I disagree with a statement by Josh

[BG_Meg]

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.

[BG_Josh]

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.

[Basket Burner]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[X-Codes]

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."

[Basket Burner]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[BG_Meg]

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.

[zugschef]

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.

[BG_Meg]

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. 

[Ziegander]

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?

[archangel.arcanis]

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.

[X-Codes]

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.

• a reasonably well-constructed setting, even if it is only an implied setting

-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.

• adventure-focused gameplay

-Duh.

• deep character-creation options combined with meaningful choices of in-game action

-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.

• streamlined action-resolution mechanics

-If you know what you're doing, then combat *can* go quickly.  It can bog down with new players at the table, however.

• and clear, well-presented documents

-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]

[Ziegander]

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 Gamer^TM 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.

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 Gamer^TM. 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 Gamer^TM" 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.

[archangel.arcanis]

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)

Josh I have to disagree that you are using the Socratic method, at least in this thread, for your arguments. You are not giving a real answer to the questions being asked, most of your answers are assertions that you are correct and they are wrong or ignorant of an obvious truth. I understand the difficulties in 1)posting from a mobile device 2)communicating through a text based medium when speech is by far your stronger method of communicating 3) having to post incomplete answers because you work for a living. That said I do think that through out this thread you have come across as condescending and had mostly dismissive answers.

[X-Codes]

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.

[Ziegander]

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.

[Shadowhunter]

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

[BG_Josh]

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.

[veekie]

@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.

[SneeR]

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.

[BG_Josh]

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.