Min/Max Boards

Meta Board => Archive => Brilliant Gameologists Podcast => Topic started by: Marco0042 on November 24, 2011, 11:01:40 AM

Title: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Marco0042 on November 24, 2011, 11:01:40 AM
I have played WoD for years. I have had fun, because of the people I play with. I don't like the system. Mostly because the math doesn't work. As you gain a certain amount of expertise in a skill/power your chance of failure increases. This is just plain stupid. Plus I'm not interested in the flavor of the game and want to do other more interesting things with my limited gaming time. However I have heard Josh say on numerous occasions that WoD doesn't have a social mechanic. My contention is that it does, it's a bad one, but it's there. As I said in other places, I have read Burning Wheel but have not played it .... yet. I have also listened to the podgecast and heard about Diaspora. These games have very intricate and interesting social mechanics. But I don't think that because other games have a better social mechanic doesn't mean that WoD doesn't have one. Social Attribute + Skill vs. Social Attribute + Skill IS a mechanic. And there are in fact 3 social attributes, rather than the 1 that exists in most of the older games. There are also numerous skills and powers that are dependent on a characters social stats.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: SneeR on December 01, 2011, 10:20:55 PM
Josh doesn't come onto the boards very often, but I hope he addresses your contention soon!
He really does kind of dis that poor system.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Unbeliever on December 02, 2011, 02:37:36 PM
As an old WoD fan who despises the system, I imagine that Josh was being hyperbolic, but only slightly.  There isn't much in the way social mechanics.  I will assume that Marco is right with regards to the mechanics of WW, it's been a long time to me, but that's a social mechanic on par with D&D's Diplomacy and Bluff mechanics.  In other words, it's all very very thin.  There isn't much in the way of any extended system to persuade people, make someone look bad, and so forth.  I happen to think such things can be extrapolated fairly easily from the core WW mechanic.  But, it was easier to justify that back when there were very few systems and subsystems in the game.  Oh, and I hear there is a social dueling system in Requiem, which is essentially what there is in BW. 

That being said, I hate Burning Wheel's system (in general, the social mechanics are actually one of the strongest parts of it), too.  I guess I'm hard to please. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: zeke on December 08, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Our contention, ( and yes I'm speaking for Josh) is that you could have played any other game (or no game at all, just sat around and talked to your friends) and had the same experience. I think Josh would agree with you that it does have a social mechanic, but that mechanic is so common in other games, that it kind of gets edited out in both mine and Josh's perceptions.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: RedWarlock on December 08, 2011, 10:03:42 AM
This is kind of off the side, and not in WoD core, but in the nWoD book Mirrors (basically Unearthed Arcana for the nWoD) they have a rules subsystem called Sway, which, I think, is pretty awesome. Basically, use of a social skill (or power) generates points of Sway, which can be Casual, Intimate, or Unnatural. Each point allows you to influence the other party to do specific, itemized actions, or extend those actions so they don't immediately reverse or question them. the other character's player can choose to resist the sway by spending their own willpower, draining their resources.

I've been working on building a similar mechanic into my own custom-built system, though I'm only using one type of influence, but allowing it to be spent on declared relationships (similar to the fate/DF-RPG's aspects), to exert higher levels of influence.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: veekie on December 08, 2011, 12:13:27 PM
Well, White Wolf CAN do social mechanics, Exalted has one, though whether its effective is kinda up for debate.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 08, 2011, 10:02:50 PM
So let me first answer the contention and then let me hit the real point.

Q: Does WoD have social mechanics?
A: No,

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.

The conflict is PC's vs environment when you look at AA games (DnD, WoD, Shadowrun, Fate).  Most games have a simple(skills) system for a range of environment challenges and complex system for combat.  I call them Skills and combat.  Fate and a few others throw in a "social combat". 

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. 

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Nanshork on December 09, 2011, 04:22:08 AM
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.

Josh, this has always been my biggest problem with your posts.  You don't know the OP, you don't know his group, and so you can't effectively tell him what he will find to be more fun. 


Sorry for the off-topic post.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: InnaBinder on December 09, 2011, 08:11:08 AM
Quote from: BG_Josh
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Unbeliever on December 09, 2011, 10:47:20 AM
...
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. 
...
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. 

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: sirpercival on December 09, 2011, 10:48:55 AM
The Fate System (i.e., Dresden Files RPG) also implements social combat similar to physical combat (and mental combat, incidentally).
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 09, 2011, 10:40:26 PM
Quote from: BG_Josh
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.

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.


Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Nanshork on December 09, 2011, 10:55:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 09, 2011, 11:17:23 PM
...
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. 
...
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. 

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.

In an AAS&C (Wod, Shadowrun,DnD 3rd or 4th etc) the game works only when the players do not engage in PvP (combat excluded kinda).  Players are not intended to engage in PvP and the system fails when they do.

In the world of DnD diplomacy is essentially climbing or basket weaving.  The GM presents a challenge, the player rolls skill, and then the player gets the win or the lose condition.  All challenges are Player vs Environment.  Just sometimes it a wall, a goblin or a king.  I don't settle a Player argument by rolling (RAW) for example. 

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. 

As for games with good social mechanics: 

Burning wheel and Mouse guard

Story mechanics that are close to social mechanics:

apocalypse world, Misspent youth, Free Market, shock
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 09, 2011, 11:30:22 PM
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.

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.

its like this:

Quote from: BG_Josh
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.

He did not get the whole discussion.  The likely reason for this (that I have seen many times before) is that he is applying my answer to his imagined question, rather than the original posters question.  The original poster knew that WoD is sub standard not only in the abstract, but in his specific case.

And fyi, I don't recommend anything originally because I have no information to make that recommendation.  And later I recommend what is asked for.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Nanshork on December 09, 2011, 11:33:43 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Unbeliever on December 09, 2011, 11:34:25 PM
EDIT:  this post refers to #13 above

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? 

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. 


P.S.:  this: 
...
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. 
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 10, 2011, 12:16:00 AM
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.

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.
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.

If you have a different question or comment about the way I present ideas, that belongs elsewhere.  Stay on topic.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 10, 2011, 12:53:37 AM
EDIT:  this post refers to #13 above

But, I feel compelled to point out that is not what I think the vast majority of people mean by a social mechanic.
Not really. There is no standard so in an ad hoc situation you are compelled to match terminologies.

What WoD lacks is player compelled goals and the ability to affect other players (including the GM).  Call that ham sandwichism if you like, that's what WoD lacks.

The reason I say it lacks an actual social mechanic is because it does not really do what people who want to play a social game would like to do.  Do you see the distinction?

Quote
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).   

Quote
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. 

But the second a person stops trying to understand and try's to win, they are not going to understand.   

I'm not out to get anyone here.  My goal is to help people have more fun and to understand the world around them.

I don't have the time to make intricate posts that cover everything.  I try to be succinct and direct and expect that people will ask questions. 

Quote
P.S.:  this: 
...
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. 
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.
I don't understand the question here.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: ImperatorK on December 10, 2011, 01:46:10 AM
Quote
P.S.:  this: 
...
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. 
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.
I don't understand the question here.
Because you're not trying to understand it. :smirk
BTW. The constant talking about "not understanding" sounds like "I'm right, you're just too stupid to understand it" to me. Might be my imagination, though. :eh
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: skydragonknight on December 10, 2011, 02:13:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: InnaBinder on December 10, 2011, 07:56:42 AM
Quote from: BG_Josh
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.

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.




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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Prime32 on December 10, 2011, 01:46:55 PM
There are reasons to like or dislike a game beyond the game itself. One of the most visible around D&D-related communities is the number of people who refuse to play Pathfinder because the designers were jerks during playtesting. Pathfinder isn't exactly flawless but there are worse games out there. The same thing can be seen with AD&D grognards who refuse to play WotC products.

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.

As an example, in this thread (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=602) I recommended Mutants & Masterminds 2e to a Big Eyes Small Mouth d20 player, since I believe that M&M does more or less the same things as BESM (anime-style point-based d20) but better. However...
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 10, 2011, 03:18:21 PM
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.

OK, so this is a pretty common type of response that I see all the time.  First off, the amount of time to teach a new system is miniscule compared to even just the time that better systems will save you in the long run.  Of the "good" systems the most time consuming to learn are without question 3rd and 4th DnD.  I can teach danger patrol or apocalypse world in 15 minutes or less.  Mouseguard or misspent youth in under an hour.

And yes, if you want to have more fun, you may need to step up.  But if you are content and having fun playing, you have no impulse to step up.  So don't.  (It is my experience that this is simply untrue.  something that gets proven over and over again.) 

Also, if it is the game they enjoy the most, and they have tried a range of games, they are running a good game by now.  (so in other words, they have not, in fact, tried other games.)


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.

Go back to the original post and rephrase the question and i will answer that.

Fun is irrelevant to the issue.  Hanging out with friends is fun.  We want to know if the game gives you payouts from play and does not have too many turnoffs.

If you don't want to play a Burning Wheel type game you wont like it.  But if you want to play a crunchy, gritty, character driven game, it is the best option.  If you want drama and politics it is better at that than WoD.

If you want Over the top Action, don't play BW. 

So yes, people can be miserable playing BW.  And people can have fun playing Rifts.  I never indicated otherwise. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 10, 2011, 03:23:33 PM
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. 

Exposing the situation is the best thing you can do. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: InnaBinder on December 10, 2011, 05:52:42 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 10, 2011, 07:16:24 PM
Quote
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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: veekie on December 10, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Quote
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?
Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: ImperatorK on December 10, 2011, 07:42:06 PM
Quote
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?
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: InnaBinder on December 10, 2011, 07:45:06 PM
Quote
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?
Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Nanshork on December 10, 2011, 08:00:23 PM
Quote
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?
Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

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?

This is why I attempted to debate him earlier.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 10, 2011, 08:15:56 PM
Quote
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?
Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

And this isn't exactly a picky lot here.

You mean a group that does not want to play a BW style game?  That's actually the majority of people.  I have never even intimated otherwise.

Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 10, 2011, 08:24:25 PM
Quote
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?
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.
Right.  You are determined that the "best" game you can play is DnD/PF so thus it is.  Also correct.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 10, 2011, 08:26:22 PM
Quote
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?
Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

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?

You're just mistaken.  Somewhere along the line you got lost.  but for a number of reasons you are confronting rather than questioning.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 10, 2011, 08:27:17 PM
Quote
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?
Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

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?

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Nanshork on December 10, 2011, 08:32:02 PM
Quote
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?
Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

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?

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.

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: ImperatorK on December 10, 2011, 08:32:40 PM
Quote
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?
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.
Right.  You are determined that the "best" game you can play is DnD/PF so thus it is.  Also correct.
So you are wrong. Good to know.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: InnaBinder on December 10, 2011, 08:48:25 PM
Quote
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?
Non-theoretical, I hadn't actually found a group who could get through the Burning Wheel rulebook and still retain any interest.

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?

You're just mistaken.  Somewhere along the line you got lost.  but for a number of reasons you are confronting rather than questioning.
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 01:14:15 AM
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.

Right.  So to be clear then.  When I do not immediately agree with you you make excuses and leave.  Also, as a point of information: you have never attempted a debate,  you just disagreed with me.  To debate you need to make a claim that is "falsifiable".  Like "I believe it is impossible to objectively evaluate games"  And then you would make statements that supported that thesis.

you are so off base that it is like you are in a pie eating contest and you declare yourself the winner after eating a box of donuts.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 01:21:00 AM
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.

Seriously? 

I admit to being a fan of the Socratic method. (look it up)

Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 01:31:54 AM
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.

Your experiences do not contradict my experiences (indeed such a thing is logically impossible, but I get that you meant your experiences seem to contradict the conclusions I have drawn.)

You, and the others, keep presenting evidence perfectly in line with my conclusions.  But ultimately we cannot have a discussion until you give your point in a clear declarative statement.  Remember this whole thing started with the specific.  Not the general.  The original poster acknowledged that he disliked WoD and that it was inferior.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes on December 11, 2011, 11:27:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 11:57:02 AM
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.

By the terms stated, no.

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.

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: veekie on December 11, 2011, 12:07:38 PM
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)
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes on December 11, 2011, 12:18:39 PM
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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: RedWarlock on December 11, 2011, 12:19:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 12:20:32 PM
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)

iirc exalted has a social conflict system.  The game is unbelievably terrible but it has one (again iirc).
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: veekie on December 11, 2011, 12:24:28 PM
Yeah but extend the same, unnatural mental influence charms vs Charm person/Dominate. It may not be particularly well done, but in D&D, as usual, everything falls under spells in the end.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 12:25:40 PM
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.

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. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 12:30:03 PM
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.

Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes on December 11, 2011, 01:05:11 PM
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.
Because that's exactly what it sounds like you're saying.

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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: RedWarlock on December 11, 2011, 02:22:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 04:29:33 PM
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.
Because that's exactly what it sounds like you're saying.

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.

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.
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.

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.
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"

But anyway.

So, DnD does not have a social mechanic.  If you want one thing and the other players want another, there is no roll you can make to get your way.  It would at minimum require that.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes on December 11, 2011, 04:43:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 05:15:24 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: RedWarlock on December 11, 2011, 05:22:19 PM
Ahuh.

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'.

Oh the other hand, I'm new here, I was never on the old forums, so maybe for you and others, the WoD mockery is old hat.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: ImperatorK on December 11, 2011, 05:29:52 PM
Ahuh.

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'.
Me neither. That's the first time I see such hate towards it.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: veekie on December 11, 2011, 05:59:03 PM
Well, I do play it on a regular basis, its not bad in itself, but I do have a few choice words about the dice mechanic. All it boils down is stat+skill and more or less freeforming the rest.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 06:03:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 06:12:25 PM
Ahuh.

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'.
Me neither. That's the first time I see such hate towards it.

I don't hate it.  It's like hating people in the 20's for being sexist. 

I find it amazing you have never seen any criticism of WoD. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: SneeR on December 11, 2011, 06:17:10 PM
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!"
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes on December 11, 2011, 06:55:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 11, 2011, 09:35:17 PM

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!"

First off it's not *better* than DnD.  It is different.  And if it is what you want, you will like it more.

Example 1: In Apocalypse World if you want another PC to do something you use the appropriate move(this is vastly simplified) and if you succeed they have the option of doing the thing.  And if they do it they get experience(except in AW experience is really good) and If they don't do it they have to make another roll that might end up with other consequences.

So generally you want the other players to ask so you can say yes and get xp, and a number of other reasons too complex to explain.  And you also have to see character generation to see how characters relate to each other, but that's a taste

Example 2: In Burning Wheel you have DoW.    In BW characters are driven not by an adventure created by the GM but off of the Beliefs, Instincts and Traits chosen by the players.  So in accomplishing these goals you may have another character with you.  An example that came up in a game I played was most of the group wanted to kill the badguy and one player did not.  So we had a duel of wits and decided to kill him.  Why was that important?  It got the issue out of the way right off and we never had to revisit it.  Absolutely priceless for group unity.

In a DoW you all have to agree on stakes, so you cant make someone risk what they don't want to.  The biggest thing it does in PvP is formalize interactions and cut down on inter-player conflict.  Also in most ways the power imbalance is much bigger than DnD.  The "Fighter" can demolish the other characters physically and has a very strong bargaining chip for that talent.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes on December 12, 2011, 02:53:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner on December 12, 2011, 03:25:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Solo on December 12, 2011, 10:55:35 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 13, 2011, 06:44:44 PM
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.

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".

And my point was the opposite, I was *not* making a twist of language I was going after the deeper meaning. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 13, 2011, 07:08:37 PM
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.

Yes, except for two things.  On addition one mistake.

In addition to games being objectively bad, some games are objectively good.

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: SneeR on December 13, 2011, 07:13:37 PM
How do people learn most RPGs besides reading the whole book if no one is familiar with it at the table?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 13, 2011, 07:17:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: zugschef on December 13, 2011, 08:45:31 PM
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.
that and while playing.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner on December 14, 2011, 07:57:06 AM
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Prime32 on December 14, 2011, 08:26:56 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: veekie on December 14, 2011, 09:58:41 AM
And theres also some where each of the splats is a complete game, plus a core rulebook. Rules-lite(FATE, nWoD, the whole cluster of d6 games) and toolbox(M&M, GURPs) games generally only really require the core as well for basic operation. Most splats for those are for specific sub-games.

D&D isn't everything.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 14, 2011, 10:27:02 AM
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Ha ha ha.  No.  Feel free to check my numbers.  You mistake "can spend" with "correct amount to spend".
check out the low cost games: misspent youth, apocalypse world and burning wheel. 
At midrange check warhammer fantasy and mouseguard box set.  The cost to spend for all of these is list price.  (Unlike dnd these games do not need special other stuff like maps and minis)

Now remember that an rpg entertains much longer than a computer game.(that affects thecost benefit analasys)

Also, you don't need to read all the rules of most games to play. I can explain that further if you like.

Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: SneeR on December 14, 2011, 11:28:53 AM
Josh, please assume that we are idiots and explain to us without asking. Every time you ask, it feels condescending, even if it isn't supposed to, because we need to ask you to give us the cookies because we just weren't intellectually tall enough.

Yes, please explain.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner on December 14, 2011, 01:01:54 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: zugschef on December 14, 2011, 01:19:44 PM
His sentence structure is way off. I didn't even understand most of that.
signed.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 14, 2011, 01:48:37 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. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner on December 14, 2011, 02:05:05 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: ImperatorK 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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: ImperatorK 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)
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner 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.

(https://lcstudentwiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/531371-wobbuffet1_large.gif/100131051/531371-wobbuffet1_large.gif)
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Prime32 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 (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.

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Slaughterhouserock 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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: zugschef on December 14, 2011, 10:51:46 PM
this thread sucks.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: veekie 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: veekie 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Slaughterhouserock 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner 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 (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?

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Prime32 on December 15, 2011, 09:49:43 AM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Ziegander 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:


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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner 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?

(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001575411/3545195203_winning_duh_tshirt_p235541721468206866adc0r_500_xlarge.jpeg)
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes on December 15, 2011, 10:59:45 AM
Ok, BB.  Josh is an asshole.  Whatever.  It's really not a competition.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: zugschef 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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: InnaBinder 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."
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Meg 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: zugschef 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh 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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner 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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Meg on December 15, 2011, 12:35:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 15, 2011, 12:45:47 PM
Biscut,

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.

Love,
bg josh

Ps: I actually thought your name was biscut.  Basket burner does not make any sense.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner on December 15, 2011, 12:49:23 PM
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.

Quote
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):

What you mean is don't disagree with the admins.

Quote
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?

Since you mention it, nearly everyone here has screwed up my gender. Even after being specifically told. Exactly one person has gotten it right, out of dozens. Notice how I haven't said a word about that until now? That's because calling me a guy isn't baiting, and he is a gender neutral pronoun as well as a masculine one. Now when someone does something you don't like you have several options, and calling them on it is generally the most effective.

Quote
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.

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?

Nearly every post I've reported recently has been by one of two people, that enter a thread specifically to bait me. The thread had nothing to do with them prior, and was filled with people discussing other things.

Quote
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.

That works a lot better when admins are not almost directly admitting that they will let attacks slide because they don't like the person being attacked.

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?

Quote
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.

Thank you for making my point.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes on December 15, 2011, 12:50:31 PM
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."
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Basket Burner on December 15, 2011, 01:00:40 PM
Fact: You are insulting, offtopic, and hyperbolicly stupid.

You have 1 out of 3 right about me. You have 3 out of 3 right about yourself. I suppose this makes it my turn to channel Charlie Sheen, but that isn't my style.

Quote
So, pray tell what would you like?  I am open to sugestions.

I would like for your attitude to match your ability. You can do this by eating about 20 humble pies, or by demonstrating the skill level required to justify such an attitude. Claiming to invent the Internet Stormwind Fallacy does not come anywhere close to this, as it is far too simple a concept for its discovery to have much meaning.

Remember, most of the people here hate me for one reason or another, and yet are willing to put that aside to agree here. Even the person you ran to for help ultimately agrees with me.

When everyone but you thinks something, it might be you that is the problem.

Quote
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.

I have a hard time believing this. I have also had better instructors both in the art of meta mastery as it pertains to tabletop and in terms of insulting people.

Quote
Ps: I actually thought your name was biscut.  Basket burner does not make any sense.

So much for that understanding and benefit of the doubt you preach about when telling people not to jump to conclusions, hm?

Basket Burner makes perfect sense. You just have to either understand the context or be able to make inferences. Barring gaining access to private conversations you couldn't do the first, but you could easily do the second. Gee, someone that hates Basket Weavers has the name Basket Burner... could it possibly be a way of saying that they are an anti Basket Weaver? Why yes, that's exactly the case. You'd miss out on the history which consisted of me expressing extreme exasperation and disgust with basket weavers, and being responded to by joking remarks such as kill it with fire, make them die in a fire and so forth that gave me with the idea but even without that it isn't a hard association to grasp.

In fact, I got ninjaed by someone making the reference. He got my gender wrong, and the definition of a basket weaver wrong, but he got the name right. One out of three.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Meg on December 15, 2011, 01:01:10 PM
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.

Get over yourself. It was a silly mistake. If you are going to take this too seriously, you do not belong here.


What you mean is don't disagree with the admins.
No, what I mean is stop being a total jerkwad douche.

AND - I know that by repeating this I sound petty, but these are our boards. We pay for them. So help pay the hosting costs or deal with it.

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?

The things you are reporting are NOT hostile. Let it go. And again, I'm sure this could be worded better but this whole thing reeks of playground behavior so that's the tone I'm falling into too, but you started it.

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?

See, we work during the day. We don't "go quiet"- we have a ton higher priorities, like making a lot of money, owning a house and cars and raising a family. And have I mentioned working about 60 hours a week?

And for you, yes, both channels are inappropriate. Change YOU. THEN we can talk about channels you should take when you feel attacked.



Get better or leave. It's really that simple.

Thank you for making my point.

Great. Then see ya.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: zugschef on December 15, 2011, 01:03:39 PM
ehm... not that it matters, but i have to go with BB in this case.

josh you are an admin -- which (like it or not) does come with the function to lead by example to a certain extent --, yet you show in every single post that you are full of yourself, don't respect others and their opinions, and then start whining when someone uses the proper method for complaining -- namely the report option, which keeps the problem away from public --, although it was nearly impossible to tell that you really just unintentionally messed up his boardname.

gimme a fuckin' break.

and with this i'm out of this thread.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Meg on December 15, 2011, 01:18:24 PM
To everyone else:

People are not treated equally here. We've never been under the illusion that you were.

If you contribute to the community in a positive way, you will get a lot more leeway. If you are more trouble than you are worth, well, we've both just shown what can happen. It's not great, and it's not pretty and I'm positive there are MUCH better ways to go about it, but it happened.

We do want suggestions. I don't want complaints. Complaining is empty and self-entitled. Offer to help. Give real ideas to make things better. That will go a lot further.

We're not perfect. Admin means we set this place up, pay for it, and manage all of the behind the scenes. We also get to deal with the awesome backlash of running a community, like getting death threats. That is just awesome (no, wait, it really isn't). It doesn't mean we're perfect. It means we get a lot of shit and hardly any thanks though (seriously, when's the last time you said, hey, thanks for you know, doing all of this), so cut us some slack.

Josh's writing style can come off as a total asshole. Nah, that's underplaying. Josh's online personality IS a total asshole. We know this. It doesn't make it ok, but honestly, it's one of the reasons we wanted a place where people could argue without mods stepping in and breaking it up. 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.

The mods will deal with 97% of all issues. They are much better at it and much more adept. They know the community better, that's why we asked them to help out. They are super awesome and again, the vast majority of the time, they will deal with reports, issues, and help us work out issues too, like giving suggestions to Josh about his being an asshole (we have a whole thread on that going on our moderator board).

I step in when I feel they are getting bogged down with a specific person or persons or issue. And when it gets to that point, it's often already escalated.

So don't get to that point. Don't think that the crappy treatment BB just got will apply to you. Because you won't be so crappy in the first place... right?

Also, to stay on topic... Hi, I'm Meg and I disagree with a LOT of statements made by Josh.  :p
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Ziegander on December 15, 2011, 01:39:09 PM
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 hate to do this, but I appear to have posted the above in the middle of a "who's a bigger asshole," "who's a more qualified optimizer," dick-measuring contest. As far as I can tell my post is on-topic and the dick-measuring contest is not. Any chance of a response to this?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: archangel.arcanis on December 15, 2011, 02:10:15 PM
Mods can we please parse out the pissing contest and subsequent argument into its own thread so this one can get back to discussing social mechanics. I was trying to read it before it became a mud slinging contest.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes on December 15, 2011, 03:24:41 PM
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'll answer and give the admins a break.  Besides, I'm feeling pretty awesome after just nailing a final exam.

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.

-The DMG outlines not only what you can expect to encounter, but gives a DM all the tools necessary to put together a very well-constructed, custom setting.
-Duh.
-No other game can match the creation options presented by the 100+ splats of the D&D 3.5e franchise.  For the most part, they don't even try.
-If you know what you're doing, then combat *can* go quickly.  It can bog down with new players at the table, however.
-Most of the books are reasonably well edited, although there are some really bad outliers.

There are a number of games out there, however, that just don't do those first 3 points.  At all.  Since it was brought up in this thread: 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]
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Ziegander on December 15, 2011, 03:49:55 PM
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.

To be fair, neither Marvel Universe RPG nor The One Ring are very much like D&D at all, from a game mechanics point of view. But, yes D&D itself ranks rather highly in what I'm looking for in a game system, which is why I play it more often than not, despite its many flaws. The fact that I don't play many other game systems because they aren't designed to offer me what I'm looking for would make me a Bad GamerTM apparently, which is what I don't agree with.

I do go actively looking for non-D&D games that hit the salient points in a game I want to play and that hit those points in new, interesting, and, dare I dream, better ways than D&D, but in my experience D&D typically does what I want from a game and I haven't found any other game that does those things in a holistically and objectively better way. While I will look at other RPGs to see how the authors decided to do things, I won't spend money and time to play a game that doesn't do anything I want an RPG to do.

Quote
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'm sure it does work, and I might find it an interesting read. That doesn't mean that I will enjoy it, nor does it mean that I should play it in spite of disliking it's mechanics to avoid being a Bad GamerTM. The only Good or Bad games out there are ones that clearly do or don't do what their designers wanted the games to do. That said, pulling a Real True Scotsman and saying that "you're not a real Gamer," or worse, "you're a Bad GamerTM" if you don't play all games that actually do what the designers wanted them to do, is... for lack of an academic way of putting this, asshattery at it's finest.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: archangel.arcanis on December 15, 2011, 04:06:09 PM
Ok first i'll address Ziegander's post then the rest.
X-codes pretty much nailed it for you Z. What you want are things D&D does pretty well and you aren't really wanting things that are its weak points. A similar game I'll pimp is the Arcanis RPG, it doesn't have the depth of D&D yet but I think it will hit on all of your other wants, as an alternative if you're looking for something new.

Ok now on to what Josh has been trying to communicate and not doing too successful a job at. Let me see if I can get to the point you I think you were trying to make. For a "better" game what he is talking about is that the game that fits what you want from it, in Z's case his list of points, and has well built mechanics to support that play style. If you want to play a political intrigue style game then Burning Wheel will likely be a better choice than D&D 3e as it has mechanics that support that style better and will thus you have "more fun by playing a better game". If you wanted a high adventure kick in the doors and steal peoples shit kind of game then the opposite would be true.

The contention over what is a social mechanic is a whole different beast. I'm not sure what kind of definition Josh is using. The handfull of things i've picked out are: useful in PvP social interaction, results defined by players and not the GM, it must be its own system not a tack on mechanic (as D&D skills are), and it must involve a resolution mechanic (rather than a freeform RP like some sytems).

this is getting more into criticism of posting and such so if you aren't interested don't bother clicking the spoiler.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: X-Codes on December 15, 2011, 04:15:36 PM
I'd also like to note that you don't get to add the TM after things if they haven't even been said.  Looking back on the thread, I don't see where Josh called people bad gamers.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Ziegander on December 15, 2011, 11:51:54 PM
I must apologize. I accidentally took a statement (or perhaps a few statements) BG Josh made in another thread and brought my argument over it here. My error. Of course, I am still disagreeing with a statement made by Josh, so I suppose I'm not entirely off-topic. I'll find his posts later and address them more directly.

Of course, you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot add the TM to, X-Codes. You're right, he doesn't call anyone a bad gamer in this thread, but I wasn't even using TM to imply that he had. I was using it flippantly and because it amused me.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Shadowhunter on December 16, 2011, 02:09:53 AM
Ok, a few points in no specific order:

1. Thank you BG's for the forum, I appreciate it. Without it I'd have to find another page as my homepage in Firefox.

2. Varying rpg systems will have better or worse mechanical viability/stability/whathaveyou. This often influences, but by no means determines, the enjoyment of the game itself. Mechanical "excellence" goes a long way to make a game enjoyable, but is not the be-all, end-all. Therefore, a person can enjoy herself more playing a mechanically inferior game because her attitude makes her appreciate it more than if she was playing mechanically superior game she dislike for some other reason.
This attitude is highly subjective and can not always be countered by mechanics.
Trying to persuade a person who base her value system on other things than simply mechanics with arguments based upon a different value system (one that is more based upon mechanics) is often not going to pan out well. Trying to forcefully change someone's value system is often seen as an intrusion and won't be met with anything other than varying levels of hostility.

I'd draw a parallel to Social Work and how you can't help clients that don't really want to get help, but that would bring a connotation I dislike. In that case it's more that you can't offer Cognitive behavioral therapy to someone who is more inclined towards Psychoanalysis, regardless or not if you as a professional prefer CBT. You'll have more progress with Psychoanalysis because the client is more naturally inclined towards it.


Therefore, whilst some games can be objectively better on an overall basis, that doesn't mean that they're automatically more fun. There's a noticeable correlation between the two, but it's not a given cause-effect 100% of the time.

3.
I love me some Scandinavian dudes.

I know you didn't mean me, but I'll take it as a compliment anyway :flutter
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 02:34:13 AM
snip

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. 

Biscuit Burner has no interest in any sort of discussion.  He is deluded into thinking that he is clever and is "showing off"

The other big issue is that I have to manage multiple threads of conversation.  And that's really hard.  People have many levels of understanding.  And every time I try to explain something someone wants to debate a tangential issue.  And someone also often is obsessed with something idiotic like using the word meta inappropriately.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: veekie on December 16, 2011, 02:57:06 AM
@Shadowhunter
#2 is very much an overriding case. The group makes the game far more than actual game mechanics. I've had WoD games more fun than some D&D games(and Exalted games that probably fall in my personal file of Best Roleplaying Experiences, not topped by anything else), simply because the group had a superior dynamic when combined with the game. Superior balance and detailed mechanics falls flat when the group just doesn't get into it.

Groups are fragile constructs, each player has their own quirks and preferences. In broad strokes:
The players need to enjoy each others presence, which is not a given, and individual players may have relations counter to overall group mood.

The game's minimum complexity must fit the group's lowest complexity tolerance(this is where WoD and FATE seems to excel, Stat + Skill and straight Modifier respectively),

The game must either fit the type of adventure and stories the players want out of it(setting integrated games like Exalted), or be easily customized to fit(again, FATE/WoD, mostly due to light system)

The game provide sufficient real options to satisfy desires genuine mechanical variety across characters. Rules light and enforced balance(that is, it is easier to balance by restricting to similar mechanics than to try and fit even a trinity of mechanics into the same mold) games are weak at this, mostly because all options are ultimately the same option.

Players must be able to play the characters they want to play, not those the game says they should play. Toolbox and rules-light games tend to be good for this, the former having all the parts to build the desired structure and the latter being easily modified.

The individual players have no personal grudges against the game. D&D 4E has a bad case of this, due to edition wars, as did Pathfinder.

The learning curve is either shallow or the group is already familiar with the game. Rules light games have the former, and D&D/White Wolf products tends to have the latter due to their market prevalence. Complex games that aren't already prevalent tend to be ignored.

Finally, continuity and momentum. Ongoing campaigns have a weight of their own, and they would tend to keep going until their natural end. Ongoing characters have more depth and detail than even the best of systems can outline at creation, built up from hundreds of interactions. Stopping this, even briefly, would release that gaming time slot, which may be filled by differing interests that temporarily occupied the freed time, and then the slot becomes indefinitely broken.

With each of these metrics having different rating across each member of the group, why risk the stable group unless you know it might work? Particularly where a new game can change inter-player relationships, build grudges and biases that can sink future attempts to play, even in the old game or break up existing enjoyment. Theres an art to knowing where everyone falls and whether anyone crosses a fatal threshold.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: SneeR on December 16, 2011, 02:59:20 AM
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.
Making puns on people's names is schoolyard foolishness. How can you claim to be lofty enough to use the Socratic method seriously when you stoop to this junk?

I know it is only a screen name, but it has significance to her. Just like "SneeR" has significance to me, as well as  Raziel's symbol (my avatar). You don't know her real name or my real name. Having no better title to address her by, you must resolve to call her Basket_Burner. Messing up that is exactly like turning "Hurley" into "Barfey;" grow up.

BB may be expressing rude opinions in a crude way, but dang if she doesn't elaborate. You do not. If you wish to use the Socratic method effectively, at least say so ahead of time. Then actually ask questions! All you have been doing is asserting things as fact. If you asked actual questions, we would answer them, then come to conclusions on our own as the method intends. Otherwise, we get all defensive because you are acting high and mighty like you are right.


Now, on topic... one of them...
I believe that experiencing multiple systems does indeed make you a better gamer. To say that someone who does not experience multiple systems is less of a gamer is patently false. They could be a fine gamer in light of what they know. That their scope is limited is true, however, and they may attribute certain downfalls of one system to all of them incorrectly.

I do believe that playing multiple systems does give a better frame of reference. I do believe that just reading other RPGs grants insight into the faults of your "default" option.

Playing multiple RPGs is difficult, though, because it requires players. Learning a system as you play is nigh impossible in a play-by-post. My players barely want to learn the deeper aspect of D&D after 4 years, let alone learn the fundaments of GURPS or Burning Wheel.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 09:41:36 AM
SneeR

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?

How meta right

And so:
if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does.  That's math.

 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Vasja on December 16, 2011, 09:46:21 AM
if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does.  That's math.

This is not the logical or mathematical conclusion. If playing multiple games increases player skill it does not imply that a player who plays one game is less skilled.

Ex: Player A plays every RPG known to man, sucks at each one. Player B plays two RPGs, but is a good player.

On the other hand, the conclusion that [ Player A < Player A + more games ] is a valid conclusion (assuming that the premise is true).
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Kajhera on December 16, 2011, 09:52:50 AM
Okay, I've studied GURPS, BESM, d20 modern, d20 future, so on. We just never actually play them. If we like something well enough from a d20 system we ... houserule it into D&D. So yeah, we wind up with BESM gunbunnies and d20 future mutations ... because we're weird.

Makes it difficult to convince people to actually try another RPG. xD
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: archangel.arcanis on December 16, 2011, 10:04:17 AM
SneeR

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.
Josh 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.

Quote
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?

How meta right
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).


Quote
And so:
if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does.  That's math.
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Unbeliever on December 16, 2011, 10:12:59 AM
...
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. 
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. 

I have to agree with Archangel and Meg above:  I gently prodded that I thought Josh could be much better in his online communication, especially if he is going to use idiosyncratic definitions for terms.  And, the upshot is that I start heavily discounting or ignoring everything that is said.  Though in this thread that might not be too bad a thing.

@"better" games
I have no problem, nor do I see a problem, in making a value judgment as to what makes a better or worse game.  I also think it's completely obvious that you want a game that does best what you want it to do.  I think that borders on the tautological.

However, these games also all come with their own baggage.  D&D's baggage is, I think, sufficiently well-documented.  I don't want to derail into bashing Burning Wheel, even though there are things in it I good and truly like.  For example, I really really like the Duel of Wits, which is the sort of mechanic, if memory serves, started this thread.  But, telling someone like me who was interested in a social intrigue game "go play Burning Wheel b/c it is a 'better' game" is not going to work.  The judgment that it is a "better" game is highly multidimensional, including things like character creation, gameplay, product support, and so on. 

When BG did reviews on the podcast, they were reasonably clear as to what their ranking system was, though I remember it being pretty mushy -- "fuck yeah!" is hard to quantify. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Stabbald on December 16, 2011, 10:21:47 AM
if playing multiple games makes you better, not doing so makes you worse than someone who does.  That's math.

No, it's a fallacious argument.

You might as well further suggest that just because a neurologist studies a narrower medical field than a general practitioner, he is "worse" at medicine.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 10:39:46 AM
A) you want to discuss the socratic method, start a thread. The bad news isthat kind of meta education has to apply to something you already know well.

B) it is math. And that statement is "logically true" use it as a learning example.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Kajhera on December 16, 2011, 10:45:15 AM
Do you think that someone could play many games and still be a poor gamer?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Vasja on December 16, 2011, 10:46:16 AM
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 !!
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 11:06:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 11:10:13 AM
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 !!

No I propose that if A+S>B then B<A+S
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Kajhera on December 16, 2011, 11:12:29 AM
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.

Er, where do you plan to insert that exactly - oh, your argument, right.

Here's your first statement logically.

A: X plays multiple games.
B: X is better at gaming.
A implies B.

If A is false (X does not play multiple games) then B could be anything and the statement would be true. So your statement does not in fact imply that not A implies not B.

What your statement does imply is that if X is not better at gaming, X does not play multiple games.

So ... being worse at gaming makes you play fewer games. This what you meant to say?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: archangel.arcanis on December 16, 2011, 11:13:21 AM
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".

added quote for convenience:
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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Kajhera on December 16, 2011, 11:15:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: archangel.arcanis on December 16, 2011, 11:19:37 AM
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.  ;)
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 11:23:20 AM
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".

added quote for convenience:
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?

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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Vasja on December 16, 2011, 11:23:57 AM
Ah, I see now. Thanks for the clarification, archangel.arcanis. [I hate how you can't write tone into certain sentence structures. Therefore.... have a smiley  :)]

I would probably disagree with the statement that it's true in all cases - some people do not work the same way creatively and do not benefit from sidelong experience, not to mention the fact that 'a good gamer' is a fairly fluid measurement - but I agree with it in the general.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: archangel.arcanis on December 16, 2011, 11:28:26 AM
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".

added quote for convenience:
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?

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.
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 11:35:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Kajhera on December 16, 2011, 11:39:57 AM
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.
Clarifying would be more helpful than criticizing misclarifications I think.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: archangel.arcanis on December 16, 2011, 11:42:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Vasja on December 16, 2011, 11:56:44 AM
I'd disagree with the premise on two points:

1. Playing a separate game does not (necessarily) make you a better player in general.

Playing a game casually and approaching a game with a desire to learn and improve are wholly different things. Not only do some people learn differently than others, some facets of games are inherently different, and applying knowledge from one will not in any way guarantee you gains in the other.

As a stupid example: I've taken to playing blackjack with my friends on Sunday nights. I have not gotten better at playing blackjack over the several months we've been doing this, but I've also not improved in poker or craps - two related games that we also play. 'Broadening my horizons' has, if anything, deteriorated my play in multiple ways.

2. There is no clear measure of a 'good' player.

Does excelling in one aspect mean you are worse than a 'jack of all trades'? If you're speaking strictly about ability to optimize, it's hard to say. Someone might be the best damn E6 optimizer of all time, but where does that rate in 'skill of optimization'. If he's not very good at making 10 or 20 builds, does that mean he is inferior to someone who can, despite the fact that his other skills are much greater? Working without limits is an important skill, but working to a set of conditions is as well. Both are useful and demonstrate creativity, but it's tough to say that one is 'more important'.

If we're not talking about optimization, the measure is even more fluid. Good players may be those who can optimize best, or those who make the best jokes at the table. It's pretty 'up in the air'.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 02:37:21 PM
Vasja,

1) again it is unstated  that you are going to learn the new game, not just execute it.  Similarly we assumeyou are going to try and apply the knowledge.

Here is a clear example: if you want to be better at judo, learn aikido.

2) there not being a clear measure is unimportant.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Vasja on December 16, 2011, 03:17:24 PM
True. Certainly, learning and application of gained knowledge is the only way it could work at all.

[Warning:  :blah]

However, I'd argue that there's often much less overlap in gaming then there are in physical pursuits. For example, consider two fairly disparate martial arts: jujitsu and muay thai. Would training muay thai make you better at jujitsu? Not at all in technique, but your endurance, hand-eye coordination, and strength would all most likely increase, thus improving your jujitsu.

Even here, however, there is less overlap that first seen. First, the important part of jujitsu is not strength but technique, which is completely ignored by trying the other art. In addition, some techniques learned in muay thai may actually hinder you in jujitsu, as you will have to rebuild your muscle memory.

These technical aspects I see as being most akin to the games we play. When two games share a common ground you could certainly gain skill by practicing both instead of one - take Pathfinder and 3.5 for example. The two systems are similar enough that if you spent time optimizing one it's pretty clear you'd have a good sense of what the other offers as well. I see that as akin to your judo/aikido example - the similarity in techniques gives you a greater benefit.

On the other hand, even in similar 'fields' you can often have very little overlap. Sure, I learned a lot in that aikido class - but my time would have much been better spent practicing judo for the same amount of effort. Perhaps if you've completely exhausted your knowledge and creativity with regard to a specific subject (which is quite unlikely to happen), then time spent on a different system could benefit you - but it might not. It related heavily to your own creative process and how best you can come up with ideas - which might be best spending gaining experience in the very system you feel you've exhausted.



I think a somewhat clear measure of what a good player is is also important. On what basis do you say 'you would be a better player if...' without being able to, at least in a general sense', quantify what a 'better player' is? Optimization is subjective in almost every case, because games are subject to the whims of the players. You have subjective limits set on you in every scenario, whether that be social rules or simply the limits of the game system itself.

I guess a reasonable definition would be - 'A good optimizer is a player who, given a system and a set of guidelines on building a character, is able to build an effective character within that system that follows the given guidelines as closely as possible.' I don't think this is something that is necessarily improved by learning other systems, though it can sometimes be.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 04:22:09 PM
1) we are wander afield here.  I brought up sports, ma in specific because in that area the topic is not even controversial.  It is an established thing.

Also, similar is actually not as helpfull.  Football players learn ballet, not rugby.

2) I generally reserve the specifics of criteria to the case at hand.  Until a catagorical system is invented.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Vasja on December 16, 2011, 04:40:29 PM
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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 06:47:09 PM
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?

Shitty games teach nothing, that is correct.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Vasja on December 16, 2011, 06:55:31 PM
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?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 16, 2011, 07:57:27 PM
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?

That's a whole giant topic.  That I will have to get later
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: veekie on December 17, 2011, 12:05:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: BG_Josh on December 17, 2011, 03:05:42 PM
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. 
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: SneeR on December 17, 2011, 03:21:07 PM
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.
I agree with this statement!

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...
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Soundwave on December 19, 2011, 03:45:40 AM
Quote
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.

Quote
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...

I think the phrasing of this should not be : "the idea that playing a single game does not make me a worse gamer" but rather "one who plays multiple games will likely have a better understanding of mechanics in a given system due to a larger pool of experience to pull from."
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Tshern on December 19, 2011, 04:30:54 PM
I only saw this thread today and gave it a thorough read. To me it seems like the arguments about the opinions and methods of different posters are taken out of proportion. Within any community, regardless of the size, there are going to be people who disagree with one another, even fiercely so. But what is the problem there? Don't read their posts. It's not like some entity was forcing anyone to go through every single thing written here.

You disagree with someone, sure, post and explain why you feel differently. The other might shoot back another argument and you can write down another rebuttal. In case you feel too annoyed or that you are not getting through to the poster, just fucking leave the thread.

Jesus, I am even getting along with Hallack without any trouble.

A small off-topic stroll here:
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?
(click to show/hide)

Vasja: Your avatar looks awfully lot like Shang Tsung. Would that be a correct guess?
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Vasja on December 20, 2011, 08:28:08 AM
Yup, Shang Tsung it is :)
Title: Re: I disagree with a statement by Josh
Post by: Marco0042 on December 30, 2011, 10:16:22 PM
First off, I started this topic with an inflammatory statement. I was trying to "poke the bear" so Josh would notice and reply. This was a bad choice clearly. Secondly, as I stated somewhere back in the murk Josh answered my question to my satisfaction. Thank you, this was appreciated. I also appreciate the effort and hard work the mods put in keeping this site up and running. When I saw the old boards go down I was sad and made happy again when this one opened. So I am going to start a new thread that I hope stays on topic and positive. Happy New Year gamers!