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

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2011, 02:51:34 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 02:54:54 PM by X-Codes »

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2011, 03:10:59 PM »
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.

So unless you have something new, that's it.  Read my posts or ask questions.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2011, 03:13:06 PM »
Quote
Nope.  Again, since you only know dnd like games you don't understand.
Oh? And how do you know that?
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2011, 03:20:05 PM »
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.

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).

I hope you choose the latter.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2011, 03:34:24 PM »
Quote
Nope.  Again, since you only know dnd like games you don't understand.
Oh? And how do you know that?
prosody, phraseology.  It comes with Experience. 

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #85 on: December 14, 2011, 03:42:29 PM »
Quote
Nope.  Again, since you only know dnd like games you don't understand.
Oh? And how do you know that?
prosody, phraseology.  It comes with Experience. 

So you're basing your opinions on wild assumptions.

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)
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 03:45:24 PM by ImperatorK »
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #86 on: December 14, 2011, 03:49:37 PM »
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).

I hope you choose the latter.
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.

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.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #87 on: December 14, 2011, 04:05:14 PM »
Quote
Nope.  Again, since you only know dnd like games you don't understand.
Oh? And how do you know that?
prosody, phraseology.  It comes with Experience. 

So you're basing your opinions on wild assumptions.

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)

Nice, the douchebags hattrick.  Wrong, off topic and douchey.

If you really want to hear about your shortcomings, start a new thread.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #88 on: December 14, 2011, 04:12:03 PM »
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).

I hope you choose the latter.
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.

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.
what are your thoughts on Hx and special/sex moves?

Also what kinds of emergent behavior occurs?

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #89 on: December 14, 2011, 04:18:14 PM »
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.


Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #90 on: December 14, 2011, 05:05:33 PM »
what are your thoughts on Hx and special/sex moves?

Also what kinds of emergent behavior occurs?
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.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #91 on: December 14, 2011, 07:27:28 PM »
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.


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.

I take your inane metaphor and cannot dignify it with a response.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #92 on: December 14, 2011, 07:43:55 PM »
what are your thoughts on Hx and special/sex moves?

Also what kinds of emergent behavior occurs?
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.

I like that you at least looked at AW, so you are doing better than most people here.  I suggest you give some of these new games a try. 

The emergent behavior is that because players benefit from manipulating others, they allow others to more readily manipulate them.  The result is players usually do what others want them to actively.  By taking away the complete compulsion the system brilliantly ensures it. 

Also some move like sex move make players think "how are we going to have sex?"  Rather than "ugh what should I do now?"  Many of the moves are like that.  "how do I get someone alone" or "now I have to discipline a member of my gang" are snippets that lead to the emergence of story.  Once you consider how the system works you can see it's brilliance.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1997
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #93 on: December 14, 2011, 08:11:53 PM »
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.

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #94 on: December 14, 2011, 08:34:10 PM »
The rest of what this poster has said has been debunked but this needs covering:


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...
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)

Quote
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.

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. 

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?

Offline BG_Josh

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #95 on: December 14, 2011, 08:36:12 PM »
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.

Yes, Violence and the threat of violence are well explored in the AW system. 

Offline Prime32

  • Over-Underling
  • Head Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2914
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #96 on: December 14, 2011, 08:49:51 PM »
Quote
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.

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...
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? You will never need a splatbook for Risus, and a number of commerical games are basically more complex versions of the same system.

Quote
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?
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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 09:05:35 PM by Prime32 »

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 #97 on: December 14, 2011, 09:03:33 PM »
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?
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 zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #98 on: December 14, 2011, 10:51:46 PM »
this thread sucks.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
« Reply #99 on: December 15, 2011, 12:22:15 AM »
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.
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.