the difference between in-game conflict and adversarial sport at the table just so my meaning is clear. There's definitely some confusion going on here. If we use your definition of Adversarial Gaming as a zero sum game where the GM tries to beat the players, then that has nothing to do with the topic of Game Balance - nobody on the podcast (or in these forums) is advocating for that style of play, because we all want everyone to win (by having fun). The topic of Game Balance, when it comes up, is mostly in regards to the balance between player agency, to help ensure that everyone feels useful because no single character is constantly stealing the show. With regards to in-game conflict, any Game Balance disparity between Player Characters and NPCs can be solved by the GM altering the guidelines to get the right level of challenge for everyone to have fun. If a game addresses the concept of Game Balance, it's usually in regards to how to make things interesting for everyone. It's not like the game specifically calls out that the GM is only allowed X resources for any encounter, and anything else is cheating. I am saying the stat block responds to the game’s story world (origin point GM, not rulebook). The GM can bestow a malus or bonus due to circumstance or to situation that makes even a dump stat formidable, even including but not limited to fudging the dice. And now I have no idea what you're talking about. Of the many game systems I've read and played, I cannot think of a single one where the GM or anything in the story can alter the character's stat block. At least, not directly. Something that the GM can technically do, which is kind of similar in effect, is to tailor the game world to the PCs. For example, if the party thief is a half-orc with poor Dexterity, then the GM could fill the world with super-low-quality locks such that the character still has a good chance of success. That's not exactly best practices for a GM, though. By tailoring the world to the party, you're invalidating a lot of their choices. The player doesn't get to experience the consequences for choosing to have low Dexterity, or the benefits from whatever else they've chosen, if the world is set up specifically such that everything will still be a moderate challenge. Is it Harn System when its melody is no longer distinguishable from every other version? The Jazz example says yes. How about the player using the fictional character with the low ability score? Is there no room for his or her solo? Is that player supposed to sit quietly at the table to empathize with the shame of his or her fictional character? (And is it really the GM’s role to make each special snowflake shine instead of that being the role of each player?) Let it suffice to say that your examples fall on deaf ears. I have no idea what you're trying to say. I have no idea what a "solo" is supposed to be in this context. The statistic is relative to the story though, isn’t it? No, it's not. A score of 3 for Intelligence indicates the exact same reality within the game world, regardless of whether our story is focused on intricate court dealings or bashing orcs in a dungeon. It's a lot like an axe, in that way. The "story" is a meta-game construct which cannot possibly affect any reality within the game world. An Int 3 barbarian will think like an Int 3 barbarian, regardless of whether you're in court or you're in a dungeon. In terms of approaching the role-play of character, I think it is impossible to get into the head of someone more intelligent than oneself. That's fair, and a lot of people would agree with you on this point, but I'm not one of them. I think you could at least try to think like a smarter person, if you put some effort into it. What you could accomplish with a minute of serious thinking might approximate what a smarter person could accomplish in five seconds, but it should be close enough for us non-professional actors who are just trying to experience the fun of role-playing. If you don't even try, then you're losing out on a fundamental aspect of the hobby. I can play someone dumber than me but, even then, this is my assessment (conception) of, e.g. “3 out of 18,” dumb. Another player on this forum [interpreting their fictional character] with the same stat as my fictional character may have an entirely different, even drastic, approach to play that same stat. That sounds like a problem with the system, or possibly with one of the players. A good RPG should have definitions for their stats which are easy to understand and implement. If different players disagree too widely on the meaning of Intelligence 3, then the GM needs to step in and arbitrate. You won't end up with a consistent (believable) story if everyone is in disagreement about the fundamental reality of the game world. There's a lot of confusion in this thread, and these lengthy posts aren't exactly helping the matter, but some of your message is getting through. I'm pretty sure that everyone is in agreement that the GM can have a huge impact on how the game is played. I think the disagreement is in the degree, though. If you have two GMs (Alice and Bob), each running the same two games (D&D and Rifts), then the two Rifts games will be more similar to each other than the two Alice games will be similar to each other. The GM does matter in how the game is presented and arbitrated - the GM adds some flavor to the system - but the base ruleset is its own distinct thing that matters at least as much as the person reading it. (GM != System), but (GM + System) is going to be a unique experience for every combination of GM and System.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Nov 21, 2015 2:23:19 GMT -8
Ah ha - we're setting up for the 2nd and 3rd forum record: not only is this the thread with most pages but soon we'll have the longest post PLUS longest post in longest thread . . . Whoop Okay yeah I think I might have brain maggots . . . They lurk in the angles between the worlds that border this thread . . . Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2015 2:32:51 GMT -8
I feel like this thread should be a Kevin Smith story about people in Hollywood who are batshit insane. But we don't tell the, that because we want the job >.>
Go to YouTube and watch the one where he talks about writing for superman. Cowboy is like Barbara Streisands hair dresser turned director. And the rest of us are the studio execs being all, "Did he mention the whole **CENSORED** thing?" "Well, yeah..." "He won't shut up about it."
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Nov 21, 2015 4:06:26 GMT -8
Cowboy is like Barbara Streisands hair dresser turned director. And the rest of us are the studio execs being all, "Did he mention the whole **CENSORED** thing?" "Well, yeah..." "He won't shut up about it." (Weary old timer voice) Well, pull up a chair sonny and let me tell you . . . You ain't been blooded til you tackle this thread . . . Makes a man of ya it does. I member when my pappy bought me to this place, he never beat it neither no matter how hard he tried, it just kept coming back for more, so it did. We forum grognards? We all tried like my pappy and, like my pappy, we all failed to a person. Can surely drive you insane, that's the character building part - looking into the abyss and having it look back . . . Heh heh <cough> . . . But it's still here coming back unabated like ma herpes (you'll get that too when you're all growed up, if you're lucky . . . Amber Diceless was her name . . . ) . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Arcona on Nov 21, 2015 15:43:53 GMT -8
This is the "Shut The Fuck Up" social que? Reminds me of bad GMing to be honest;, the time my character had a whole adventure between games when no one but the GM was there just to make sure the party was back together so the scheduled game would go smoothly. It was like reading fanfiction about my own fictional character. Sort of like reading posts here that twist what I am saying actually..... You do realise I am responding to someone on this topic - and I am correcting some disinformation while I am visiting. How about you and they be socialable and live and let live? Wouldn't that be more "sociable" than verbally bullying one person? (I call that abuse) Or just be honest enough, with yourself and others, to say this is an elitist hobby club board and I have no business being here, since I am not an elitist. I believe I had asked you to refrain from all those so called horror stories of vilifying your old evil group that made you quit gaming with how terrible they were. So since you dont want to do that let me step in and clarify a bit and allow for some countering. I will get on topic as well though! So, the session that you had attended had finished with you and the Defender character fleeing the city that was crawling with Fell towards the coast line and to the South, while the remaining 4 PCs had gotten trapped in the church and ambushed by the Legate. The game finished there. On the subsequent sessions, which you missed, the PCs in the Church defeated the Legate and his acolytes, found the broken obsidian mirror that had caused the city to go nuclear-zombie-time and also the secret passage that was leading almost a mile down the coast to a boathouse where the Legate had kept his private vessel in case of rebel raid in the city. Meanwhile you and the Defender continued fleeing and were pursued through the wheat fields and having to occasionally stop to try and lose them. You came upon a building and heard voices from inside... the voices were of your companions as you had found the boathouse as well... located in the South, the direction you were heading. Now, you say I made your character do things against his will or whatever... and its true there was as always in games the coincidence being worked into the game. The premise though (both going south, the boathouse being a common location that was in fact in the game) was there. Much like a salt mine containing EXACTLY as much salt as someone would need to sell to pay the leveling cost for example... *wink wink, nudge nudge*. If I wanted to be suspicious I could even call you on wanting to flee across ENEMY TERRITORY FOR AROUND A MONTH OF TRECKING IN AN AREA YOU DIDNT KNOW without your group while carrying the super secret mission critical item. Would a reasonable person do that? It would be like a player wanted to sabotage the game knowing his death or capture would essentially end the campaign. I am not a suspicious man and so I will overlook this along with the fact that when the campaign started we had said 'play humans please. I can accept a halfling or an orc very exceptionally but due to the nature of the story please keep it to these races' and 'lo and behold you came up with a written backstory (which you have many times said you despise when others do it) to play an elf. The one race hunted in this world, easily identifiable and almost not fitting to be part of the party... but it was up to the DM to either accept you or be a douche-bag and send you home packing. Now that the record is set clear... lets move on to on topic. Since bad players usually means experienced players according to you CC, because with their evil RAWness they ruin games and put the GM under invigilation I imagine you love new players. Green-fresh with no preconceptions you can mold them as you like and they dont need to know the rules to the game... they just need to be part of the group, have fun, share the experience and all that. Its important, you say, to keep them out of rules-lawyers who will ruin them and put them off with their fondness of rules and rulings and 'winning' over others. So, can you give me an example of this? Cause I dont buy it. Do you have some empirical evidence of how not knowing the rules has HELPED new players feel included and wanting to keep playing? I, being a proponent of the other side, can give 3 examples of the opposite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2015 17:08:17 GMT -8
Does anyone else want to know where he is visiting from in the above quote? My guess is mars.
|
|