So, the actual point. You say "I have had fun, because of the people I play with." So basically, no matter what you played, you would have fun. So why not play a good game? First off you will have more fun, and secondly you will have more kinds of fun. Thirdly you will do less things that irritate you. It's simple math when you break it down.
So, the actual point. You say "I have had fun, because of the people I play with." So basically, no matter what you played, you would have fun. So why not play a good game? First off you will have more fun, and secondly you will have more kinds of fun. Thirdly you will do less things that irritate you. It's simple math when you break it down.And what happens when the game is switched to one that's "better" by the standards you put forward, and the amount of fun at the table decreases? I've seen it happen. Please don't say something about "statistical outliers" or similar, either.
...This confuses me. I don't know how you separate out "skills" from "social mechanic" when some of those skills are social ones. D&D (3.5) has a social mechanic(s): diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, and so on. You can arguably add Charm, et al. spells to that list, too. I'm playing Witcher 2 nowadays, and that's a good example of implementation charm as a social skill.
What is a social mechanic? Social mechanics are how player characters can influence other player characters (and NPC's). What WoD (and diaspora/fate) are are action adventure games.
...
WoD has a few "social" skills but they are poorly executed and they are not a "social mechanic".
Also, there is no specific mechanics to cover other social type situations. For example, if I want to play a political game, I can't. We can talk politics, but when we *play* the tools are skills and combat.
...
Quote from: BG_JoshSo, the actual point. You say "I have had fun, because of the people I play with." So basically, no matter what you played, you would have fun. So why not play a good game? First off you will have more fun, and secondly you will have more kinds of fun. Thirdly you will do less things that irritate you. It's simple math when you break it down.And what happens when the game is switched to one that's "better" by the standards you put forward, and the amount of fun at the table decreases? I've seen it happen. Please don't say something about "statistical outliers" or similar, either.
...This confuses me. I don't know how you separate out "skills" from "social mechanic" when some of those skills are social ones. D&D (3.5) has a social mechanic(s): diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, and so on. You can arguably add Charm, et al. spells to that list, too. I'm playing Witcher 2 nowadays, and that's a good example of implementation charm as a social skill.
What is a social mechanic? Social mechanics are how player characters can influence other player characters (and NPC's). What WoD (and diaspora/fate) are are action adventure games.
...
WoD has a few "social" skills but they are poorly executed and they are not a "social mechanic".
Also, there is no specific mechanics to cover other social type situations. For example, if I want to play a political game, I can't. We can talk politics, but when we *play* the tools are skills and combat.
...
By comparison, Burning Wheel and Mouseguard have what is essentially social combat (which I believe is better implemented than BW's normal combat but that's neither here nor there).
Does Josh just mean by "social mechanic" something like social combat? Or, maybe more correctly, that it has to involve something along the lines of different "maneuvers" like rebuttal, etc. so that D&D's admittedly paltry skill checks don't qualify as a "mechanic"? I'd say that they are both mechanics, as I think that term is quite general, just one set is much more elaborate than the other, but it could be a terminological confusion. Further, I'm also confused b/c, if I am recalling correctly, BW's and MG's social combat really is just a set of stringed skill checks with maneuvers to modify them -- that's how everything in that system (more or less) works.
If what is meant that they don't have an elaborate or really well-developed social mechanic, or even that a real social mechanic is buried in a splat book somewhere (Requiem for Rome, I believe, or Mirrors), then I think those are true statements. I just think it might be confusing to other people when you frame it as "they do not have a social mechanic" -- that doesn't seem strictly true or at least requires a very specific meaning of the term "mechanic" that is not obvious to me. Although to be fair, I've heard this quote totally out of context.
And, further, I agree that White Wolf is, mechanically, an action-adventure game that often tries to want to be a political social intrigue game but doesn't actually do much to support it. It mostly just supports mind-whammy action-adventure.
P.S.: what games have good social mechanics in them? Besides Burning Wheel, which I am already familiar with and may decide to cannibalize anyway.
Your problem is that you're automatically assuming that you are right and that they would like whatever your suggestion is.
You don't offer suggestions, you don't say hey you like A well then you'd probably like B more because of X. You drop commandments on people, telling them that A sucks and if they don't play B then they are doomed to a less fun gaming experience.
Quote from: BG_JoshSo, the actual point. You say "I have had fun, because of the people I play with." So basically, no matter what you played, you would have fun. So why not play a good game? First off you will have more fun, and secondly you will have more kinds of fun. Thirdly you will do less things that irritate you. It's simple math when you break it down.And what happens when the game is switched to one that's "better" by the standards you put forward, and the amount of fun at the table decreases? I've seen it happen. Please don't say something about "statistical outliers" or similar, either.
...seems very much a 4E skill challenge type of thinking, or at least what I'd consider poor DMing (or GMing or whatever), even in games with fairly anemic rules for such things. But, query how much of that is baked into the rules or not.
BW or Mouseguard work differently. You get what you want when you win rolls, rather than get the GM picked win condition. It is a vastly different game.
I give up on trying to debate this with you Josh. I'm attempting to discuss your posting style as a whole, not just in this thread.Ah, that's the issue then. See I am trying to communicate something I know, and you don't. The comments about my style are off topic, so I am not going to follow those threads, I have been treating you like you were actually involved in this conversation. Rather than your own. I would say that's my mistake, but I don't think it is.
Just as you say I'm not trying to understand you, you're obviously not understanding what I'm talking about. I've had this discussion with you multiple times now, and it never goes anywhere. I'm just going to go back to avoiding you like I did on bg, no offense.
EDIT: this post refers to #13 aboveNot really. There is no standard so in an ad hoc situation you are compelled to match terminologies.
But, I feel compelled to point out that is not what I think the vast majority of people mean by a social mechanic.
Furthermore, when we're talking about affecting NPCs, that distinction collapses, doesn't it?No. In AA S&C games NPC's are structurally part of the setting. They cannot compel the character socially or story wise so they are not "characters"(in the literary sense).
If I can stray into the critical, I have noticed on a lot of Josh's gaming theory/design posts he has a very particular idea of what he means by the terminology. This isn't bad, it can often be quite helpful, but it can get in the way if you're using a very precise language that none of the interlocutors are clued in about.Message Boards allow for two way communication. If you don't understand the way to find out is through dialogue, as you have done (and in doing so helped others) and others have done. What not to do is anything that does not further your understanding. You can ask questions, restate things or even explain what you mean.
P.S.: this:I don't understand the question here....seems very much a 4E skill challenge type of thinking, or at least what I'd consider poor DMing (or GMing or whatever), even in games with fairly anemic rules for such things. But, query how much of that is baked into the rules or not.
BW or Mouseguard work differently. You get what you want when you win rolls, rather than get the GM picked win condition. It is a vastly different game.
Because you're not trying to understand it. :smirkQuoteP.S.: this:I don't understand the question here....seems very much a 4E skill challenge type of thinking, or at least what I'd consider poor DMing (or GMing or whatever), even in games with fairly anemic rules for such things. But, query how much of that is baked into the rules or not.
BW or Mouseguard work differently. You get what you want when you win rolls, rather than get the GM picked win condition. It is a vastly different game.
Nope. Again your issue is that you are not even trying to understand. This is extremely clear cut. I am literally saying "if you have more fun, you will have more fun." And you are saying "shut up, you don't know that."
So here is the thought exercise. Assume I am correct and try to understand what I am saying.
Quote from: BG_JoshSo, the actual point. You say "I have had fun, because of the people I play with." So basically, no matter what you played, you would have fun. So why not play a good game? First off you will have more fun, and secondly you will have more kinds of fun. Thirdly you will do less things that irritate you. It's simple math when you break it down.And what happens when the game is switched to one that's "better" by the standards you put forward, and the amount of fun at the table decreases? I've seen it happen. Please don't say something about "statistical outliers" or similar, either.
So let me get this straight:
What if the group played a game they liked, and they had less fun?
A: They wouldn't
B: One or more people in the group are socially dysfunctional.
Heavily depends on your definition of "smoother". I got the BESM rules after a couple of hours. I'm still trying to get the basic rules of M&M 2e. The massive amount of material you need to learn to get started with anything in mutants and masterminds is a massive turn off compared to other systems, even if it's as balanced as people claim (cough magic power cough).If I were running a game with oslecamo I would rather use Vampire: The Masquerade then M&M, even though it meets none of the criteria, because if he cannot play M&M then his enjoyment will be zero regardless of how good or bad the system may be.
Nope. Again your issue is that you are not even trying to understand. This is extremely clear cut. I am literally saying "if you have more fun, you will have more fun." And you are saying "shut up, you don't know that."
So here is the thought exercise. Assume I am correct and try to understand what I am saying.
Well yes, if everyone at a gaming table has tried every system and is at least passingly familiar with each of them, then they would choose the game (or one of the games) they enjoy the most. But if the group only has two or three games in which they share familiarity, most of the time it would be those games they would play, because there is a time expense in teaching a new system.
Also "play a better game" is a nice theory, but practically speaking those in the group who run the games are the ones who decide what game is played and the real pool of games would be only the ones they are familiar with. And they're probably already running the game that they enjoy the most. Really, the only guaranteed way to play a better game would be to run it, even if you'd rather be in the player's seat.
I never said "played a game they liked, and had less fun." That was you, apparently (by the above quotes) equating "a game that's better by the standards you put forward" with "a game they liked." I said "played a better game by your standards, and had less fun." You (the BGers, and Josh in particular), have said more than once that it's possible to apply objective analysis to RPGs to determine which ones are 'good' and which ones are 'bad' - or at least, 'less good'. Are we simply to dismiss out of hand those folks who have a good time playing Rifts and hate every minute of playing Burning Wheel, or a game that fills the niche of Rifts (by the BGers standards) better?You did. It may not be what you meant.
It's possible that someone could have had a bad experience with one game which reduces their enjoyment of it. Just telling them "it's better" will not and cannot change that.Again, I see this all the time. This is a big issue it is a negative stain on people like sexism or racism. It is an argument ender, one way or the other. So when this comes up just agree that they are illogically prejudiced and move on.
So yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
You know, there's always something as simple and subjective as preference. For example I prefer D&D/PF, although there obviously are better systems. It's just what I like.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
Hmm. One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here. How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have? How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.
Hmm. One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here. How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have? How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.
Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.
Right. You are determined that the "best" game you can play is DnD/PF so thus it is. Also correct.You know, there's always something as simple and subjective as preference. For example I prefer D&D/PF, although there obviously are better systems. It's just what I like.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
Hmm. One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here. How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have? How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.
Hmm. One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here. How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have? How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.
This is why I attempted to debate him earlier.
Hmm. One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here. How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have? How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.
This is why I attempted to debate him earlier.
If you want to debate me, start a thread and give your thesis you think opposes mine.
So you are wrong. Good to know.Right. You are determined that the "best" game you can play is DnD/PF so thus it is. Also correct.You know, there's always something as simple and subjective as preference. For example I prefer D&D/PF, although there obviously are better systems. It's just what I like.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
You're just mistaken. Somewhere along the line you got lost. but for a number of reasons you are confronting rather than questioning.Again the "You're too stupid to understand" attitude. Please stop.
Then explain to me, clearly, why am wrong, and why veekie is wrong, by having experiences that contradicted your experience. Simply stating I'm wrong is not sufficient; dismissing my experience as an outlier is not sufficient. Explain, don't dismiss. Otherwise, your responses don't present as contributing anything meaningful to the conversation.Hmm. One of us, at least, is apparently wrong, here. How could veekie have an experience that's categorically impossible to have? How could I have had a similarly impossible experience?Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.It is categorically impossible for that to happen. So when do you think that happened? Or is this theoretical?QuoteSo yes, people can be miserable playing BW. And people can have fun playing Rifts. I never indicated otherwise.What you have indicated - repeatedly - is that playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "better" at whatever niche a particular game tries to fill will be more fun than playing a game that you, the BG crew, qualify as "worse" at that same niche. I'm asking for a non-dismissive response to those who have experiences to the contrary of this blanket statement on your part.
And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.
You're just mistaken. Somewhere along the line you got lost. but for a number of reasons you are confronting rather than questioning.
Why? Every time I have ever tried to debate you, it has ended with you telling me that I just don't understand what you're saying. There is no point in it at all.
Edit: I no longer see a point in attempting to convince you of what I talk about. I find your posts to be as inflammatory as Sunic's in their own way, and am making use of the board's ignore function. I will no longer contribute to this thread.
So you are wrong. Good to know.What? oh no, you sure pulled one over on me Huck Finn. Painting a fence is no fun at all.
Then explain to me, clearly, why am wrong, and why veekie is wrong, by having experiences that contradicted your experience. Simply stating I'm wrong is not sufficient; dismissing my experience as an outlier is not sufficient. Explain, don't dismiss. Otherwise, your responses don't present as contributing anything meaningful to the conversation.
How about this, D&D does have some social mechanics, albeit not in the core rules and implemented poorly at best. Such things like Fame/Infamy in UA, Guilds in a variety of books (particularly FR books), and, to some extent, organization affiliations. I believe these are what you're talking about when you mention social mechanics, since these things are mechanics geared to chance how the NPCs and PCs interact with each other dynamically based on the PC's actions.
Its arguable that mental control and influence spells do just that however. In Exalted they are part and parcel of social conflict(indeed if your opponent is stubborn you'd HAVE to do that to wear down resistance)
Well, while it's not core, the Sway subsystem I mentioned from the Mirrors book, for WoD, does exactly that kind of control, even on other players.
So I'm calling that one a win.
Wait a second, so you're saying that these games don't have social mechanics because the players don't have the same kind of control over the game that the GM has?
Because that's exactly what it sounds like you're saying.Wait a second, so you're saying that these games don't have social mechanics because the players don't have the same kind of control over the game that the GM has?
No, why would you think that.
They "don't" have something. You can only directly show what things "do" have. Don'ts must be indicated more indirectly.
Even expanding the terms, no. These systems are at best color that may affect the GM's decisions slightly. But you cannot, for example make a roll that makes another player do something. And you don't ever do something that changes the game.What it sounds like you're saying here is that unless the players pass around the GM hat, or get rid of the GM hat altogether, it's impossible for a game to have some kind of social mechanic.
In DnD and similar if you make the persuasion roll, the GM gives you a good result. If you fail you get a bad result.
In some games, you pick what you want and if you make the roll it happens. That kind of game is a paradigm shift from games like DnD.
So one specific sub WoD has one. Bully for them, and when they put it in the core book they will still have a lousy game. But they wont be liars. When that day comes.Wow, okay.
In DnD that's what the GM is. Like I describe, not an overlord. But according to the rules he creates the challenges and doles out the rewards. It may seem like he is just "applying" the rules but in DnD unless you run only prepackaged adventures he does more than that. If you want to see a game that's actually like that check out "Misspent Youth"Because that's exactly what it sounds like you're saying.Wait a second, so you're saying that these games don't have social mechanics because the players don't have the same kind of control over the game that the GM has?
No, why would you think that.
They "don't" have something. You can only directly show what things "do" have. Don'ts must be indicated more indirectly.Even expanding the terms, no. These systems are at best color that may affect the GM's decisions slightly. But you cannot, for example make a roll that makes another player do something. And you don't ever do something that changes the game.What it sounds like you're saying here is that unless the players pass around the GM hat, or get rid of the GM hat altogether, it's impossible for a game to have some kind of social mechanic.
In DnD and similar if you make the persuasion roll, the GM gives you a good result. If you fail you get a bad result.
In some games, you pick what you want and if you make the roll it happens. That kind of game is a paradigm shift from games like DnD.
Something else that might be occurring here is that we've got different ideas of what the GM is supposed to be. Your GM sounds more like a nation's overlord, where every facet of the game is controlled by him, and that if you roll well, you are rewarded by the GM somehow. On the other hand, I see the GM as more of a judge, or perhaps referee is a more appropriate term. The rules of the game are put forward at the start, and then he just applies those rules according to the actions and die rolls of the players. If you have a GM that runs the game in that fashion, then rules that dictate a character rising through the ranks of a guild would seem to be, by definition, a social mechanic, if not a system unto itself.
I was being funny. WoD is a joke, for the most part. Most modern game design is based on people reacting to how bad WoD is. Ron Edwards famously refers to WoD as causing brain damage.So one specific sub WoD has one. Bully for them, and when they put it in the core book they will still have a lousy game. But they wont be liars. When that day comes.Wow, okay.
Honestly, at this point, it doesn't matter if you're right or not, you're just being a jerk about it. Please calm down, you're not helping your position with that kind of tone.
Ahuh.Me neither. That's the first time I see such hate towards it.
News to me; I like the design of WoD. I've never seen it mocked on that level, or even really heard any tear-apart criticism that calls it 'lousy'.
If that's what your definition of a social mechanic is, then screw that. Having one character dominate the others in the party is just plain shit design. It condones one asshat at the gaming table ruining the game for everyone else by compromising their ability to play their characters.
Ahuh.Me neither. That's the first time I see such hate towards it.
News to me; I like the design of WoD. I've never seen it mocked on that level, or even really heard any tear-apart criticism that calls it 'lousy'.
If that's what your definition of a social mechanic is, then screw that. Having one character dominate the others in the party is just plain shit design. It condones one asshat at the gaming table ruining the game for everyone else by compromising their ability to play their characters.
Yeah, no. The thing you have never seen, in a type of game you have never played, does not act as you assume.
That's not how I'm assuming it acts, that's how you're telling me it acts.If that's what your definition of a social mechanic is, then screw that. Having one character dominate the others in the party is just plain shit design. It condones one asshat at the gaming table ruining the game for everyone else by compromising their ability to play their characters.
Yeah, no. The thing you have never seen, in a type of game you have never played, does not act as you assume.
Please provide an example of a social mechanic that you have seen work as you would deem successful, provide an example of how it would be used in a specific situation (i.e. tell what rolls are made using what stats to what effect, etc.), explain the effects of successful use, and explain why it is better than D&D.
Because I think it sounds very much as if a social character could say "Give me your stuff" to the fighter, roll, and be happily given his stuff.
If you want to say that D&D has no way to affect PCs, this is incorrect. You can use Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff on allies. If they fail the requisite checks, their attitudes toward you changes appropriately for the set time, and each attitude has specific effects on interaction ranging from "I won't kill you now" to "Please use me master! Have my stuff!"
What Josh is not conveying properly is that there are systems that are objectively flawed, and you're better off playing a system that is not objectively flawed.Before anyone comes in with some argument about how there is no objective right and wrong, please take a moment to remember FATAL.
I had a feeling that might have been what you were talking about. You could have saved a lot of grief by explaining what it was you were talking about in your first post, instead of just going with the whole "I'm right, you're wrong because of some screwed up twist I'm putting on the English language" angle.
What you meant to say in that first post isn't something along the lines of the PCs influencing each other, but rather something more like "mechanics governing non-combat interactions between the PCs." Then you could cite a specific example like Apocalypse World where a large portion of character advancement comes from player characters interacting with one another.
The thing about it is that Josh is right to a point, but he's doing such a bad job about it he might as well be wrong.
I could play Brawl with a few friends of mine. While the activity of spending time with my friends would be enjoyable, the act of playing Brawl would not because I am considerably better than them at the game so I'd be bored due to the lack of challenge and they'd be frustrated due to inability to beat me. Instead we do something we can all enjoy, because that's more fun.
There's nothing objectively wrong with Brawl. I quite like it. But it isn't a good fit for that situation.
What Josh is not conveying properly is that there are systems that are objectively flawed, and you're better off playing a system that is not objectively flawed. Just what that is depends on your desires, but it won't be something made by White Wolf because all of their stuff is irredeemably borked.
What he also isn't conveying is that everything has a cost of entry. In this case, that means both the literal cost of rulebooks, and the time cost of learning the system. In tabletop this cost is almost universally high because the nature of book publishing means you don't get a lot of talent, and do get a lot of trap options that must be parsed and categorized in order to avoid being sucker punched by the game. And what that means is that people don't have the resources to learn a bunch of systems. It can also sometimes mean people are stuck with bad systems. Sure, you're better off getting it right the first time or at most the second but learning a meta no one plays in is a waste of everyone's time.
How do people learn most RPGs besides reading the whole book if no one is familiar with it at the table?
that and while playing.How do people learn most RPGs besides reading the whole book if no one is familiar with it at the table?*if* no one is familiar one person has to learn it like that. The best way to learn a game is from someone who already knows it.
Also RPG's are cheap. Compared to computer games and iphones the cost vs benefit for good RPG's is very high.
You can get many games for $10 $20, not on sale. BW is $25. DnD (4 or 5) is astronomically the most expensive to play. Costing at basic 5 times what other games cost for the basics. So don't use DnD as a measure.
In learning time DnD is also a huge outlier, the way most people learn it (they read the whole book).
I could go on, and on. But the point is: RPG's are cheap in money(yes there are a huge number of shitty expensive RPG's, but don't buy those)
BUT they are expensive in time and planning, compare to even board games. So that is typically our biggest concern.
other than that, yes.
It depends on the type of game. In some games you can create basically any character concept using the core rules, and so you don't need splats.Also RPG's are cheap. Compared to computer games and iphones the cost vs benefit for good RPG's is very high.
You can get many games for $10 $20, not on sale. BW is $25. DnD (4 or 5) is astronomically the most expensive to play. Costing at basic 5 times what other games cost for the basics. So don't use DnD as a measure.
The fuck? A computer game is at most 50, 60 dollars and you're done. Tabletop systems range from around a hundred to a thousand or more. Assuming you don't pirate them of course, but I don't think that's what you meant. Cheap? Maybe if you only buy tiny parts of the system, but then you're stuck with a buggy and imbalanced system as they never get those things right in core, mostly so they can sell more books later. This is also per person, unless you want the clunkiness of passing books around.
There are many positive aspects to tabletop gaming but monetary cost of entry isn't one of them.
Also RPG's are cheap. Compared to computer games and iphones the cost vs benefit for good RPG's is very high.
You can get many games for $10 $20, not on sale. BW is $25. DnD (4 or 5) is astronomically the most expensive to play. Costing at basic 5 times what other games cost for the basics. So don't use DnD as a measure.
The fuck? A computer game is at most 50, 60 dollars and you're done. Tabletop systems range from around a hundred to a thousand or more. Assuming you don't pirate them of course, but I don't think that's what you meant. Cheap? Maybe if you only buy tiny parts of the system, but then you're stuck with a buggy and imbalanced system as they never get those things right in core, mostly so they can sell more books later. This is also per person, unless you want the clunkiness of passing books around.
There are many positive aspects to tabletop gaming but monetary cost of entry isn't one of them.QuoteIn learning time DnD is also a huge outlier, the way most people learn it (they read the whole book).
I could go on, and on. But the point is: RPG's are cheap in money(yes there are a huge number of shitty expensive RPG's, but don't buy those)
BUT they are expensive in time and planning, compare to even board games. So that is typically our biggest concern.
other than that, yes.
If you aren't even reading the full core book you aren't going to learn anything. If you haven't read all the others as well you're basically wasting your time.
His sentence structure is way off. I didn't even understand most of that.signed.
His sentence structure is way off. I didn't even understand most of that. The only part of it that made sense was the last sentence. But then that isn't true either, because core only = borked isn't D&D exclusive.
His sentence structure is way off. I didn't even understand most of that. The only part of it that made sense was the last sentence. But then that isn't true either, because core only = borked isn't D&D exclusive.
Fixed now. I'm on a phone.
And the entire concept of "core" is a DnD thing. Most games don't have core rule books. They just have rulebooks.
Fist off "mechanics governing non-combat interactions between the PCs" is to broad, we we actually just refering to the talking and influencing bits. We "call mechanics governing non-combat interactions between the PCs" using talking, "social mechanics".The problem with your definition is that you're having minimal influence, at best, on the other PCs. The whole setup boils down to a bribe for the party working together. That's not a bad thing, but it's not what you're saying it is.
His sentence structure is way off. I didn't even understand most of that. The only part of it that made sense was the last sentence. But then that isn't true either, because core only = borked isn't D&D exclusive.
Fixed now. I'm on a phone.
And the entire concept of "core" is a DnD thing. Most games don't have core rule books. They just have rulebooks.
It might not be core, but they have a basic rule book and then they have stuff released later. A rose by any other name...
I'm also assuming correct amount to spend. Since the release now patch later mentality is in full effect, core only anything is never good, so you're looking at the cost of all rulebooks for that system and the time cost to learn them in order to get into it properly. It's just not worth it to maintain more than one meta.
Nope. Again, since you only know dnd like games you don't understand.Oh? And how do you know that?
Fist off "mechanics governing non-combat interactions between the PCs" is to broad, we we actually just refering to the talking and influencing bits. We "call mechanics governing non-combat interactions between the PCs" using talking, "social mechanics".The problem with your definition is that you're having minimal influence, at best, on the other PCs. The whole setup boils down to a bribe for the party working together. That's not a bad thing, but it's not what you're saying it is.
Here's the definition, for reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/influence
According to the primary definition, influence really isn't that great of a word to use. You are having minimal impact on their actions or behavior, but you're not significantly changing anything else about the other character. The implication is that one character is a much stronger force over another character than what is really going on in these systems.
prosody, phraseology. It comes with Experience.QuoteNope. Again, since you only know dnd like games you don't understand.Oh? And how do you know that?
So you're basing your opinions on wild assumptions.prosody, phraseology. It comes with Experience.QuoteNope. Again, since you only know dnd like games you don't understand.Oh? And how do you know that?
I encourage people to not simply believe what is told to them. However, rpg's arelike clocks: many infathomable bits working together. In order to genuinely understand these systems, you need to learn to play them. So you can accept the explanation I gave or you can develop one on your own (and learn a few of these games).Actually, when you mentioned it I went and read up on Apocalypse World. You are, seriously, incorrectly describing the system it has. You do not influence the other PCs according to the definition of that word. By interacting with them, you both gain experience, but you have no control over how the other character applies their experience.
I hope you choose the latter.
So you're basing your opinions on wild assumptions.prosody, phraseology. It comes with Experience.QuoteNope. Again, since you only know dnd like games you don't understand.Oh? And how do you know that?
BTW. You do realize that you can answer multiple posts in one post, right? Or that there's this little thing called "Edit"? (I can't believe that I have to teach an Admin how his board is working... :facepalm)
what are your thoughts on Hx and special/sex moves?I encourage people to not simply believe what is told to them. However, rpg's arelike clocks: many infathomable bits working together. In order to genuinely understand these systems, you need to learn to play them. So you can accept the explanation I gave or you can develop one on your own (and learn a few of these games).Actually, when you mentioned it I went and read up on Apocalypse World. You are, seriously, incorrectly describing the system it has. You do not influence the other PCs according to the definition of that word. By interacting with them, you both gain experience, but you have no control over how the other character applies their experience.
I hope you choose the latter.
Can you call it a "social" mechanic? Sure. What you call a social mechanic, however, is not what this system is.
To ImperatorNinja: There's also the Insert Quote button in the topic summary section.
Nope. Again, since you only know dnd like games you don't understand.
So unless you have something new, that's it. Read my posts or ask questions.
what are your thoughts on Hx and special/sex moves?Experience gained from interaction between the PCs. The Emergent behavior is that the PCs play together. Each character is completely free to do whatever they want, the system gives none of them any more influence over the others than individual PCs have in a game of D&D 3.5e. Hell, in D&D 3.5e, I can Dominate the party Fighter. That's influence.
Also what kinds of emergent behavior occurs?
Nope. Again, since you only know dnd like games you don't understand.
So unless you have something new, that's it. Read my posts or ask questions.
You know, you are only able to get away with being an elitist prick if you have the skills to back it up. Otherwise, you're just a prick.
You have yet to demonstrate any sort of sign that you have any idea what you are talking about.
I take your flippant dismissal and throw it right back at you for double damage.
what are your thoughts on Hx and special/sex moves?Experience gained from interaction between the PCs. The Emergent behavior is that the PCs play together. Each character is completely free to do whatever they want, the system gives none of them any more influence over the others than individual PCs have in a game of D&D 3.5e. Hell, in D&D 3.5e, I can Dominate the party Fighter. That's influence.
Also what kinds of emergent behavior occurs?
do they now. all of them? And that's how they all work?
It might not be core, but they have a basic rule book and then they have stuff released later. A rose by any other name...
I'm also assuming correct amount to spend. Since the release now patch later mentality is in full effect, core only anything is never good, so you're looking at the cost of all rulebooks for that system and the time cost to learn them in order to get into it properly. It's just not worth it to maintain more than one meta.
On the other hand, they can also gain experience by rejecting the manipulation and, instead, provoking a fight. It's dangerous, sure, but if you take 1- or 2-harm, but still manage to win the fight overall, then you're about half-way to getting another experience. It's risky, but potentially very beneficial.
Meta is commonly used as shorthand for metagame. As in, things which aren't spelled out in the books which emerge from player discoveries or community preferences. An ability can be buffed or nerfed without changing, if a popular new ability counters it or is countered by it. For instance, in D&D, monsters with poison/paralysis/etc. attacks were nerfed by the introduction of undead and construct PC races.QuoteI'm also assuming correct amount to spend. Since the release now patch later mentality is in full effect, core only anything is never good, so you're looking at the cost of all rulebooks for that system and the time cost to learn them in order to get into it properly. It's just not worth it to maintain more than one meta.
Obviously you are not. So, that happened But I want to cover the "meta" thing.
Now correct me if I'm wrong. But you mean "different types of game" rather than "I don't know what the word meta means". If i am incorrect and you do want multiple games, please explain. otherwise...
That willful grasp at ignorance seems amazing to me because there are many reasons to play multiple games.I'll say something on this - while I do think that playing games other than D&D has helped my design (and possibly RP) ability, I don't think it's helped my optimisation ability. The former is about changing the constraints, and the latter is about working within them. If anything, experience with other games can make you worse at optimising in a new one - a lot of 3e's imbalances come from the playtesters going in with preconceptions of clerics being healbots etc. But D&D 3.x is possibly the most optimisation-dependent RPG out there anyway, or at least one of the most enjoyable to optimise, so leaving it isn't usually as big an issue as entering it.
First playing multiple games refreshes and energizes you in different ways.
Second, you become a better gamer overall when you play multiple games.
It seems amazing that you would always want to play the same game. Why not have a variety?
Is there a reason for this? No curiosity? Don't like to think? Don't like new experiences?
It seems amazing that you would always want to play the same game. Why not have a variety?
Is there a reason for this? No curiosity? Don't like to think? Don't like new experiences?
I'll say something on this - while I do think that playing games other than D&D has helped my design (and possibly RP) ability, I don't think it's helped my optimisation ability. The former is about changing the constraints, and the latter is about working within them. If anything, experience with other games can make you worse at optimising in a new one - a lot of 3e's imbalances come from the playtesters going in with preconceptions of clerics being healbots etc. But D&D 3.x is possibly the most optimisation-dependent RPG out there anyway, or at least one of the most enjoyable to optimise, so leaving it isn't usually as big an issue as entering it.Actually, for optimization ability, it does go up, after you get past the initial dip from going to an unfamiliar system. After your third or fourth system you start to develop more generally applicable insights across systems, to identify low-cost-high-effectiveness, and the primary resource constraints at a quick read. It wouldn't do much for particular systems you already mastered, but in general, you pick up optimization basics for every system faster.
Since that word is already used in a number of ways in gaming it is confusing and muddled for yet another meaning.
Meta is commonly used as shorthand for metagame. As in, things which aren't spelled out in the books which emerge from player discoveries or community preferences. An ability can be buffed or nerfed without changing, if a popular new ability counters it or is countered by it. For instance, in D&D, monsters with poison/paralysis/etc. attacks were nerfed by the introduction of undead and construct PC races.
I'll say something on this - while I do think that playing games other than D&D has helped my design (and possibly RP) ability, I don't think it's helped my optimisation ability. The former is about changing the constraints, and the latter is about working within them. If anything, experience with other games can make you worse at optimising in a new one - a lot of 3e's imbalances come from the playtesters going in with preconceptions of clerics being healbots etc. But D&D 3.x is possibly the most optimisation-dependent RPG out there anyway, or at least one of the most enjoyable to optimise, so leaving it isn't usually as big an issue as entering it.What I learned from other games moved me from being one of the top 5 min/maxers to the point where i was so good it wasn't any sort of challenge.
I'll say something on this - while I do think that playing games other than D&D has helped my design (and possibly RP) ability, I don't think it's helped my optimisation ability. The former is about changing the constraints, and the latter is about working within them. If anything, experience with other games can make you worse at optimising in a new one - a lot of 3e's imbalances come from the playtesters going in with preconceptions of clerics being healbots etc. But D&D 3.x is possibly the most optimisation-dependent RPG out there anyway, or at least one of the most enjoyable to optimise, so leaving it isn't usually as big an issue as entering it.Actually, for optimization ability, it does go up, after you get past the initial dip from going to an unfamiliar system. After your third or fourth system you start to develop more generally applicable insights across systems, to identify low-cost-high-effectiveness, and the primary resource constraints at a quick read. It wouldn't do much for particular systems you already mastered, but in general, you pick up optimization basics for every system faster.
It seems amazing that you would always want to play the same game. Why not have a variety?
Is there a reason for this? No curiosity? Don't like to think? Don't like new experiences?
While not directed at me, personally, I feel compelled to answer anyway.
I've played a good variety of rpgs over the years. Some with good people/players, some with bad. All in all, I've had good experiences with all of them. Now, if given the opportunity to play either D&D or any other system, I'd always choose D&D. I just prefer it over everything else I've played and, while other systems I've yet to try out do interest me, I know I'll enjoy a good game of D&D. If I know I'll have fun playing a certain game, I don't see a problem with always wanting to play it. I know a guy that still plays 2nd edition every week and has for the past decade or more. He's played more rpgs than I have, but he still goes back to his weekly game because it's fun. We, as gamers, game because it's fun. You just have to realize that not everyone thinks the way you do. Not everyone needs to play every system known to man to have a fun playing an rpg. I know your stance of "but you could have more fun playing such and such" from the previous boards, but everyone is different. We think differently, we do things differently, we play differently. Can you not accept this simple fact?
But, no offense, it is just never true. Everyone who does this that i have gotten to question further turn out to be miserable. If we assume you are the exception, you are the exception out of dozens of groups.Also self reported, but my groups seem to be exceptions, we play good systems, bad systems, and mediocre systems, and the level of fun involved...well, the bad and mediocre systems are doing unusually well for themselves.
So if thats the case, sure.
But, no offense, it is just never true. Everyone who does this that i have gotten to question further turn out to be miserable. If we assume you are the exception, you are the exception out of dozens of groups.
and, it does nothing to negate my point. The fact is, you would have more fun. BUT it gets lost in the shuffle sometimes because people don't want to say "good enough for me." They want to be objectively correct. So if you say "I know I could do better, but this is good enough for me."
If that's you that's great. You are the double exception.
Given that you are in a forum for people to talk about what's on my podcast...
The expectation is that I am answering questions that you have "after" you listen.
The rest of what this poster has said has been debunked but this needs covering:
do they now. all of them? And that's how they all work?
(people hate when I do the whole Socratic thing because they don't get it. So here's the gist. these games are not like that. Fell free to research them and find out I'm telling the truth)
Now correct me if I'm wrong. But you mean "different types of game" rather than "I don't know what the word meta means". If i am incorrect and you do want multiple games, please explain. otherwise...
That willful grasp at ignorance seems amazing to me because there are many reasons to play multiple games.
First playing multiple games refreshes and energizes you in different ways.
Second, you become a better gamer overall when you play multiple games.
It seems amazing that you would always want to play the same game. Why not have a variety?
Is there a reason for this? No curiosity? Don't like to think? Don't like new experiences?
Meta is commonly used as shorthand for metagame. As in, things which aren't spelled out in the books which emerge from player discoveries or community preferences. An ability can be buffed or nerfed without changing, if a popular new ability counters it or is countered by it. For instance, in D&D, monsters with poison/paralysis/etc. attacks were nerfed by the introduction of undead and construct PC races.
To BB, are you familiar with Risus (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm)? You will never need a splatbook for Risus, and a number of commerical games are basically more complex versions of the same system.
Actually, for optimization ability, it does go up, after you get past the initial dip from going to an unfamiliar system. After your third or fourth system you start to develop more generally applicable insights across systems, to identify low-cost-high-effectiveness, and the primary resource constraints at a quick read. It wouldn't do much for particular systems you already mastered, but in general, you pick up optimization basics for every system faster.
Seriously, it takes 5 minutes to memorise Risus, after which you can play it without books and teach it in the same amount of time - that alone makes it convenient. The meta is nonexistent.QuoteTo BB, are you familiar with Risus (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm)? You will never need a splatbook for Risus, and a number of commerical games are basically more complex versions of the same system.
Haven't looked into it, but I don't have the time to play with new metas, and as I said before the other problem with such games is that no one plays them. Why gain information that I will not use?
The meta is nonexistent.
I think the core of the problem is that Josh is terrible at communication. Otherwise he'd have little trouble conveying both that he is an elitist prick, and that he has the skills to back that up.This statement is so ironic that it demands to be singled out and have attention drawn to it.
Everything is so foolish and misguded at such afundamental level it's hard to know what to say.
I made up the most popular minmax maxim that someone copied and named after himself in a bizzare cry for attention.which is?
Josh here references the maxim made popular as the "stormwind fallacy."I made up the most popular minmax maxim that someone copied and named after himself in a bizzare cry for attention.which is?
I remember hearing later that T_S really regretted naming it after himself.Josh here references the maxim made popular as the "stormwind fallacy."I made up the most popular minmax maxim that someone copied and named after himself in a bizzare cry for attention.which is?
I think the core of the problem is that Josh is terrible at communication. Otherwise he'd have little trouble conveying both that he is an elitist prick, and that he has the skills to back that up.
Josh here references the maxim made popular as the "stormwind fallacy."the so-called stormwind fallacy is so fukken trivial that it's not even worth mentioning.
Yes he is.
He has great ideas that are worth listening to, but his written communication needs improvement. My data statement though is that I've been there when he's met approximately 30 people that have only known him online (over the last 5 years or so) and then meet him in person and 100% of the time they've said, "Oh! I get you now! Dude, you are way better in person." Some of our best friends don't like his online side, but really respect him in "real life".
That explanation was for others. I have no confidence BB will actually listen to any of it or change opinions based on that knowledge.
To BB: But so what? Let it go. You can't post shit like that post and get upset when someone talks directly to you and quotes you. So get over yourself. And no, that's not baiting, that's responding to your poor attitude.
Josh here references the maxim made popular as the "stormwind fallacy."the so-called stormwind fallacy is so fukken trivial that it's not even worth mentioning.
Josh here references the maxim made popular as the "stormwind fallacy."the so-called stormwind fallacy is so fukken trivial that it's not even worth mentioning.
Josh here references the maxim made popular as the "stormwind fallacy."the so-called stormwind fallacy is so fukken trivial that it's not even worth mentioning.
Everything is obvious when you know the answer.
Kids these days have it so easy. You only know about it because I said it.
Yes he is.
He has great ideas that are worth listening to, but his written communication needs improvement. My data statement though is that I've been there when he's met approximately 30 people that have only known him online (over the last 5 years or so) and then meet him in person and 100% of the time they've said, "Oh! I get you now! Dude, you are way better in person." Some of our best friends don't like his online side, but really respect him in "real life".
That explanation was for others. I have no confidence BB will actually listen to any of it or change opinions based on that knowledge.
To BB: But so what? Let it go. You can't post shit like that post and get upset when someone talks directly to you and quotes you. So get over yourself. And no, that's not baiting, that's responding to your poor attitude.
I hit the report button on him mainly because of the Biscut remark. That was just dumb and a pointless flame. The parts that were insulting but had a point I let go.
I do find it interesting he had to run and hide behind you though.
Are you kidding?
Here's why you, in my eyes, aren't worth the effort on the site. Let me break it down.
You reported a post because someone screwed up your name. Boo hoo. Really? Substituting one B word for another, mistakenly, is baiting?
Let me answer that (because again, you, BB, won't agree and I don't care- this is for other people's benefits as an example of what not to do on this site):
I bet you immediately thought the "biscuit" instead of "basket" was intentional, didn't you? It wasn't. It's a silly screen name, who cares if it is screwed up? Give people the benefit of the doubt. Someone say she instead of he? Maybe they really thought you were female. Someone screw up your name and you think it's intentional? So what? Do you have enough information to get upset? If you do, will getting upset change anything?
Someone say something rough to you? So what. Unless the post is filled with obvious insults (and almost NONE of the posts you have reported BB have been), look at yourself first. Are you mis-reading it? Are you reading too far into it? Did you provoke it? If it's a passive agressive attack, rise above and let it go. That's what mature people do.
Your other choice is to be a total jerk, cry fowl when someone says something in any way caustic in return, and report post after post where anyone even mentions you because they must be flaming or baiting you. That choice is immature and self absorbed.
We should add another guiding principle of the site- don't dish it out if you can't take it.
And "run and hide behind me?" Dude, that is much more of a bait then any of the multitude of reports you've sent recently. So again, look at yourself first.
There was no running away. I'm sure he'll respond too. I happen to be online right now. I'm tired of your posting habits and whining- this is about you. I'm just not excusing the fact that others, Josh included, can be a bit of a dick online as well.
Get better or leave. It's really that simple.
Ps: I actually thought your name was biscut. Basket burner does not make any sense.It's a reference to a reference... He calls people who make characters that don't exploit the most powerful mechanics and loopholes in a system "basket weavers."
Fact: You are insulting, offtopic, and hyperbolicly stupid.
So, pray tell what would you like? I am open to sugestions.
I am by no means a perfect communicator. But everyone who actually wants to learn I will help until they understand or as close as they ever will. You want to learn, I will teach. You want to insult or argue, I'm way better at than than you are.
Ps: I actually thought your name was biscut. Basket burner does not make any sense.
Are you kidding?
Here's why you, in my eyes, aren't worth the effort on the site. Let me break it down.
You reported a post because someone screwed up your name. Boo hoo. Really? Substituting one B word for another, mistakenly, is baiting?
Context matters. When someone posts nothing but dismissive insults, name butchering is in their modus operendi. If it were someone who did something else other than attack, I'd be more inclined to think it was a mistake. Since it was done more than once though, and in the same way, somehow I doubt that.
What you mean is don't disagree with the admins.No, what I mean is stop being a total jerkwad douche.
So let's see here. If someone says something hostile and I get hostile right back, that's not acceptable behavior. I can accept that. But when I try to go through the proper channels and get told no, don't do that either?
And when Josh goes quiet and soon after I get angry messages from you, what do you call that if not running and hiding behind a woman? So depending on your stance on that we're back to either both the appropriate and inappropriate channels of conflict resolution are both unacceptable, or we hit on a new point - is it baiting if it is entirely truthful?
Get better or leave. It's really that simple.
Thank you for making my point.
I think my personal experience on the matter of playing non-D&D games matches up fairly well with many of Basket Burner's points. I don't play non-D&D games, except very rarely, because I don't know anyone who plays non-D&D games, but more importantly I have read non-D&D games and I dislike their mechanics.
From what I can tell, BG Josh has been implying, if not explicitly stating, that this makes me a poor Gamer. In order to become a "better Gamer" I should play games that I doubt I would enjoy, that do not offer the type of gameplay I want, because doing so will lead to some sort of gamist-version of enlightened self-interest? No, no this doesn't make any sense.
Out of a table-top RPG, I want:
- a reasonably well-constructed setting, even if it is only an implied setting
- adventure-focused gameplay
- deep character-creation options combined with meaningful choices of in-game action
- streamlined action-resolution mechanics
- and clear, well-presented documents
I am willing to play games that do not do all of those things well, if they pull off one or more of them in intriguingly exceptional good form. Examples of games that I have learned, but not played because I didn't like their mechanics: Exalted, Anima: Beyond Fantasy, Burning Wheel, Risus, World of Darkness, FUDGE, and GURPS. Examples of non-D&D games that I have learned and have enjoyed playing: Marvel Universe Roleplaying, The One Ring: Adventures Over the Edge of the Wild.
Telling me that I'm a bad gamer, or that I'm the exception to the rule, is exceptionally ignorant and elitist. You wrote the rule, and defined the rule by the company you keep. You are basically saying that the only "good Gamers" are exactly like yourself and your friends, and that others at best woefully misguided sheep to be tended by someone of your infinite wisdom, or at worst willfully defiant mongrels to be put down. So, if that's not what you mean, I'd hope you would attempt to clarify and/or amend your statements.
I think my personal experience on the matter of playing non-D&D games matches up fairly well with many of Basket Burner's points. I don't play non-D&D games, except very rarely, because I don't know anyone who plays non-D&D games, but more importantly I have read non-D&D games and I dislike their mechanics.I'll answer and give the admins a break. Besides, I'm feeling pretty awesome after just nailing a final exam.
From what I can tell, BG Josh has been implying, if not explicitly stating, that this makes me a poor Gamer. In order to become a "better Gamer" I should play games that I doubt I would enjoy, that do not offer the type of gameplay I want, because doing so will lead to some sort of gamist-version of enlightened self-interest? No, no this doesn't make any sense.
Out of a table-top RPG, I want:
- a reasonably well-constructed setting, even if it is only an implied setting
- adventure-focused gameplay
- deep character-creation options combined with meaningful choices of in-game action
- streamlined action-resolution mechanics
- and clear, well-presented documents
I am willing to play games that do not do all of those things well, if they pull off one or more of them in intriguingly exceptional good form. Examples of games that I have learned, but not played because I didn't like their mechanics: Exalted, Anima: Beyond Fantasy, Burning Wheel, Risus, World of Darkness, FUDGE, and GURPS. Examples of non-D&D games that I have learned and have enjoyed playing: Marvel Universe Roleplaying, The One Ring: Adventures Over the Edge of the Wild.
Telling me that I'm a bad gamer, or that I'm the exception to the rule, is exceptionally ignorant and elitist. You wrote the rule, and defined the rule by the company you keep. You are basically saying that the only "good Gamers" are exactly like yourself and your friends, and that others at best woefully misguided sheep to be tended by someone of your infinite wisdom, or at worst willfully defiant mongrels to be put down. So, if that's not what you mean, I'd hope you would attempt to clarify and/or amend your statements.
What you appear to be doing is going to other tabletop games and expecting D&D. At the very least, D&D ranks somewhat highly in each category on your list of what you want out of a gaming system.
Apocalypse World really isn't an adventure-focused game, and while I haven't read it fully, it simply provides a typical backdrop for the characters to build on as opposed to any kind of well-developed setting. That said, it still works. It's an interesting game at first glance, and if I had the funds available at the moment I might drop the money necessary to buy the ruleset and find a game to play in on the web.[/list]
I love me some Scandinavian dudes.
snip
Biscuit Burner has no interest in any sort of discussion. He is deluded into thinking that he is clever and is "showing off"This is no mistake. You are being a douche.
if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does. That's math.
SneeRJosh repeatedly calling her biscuit after it was made clear that wasn't her name is being a douche. It really doesn't matter that she was mocking or hypocritical, which you have been through most of this thread BTW. As one of the BGs you get some extra leeway, this is your house after all, but that doesn't mean you can totally ignore the rules here.
First off, you are taking this too seriously.
second "Basket" had proven to be not only a stupid hypocrite but agressively interested in mocking and makeing trouble. I started out assuming that BB was not all wind... but you are not BB.
As for the Socratic method, do you mean to tell me that you have completely understood the mechanisim for everything you ever learned, before you learned it?As SneeR said you aren't using the Socratic method the way it is described. You are making assertions for answers without ellaborating on them and you certainly aren't asking any questions (which would probably be useful to you making your point as it would get us thinking about things in a certain light).
How meta right
And so:This is a false dichotomy. I disagree with the assertion that it is absolutely going to make you better, but even with that as an assumption it is still wrong. Assuming it makes me better to play more games, it doesn't have any bearing on if I'm better than someone else. They may not have needed the experience in a different system to have learned the same lessons. Ironically this is the same issue I see in the kids I teach martial arts to. They don't see their own improvements, because they are too focused on how they stack up to other people.
if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does. That's math.
...There is considerably more to the Socratic method than this. A lot of it involves (a) asking the right questions and (b) ensuring that there is a baseline of knowledge from which they can construct interesting responses to those questions. If I were to start quizzing someone using an unknown terminology and ranking system, then I'm not being Socratic.
the Socratic method is when you ask questions and say things to make others think of the answer. The best thing about it is that the other person must participate to get any sort of answer, and if they don't i know they are not really asking a question. People not actually interested in the question are a waste of my time.
if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does. That's math.
B) it is math. And that statement is "logically true" use it as a learning example.
Do you think that someone could play many games and still be a poor gamer?
B) it is math. And that statement is "logically true" use it as a learning example.
A = player A skill (one game)
B = player B skill (one game)
S = skill gained from playing multiple games
You propose:
A + S > B
This can be true. It is, however, not a logical argument. Counter-example:
A = 10, B = 50, S = 20
A + S < B !!
Do you think that someone could play many games and still be a poor gamer?
"If" is the key word. It allows us to seperate the argument.
So I'm guessing the outright statement of playing multiple games makes you a better gamer on page 5 is just missing its "if".Do you think that someone could play many games and still be a poor gamer?
"If" is the key word. It allows us to seperate the argument.
First playing multiple games refreshes and energizes you in different ways.
Second, you become a better gamer overall when you play multiple games.
It seems amazing that you would always want to play the same game. Why not have a variety?
Ah, I was working with "if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does." Which I'm pretty sure he meant.That is how I understood it as well, but he is telling us that wasn't his intention now. So we either have to assume he made a dumb argument and is back peddling from it or assume he has issues communicating his point via text (which is a known issue for him). Guess which I'll side with until proven otherwise. ;)
So I'm guessing the outright statement of playing multiple games makes you a better gamer on page 5 is just missing its "if".Do you think that someone could play many games and still be a poor gamer?
"If" is the key word. It allows us to seperate the argument.
added quote for convenience:QuoteFirst playing multiple games refreshes and energizes you in different ways.
Second, you become a better gamer overall when you play multiple games.
It seems amazing that you would always want to play the same game. Why not have a variety?
I see as the argument shifted some due to the question, rather than you defending the quoted statement you were addressing a similar but different issue.So I'm guessing the outright statement of playing multiple games makes you a better gamer on page 5 is just missing its "if".Do you think that someone could play many games and still be a poor gamer?
"If" is the key word. It allows us to seperate the argument.
added quote for convenience:QuoteFirst playing multiple games refreshes and energizes you in different ways.
Second, you become a better gamer overall when you play multiple games.
It seems amazing that you would always want to play the same game. Why not have a variety?
No. It's true. It's just not mathamatically provable (as far as I know). Remember I reasponded to a question in the second instance.
Ah, I was working with "if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does." Which I'm pretty sure he meant.That is how I understood it as well, but he is telling us that wasn't his intention now. So we either have to assume he made a dumb argument and is back peddling from it or assume he has issues communicating his point via text (which is a known issue for him). Guess which I'll side with until proven otherwise. ;)
Clarifying would be more helpful than criticizing misclarifications I think.Ah, I was working with "if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does." Which I'm pretty sure he meant.That is how I understood it as well, but he is telling us that wasn't his intention now. So we either have to assume he made a dumb argument and is back peddling from it or assume he has issues communicating his point via text (which is a known issue for him). Guess which I'll side with until proven otherwise. ;)
I like how you were flatly demonstrated to be at fault for not understanding and you manage to justify your mistake, even when you know it's one.
The problem was that we weren't getting your point due to the miscommunication. That happens on the internet a lot, especially when text isn't the best mode of communication for most of the people involved. Once you came and made it clearer what you actually meant the issue was dropped. I wasn't putting fault anywhere honestly. I made a snarky comment about the 2 most likely scenarios, since it wasn't just me who was wrong about interpreting your statement. I even put a ;) to show I was just messing with you.Ah, I was working with "if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does." Which I'm pretty sure he meant.That is how I understood it as well, but he is telling us that wasn't his intention now. So we either have to assume he made a dumb argument and is back peddling from it or assume he has issues communicating his point via text (which is a known issue for him). Guess which I'll side with until proven otherwise. ;)
I like how you were flatly demonstrated to be at fault for not understanding and you manage to justify your mistake, even when you know it's one.
Yes, but there are very specific reasons football players take ballet. Foot coordination/health and flexibility, triggered in a different way. Ballet, won't improve the soccer player's knowledge of field positioning, passing lanes, or overall strategy. I argue that these are the things that are most alike to optimization in DnD, and thus are things that you are unlikely to learn by exploring other systems.
What would dX or Vampire teach me about optimization in 3.5?
Why do you consider them to be 'shitty'? dX has little material but is designed to be much more free-form. I've got less experience with Vampire, but it's fun and has some depth. I don't consider them to be 'shitty' at all.
What games do you consider to be good?
Shitty games teach nothing, that is correct.That is not wholly true. Even bad games can have good concepts to learn from, or simply highlight flaws to an extent that they become apparent.
Shitty games teach nothing, that is correct.That is not wholly true. Even bad games can have good concepts to learn from, or simply highlight flaws to an extent that they become apparent.
I agree with this statement!Shitty games teach nothing, that is correct.That is not wholly true. Even bad games can have good concepts to learn from, or simply highlight flaws to an extent that they become apparent.
They can teach you about games, if you want to be a designer but only fractionally. And really only in context. If you are teaching engineering, for example, you teach successes and when you show failures you want to show the context of how they failed.
Without that context it's not useful to beginners.
If I had not been so masterful in my understanding of D&D, I would have been unable to grasp the weak points of games like GURPS or Burning Wheel.
When I look at a system, I can think about the exploits because of these very boards, understanding wording and concepts much better.
Though, of course, that lends support to the idea that playing a single game does not make me a worse gamer than one who plays multiple games...
He DOES need to improve, I'm not excusing it (that last post to BB WAS baiting to be clear), but you all aren't exactly Prince Charming either. Except for Tshern. I love me some Scandinavian dudes.Finland is not actually a part of Scandinavia, but Fennoscandia. There is a lot of Scandinavians who do not know that either though, so I don't really care if someone makes that tiny mistake. But I have tried to improved my manners and I hope that has been showing. Perhaps life is finally forcing me to become a civilised person?