Author Topic: I disagree with a statement by Josh  (Read 41377 times)

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #100 on: December 15, 2011, 12:57:17 AM »

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.
Since that word is already used in a number of ways in gaming it is confusing and muddled for yet another meaning.

Quote
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.

New games taught me new things.  Meta strategies, non standard character types, team optimization all came from other games.  New ideas are better than nitpicking or book collecting.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #101 on: December 15, 2011, 01:04:30 AM »
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?

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.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #102 on: December 15, 2011, 01:44:44 AM »
Quote
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.

Either where the rules don't cover stuff properly and entertaining things are made up on the spot, or possibly just the group dynamic at the right place at the right time.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Slaughterhouserock

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 158
  • Hail to the king, baby.
    • View Profile
    • Horror Movie Fans
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #103 on: December 15, 2011, 06:23:28 AM »
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.

No, I wouldn't have more fun.  I've tried and didn't.  I'm still trying, and am still not.  You are essentially saying that we are all the same, no matter what.  We can't have differing opinions on the matter?  It's utterly impossible for someone to enjoy playing D&D more than other systems?  I call bullshit on that.  Let's look at this in another way, using D&D as an example since everyone here knows the system.  Say each class is like an rpg unto itself.  Now, most everyone here will agree that the Wizard is by far the most enjoyable to play.  It offers tons of flexibility through it's various options and generally has a solution for everything.  Others, such as the Fighter and Monk, will be looked down upon as being horrible by those same people.  Despite this, I still enjoy playing those classes more than a Wizard.  Does that mean I'm settling by saying these classes are "good enough for me"?  No, I just get more fun out of playing them despite knowing they aren't perfect.  Now, this doesn't mean I haven't had fun playing Wizards before, but I had more fun playing Fighters.  Why?  Because people get enjoyment from different things.  Saying we all should be the same as you is a purely ignorant thought process.  I know you're not ignorant when it comes to gaming(I don't know you well enough to vouch for you on other things), so I'm baffled as to why you come off as a smug, holier-than-thou asshole when people don't see things your way.  And, in the off-chance that you didn't realize this, this is how you come off in your posts.
The DM giveth and the rogue taketh away.
I have a 5 in Charisma and Diplomacy is a cross-class skill.  Hopefully I don't piss off too many people.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #104 on: December 15, 2011, 07:09:58 AM »
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.

Um, good for you? Nice job dodging though.

You still have yet to demonstrate that you have the degree of ability required to get away with being a dick.

The rest of what this poster has said has been debunked but this needs covering:

Only in your dreams.

Quote
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)

Faux intellectualism. Cute. But no, they are like that. Might not be as many books, but still more than 1.

Quote
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. 

You just went full incoherent.

Quote
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?

No, no, takes too much time for the same or lesser benefit, and serves no productive purpose when finding one good meta, and working on that delivers the same or better results for less cost.

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.

Yes. An example of meta discoveries would be to learn that the role of the Cleric is to do anything EXCEPT heal, the role of the Fighter is just damage, the role of the Rogue is just damage, and the role of the Wizard is to do anything but damage. If you simply go by what the game tells you you should be doing you will be going about it all wrong, which is why it is necessary to read and understand everything to avoid the inevitable trap options. That's before getting into shifts that occur in actual play such as save or loses become biggest threat > everything bulks up saves > save or lose casters start dispelling or debuffing.

Quote
To BB, are you familiar with Risus? 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?

I also find it interesting that he says you could have more fun playing x system, yet it does not occur to him that x system could very well be D&D. It's not WoD after all, so being objectively terrible isn't on the table.

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.

The problem with that is that every system has its own set of assumptions. In one a given ability is amazing, and in another terrible. In one it's easy to get, in another near impossible. And then once you get it you have to figure out how good of a difference it makes.

The number of people that insist poison and precision damage are relevant in D&D are testaments to the fact that people are bad about finding the things that will stay relevant in the meta. And even when you consider those that aren't, well preconceived notions are going to work against you.

I also find it interesting that Josh claims he was in the top 5 of min maxers before doing his little thing. Out of what group? Because he has yet to demonstrate a single ounce of ability, whereas I know three people that can run circles around almost anyone here.

Even so though, there is an element of truth to his words, it's just in the entirely wrong context. All my talk of metas and getting swept and counters? That's not from D&D. It's not from any tabletop game either. Now this was purely coincidental - I worked on that meta a while, then got taught the D&D meta on a high level because I wanted to get into tabletop and other reasons. The interesting thing about it is that when people did notice my thought process and the reasons for it their responses to my using thought processes and terminology from another game were generally negative. As in even powergamers didn't like it when I broke things down as I did. I do think it helped, as taking in the right context there are similarities, but Pokemon isn't tabletop.

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.

Offline Prime32

  • Over-Underling
  • Head Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #105 on: December 15, 2011, 09:49:43 AM »
Quote
To BB, are you familiar with Risus? 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?
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.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #106 on: December 15, 2011, 10:10:10 AM »
The meta is nonexistent.

So it is a game with zero depth and thus zero interest. Got it.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #107 on: December 15, 2011, 10:45:18 AM »
So Biscut Burner, uh where to start.  Everything is so foolish and misguded at such afundamental level it's hard to know what to say. 

Wizards should not cause direct damage? 3rd edition?

As for my fidelis, its on the podcast.  I was part of the group that inventedall the minmax tequniques still used today.  I ran the first ever minmax faq on wotc. And was part of a group of minmaxers that wotc invited to look at 4th edition before it was released.  I made up the most popular minmax maxim that someone copied and named after himself in a bizzare cry for attention.  I accidentally got in a fight that ended with the wotc board getting renamed character optimization (a name meg and I made up).

And yes biscut,  Figuring out how to minmax is hard. That's what makes it fun.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #108 on: December 15, 2011, 10:52:41 AM »
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.

If you've been around here a while, you'd know that many of this forum's inhabitants came from the Character Optimization board that Josh talked about in his reply, and that pretty much everyone ran into Meg at some point back then, and some others probably also knew Josh and Zeke, although their appearances were far less frequent.

Offline Ziegander

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 692
  • bkdubs123 reborn
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #109 on: December 15, 2011, 10:55:05 AM »
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.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #110 on: December 15, 2011, 10:56:18 AM »
Everything is so foolish and misguded at such afundamental level it's hard to know what to say. 

This is the only part of that post that is correct. Between the terrible sentence structure, the spelling, and the insults that might or might not be intentional your post is entirely incoherent aside from that one line. I see why you talk of understanding so much, because it is damn near impossible to understand the words coming out of your keyboard, or to establish how they are at all relevant to the subject. I checked again to be sure. Nope, direct damage hasn't came up.

The rest of that is a mix between claiming you have multiple black belts and/or degrees on the internet, and something you really shouldn't be bragging about given what a buggy, terrible meta that 4th edition has.

There is but one question the men and women of these boards have for you.

Is this you?


Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #111 on: December 15, 2011, 10:59:45 AM »
Ok, BB.  Josh is an asshole.  Whatever.  It's really not a competition.

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #112 on: December 15, 2011, 11:01:46 AM »
I made up the most popular minmax maxim that someone copied and named after himself in a bizzare cry for attention.
which is?

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #113 on: December 15, 2011, 11:03:37 AM »
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."
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #114 on: December 15, 2011, 11:06:38 AM »
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 remember hearing later that T_S really regretted naming it after himself.

Offline BG_Meg

  • BGalicious
  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 113
  • Keepin' bitches in line since 2009
    • View Profile
    • Games by Play Date
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #115 on: December 15, 2011, 11:21:09 AM »
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.

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 NEED YOUR HELP!

Back my game, please! And then tell 10 other people to back it. Finishes September 3rd!

PACK the PACK Kickstarter is LIVE!

Wanna chat? www.twitter.com/bg_meg

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #116 on: December 15, 2011, 11:47:06 AM »
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.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #117 on: December 15, 2011, 11:55:11 AM »
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.

Whether he's better in the real world or not is a moot point, as the chances that I will meet any random person here face to face are about... 2 in a few thousand. I highly doubt that it will ever come 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.

This. It's not an original or an in depth concept, so taking credit for it as if it were some amazing thing just makes you look foolish.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 11:56:43 AM by Basket Burner »

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #118 on: December 15, 2011, 12:25:08 PM »
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.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #119 on: December 15, 2011, 12:28:53 PM »
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.

Did you invent the Internet as well?