|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 4:56PM
#81
|
|
|
Heroic fantasy traditionally stars flawed protagonists. Max appears to be confusing "flawed" and "weak", or something. Care to back any of that up?
Like with facts?
There's a series of threads titled "sage atop the mountain", you might have heard of them. If you'd like to see evidence of your own talking, I'd suggest starting there. Or just read anything else you've ever written.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:10PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
Heroic fantasy traditionally stars flawed protagonists. Max appears to be confusing "flawed" and "weak", or something.
Care to back any of that up?
Like with facts?
There's a series of threads titled "sage atop the mountain", you might have heard of them. If you'd like to see evidence of your own talking, I'd suggest starting there. Or just read anything else you've ever written.
I've seen a lot of really good ideas from you, and from Yagamifire both. I have no problem saying that I plan on shamelessly stealing ideas from you two. Maybe try looking past the presentation of some of his ideas to the substance of the ideas? You might find yourself pleasantly surprised.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 6:17PM
#83
|
|
|
The question was about Yagami's presentation, Zaramon, or more accurately about how his presentation led to him getting an answer he was apparently confused by. Presentation which Yagami is of course blind to the issues in, due to the same lack of self-awareness which led to him creating this thread. (I told you this before, but if you aren't going to explain it to him, someone else is going to have to.)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 6:29PM
#84
|
|
|
The question was about Yagami's presentation, Zaramon, or more accurately about how his presentation led to him getting an answer he was apparently confused by. Presentation which Yagami is of course blind to the issues in, due to the same lack of self-awareness which led to him creating this thread. (I told you this before, but if you aren't going to explain it to him, someone else is going to have to.)
Actually you said I support the worst sort of gaming at my table.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 6:34PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2003
|
Okay, that is the answer then especially since many of the people in this thread argue on basis of RAW all the time for alignment and other things. You can not argue using RAW one way and then disregard those rule later on when convenient, right? At least for purposes of argument. So if RAW say "Different people have different ideas of what's fun about D&D. Remember that the "right way" to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy," you have no more argument. You have been destroyed by designers because they say the right way is whatever you and your friends say it is. This will vary with the table. This is RAW straight from the holy book.
Your only way out now is that when anybody ask for advice, you MUST ask if they are playing 3.5 or 4e. If they say 4e or don't say the edition, you can't give them any advice. Because this is a primarily 4e forum I recommend (if you are intellecually honest) to do us all a favor and you go to a forum that is stricly 3.5 or Pathfinder so you can give the appropriate advice to those players. This is providing that 3.5 also does not have a statement in the RAW as the one quoted above.
Best of luck to you - we can now restore the community to the great place it was once.
That statement does not negate the presence or validity of the rules contained within the book. It's simply explicit license to do with the RAW as one sees fit in order to make the game more enjoyable for the people who play it. The RAW are still concrete, because they have to be. Giving license to deviate from RAW does not devalue the RAW themselves.
One can still play any edition RAW without deviations.
My eyes are totally open now. THere is a small group of posters who play 3e or Pathfinder that spend time here bullying and trolling. We all know who they are. I see now that this is a version of the Edition War but more covert like the Cold War. Every now and then it flare into a larger conflict when Yagamifire or Chiba Monkey post a thread about alignment or some other stupid mechanic that should be in the past. But this is what is going on. There are many 3e or Pathfinder forum for them to go to and talk about those games but they choose to come here where many DMs are playing 4e. I think the saying in English is: The proof is in the pudding?
Assuming this is an edition-war is nothing but self-victimization that does nothing but seek out to further splinter the community by begging for a fight where there isn't one.
Get off it.
What he said.
Neither of us are edition warring. Yagami doesn't play 4e, but I've yet to see anything negative about 4e from him.
Me? I own almost every 4e book published by September of 2011 (haven't been playing much 4e since then, so I havent gotten any new books). I like 4e, and 3.5e. I have never participated in edition warring in any way. Your desire to paint me with that brush serves only to highlight your own desire to villify me and lionize yourself as some kind of martyred saint.
What you fail to see is that the "What's a DM/Player To Do?" forums are edition-neutral. Even though I like 4e, a lot of people do not, and still play 3.5e. Some moved to Pathfinder, others just continued to play 3.5e. My own player group, who has been playing 4e for years, approached me earlier this year and asked me to run a 3.5 game because they missed 3.5, so I complied. Issues and topics regarding 3.5 still crop up because of how much that edition is still played, so your cry of "leave it in the past" is more like edition warring than anything Yagami or I have said.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 6:38PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2003
|
The question was about Yagami's presentation, Zaramon, or more accurately about how his presentation led to him getting an answer he was apparently confused by. Presentation which Yagami is of course blind to the issues in, due to the same lack of self-awareness which led to him creating this thread. (I told you this before, but if you aren't going to explain it to him, someone else is going to have to.)
Actually you said I support the worst sort of gaming at my table.
That entire post of his was deleted. Your quoting of it later is the only place it exists now.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 6:43PM
#87
|
|
|
The question was about Yagami's presentation, Zaramon, or more accurately about how his presentation led to him getting an answer he was apparently confused by. Presentation which Yagami is of course blind to the issues in, due to the same lack of self-awareness which led to him creating this thread. (I told you this before, but if you aren't going to explain it to him, someone else is going to have to.)
Actually you said I support the worst sort of gaming at my table.
That entire post of his was deleted. Your quoting of it later is the only place it exists now.
The irony of course being that I mentioned how difficult talking to him was considering the majority of his posts get deleted.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 6:43PM
#88
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
The question was about Yagami's presentation, Zaramon, or more accurately about how his presentation led to him getting an answer he was apparently confused by. Presentation which Yagami is of course blind to the issues in, due to the same lack of self-awareness which led to him creating this thread. (I told you this before, but if you aren't going to explain it to him, someone else is going to have to.)
I get that, but I'm trying to say that kind of question is missing the mark precisely because it focuses on the presentation of the idea vs. the idea itself. Beyond the basic idea being understandable, I don't think presentation matters.
I really think there's a lot of potential here for everyone to learn from each others' ideas if we can get past some minor issues.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 20, 2012 - 4:51AM
#89
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
|
There are some people who really find me annoying for this in real life, but another Nietzsche quote is in order here.
"We're often opposed to an idea merely because of the unsympathetic tone in which it is said."
Ideas should be judged based on merit, not on presentation. I know sometimes it can be really easy to see something as a personal attack, especially when the idea is a challenge to our methods and the tone is unfriendly, but it can really pay off to measure an idea based on its qualities rather than its dressing.
What are the benefits to actually presenting an idea in hostile tones? What are the benefits by presenting an idea without actually presenting the idea you are trying to convey? How many people are lost in the process of absorbing information about the idea when they don't read all the way through? How important are first impressions (of ideas)? Are Nietzsche's throughts just one person among many, and that they may be equally valid/invalid as anyone elses on the subject of idea presentation?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 20, 2012 - 5:19AM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
|
No need for apologies or anything. These sorts of posts I make are meant to provoke a response because getting the emotional response out of the way is sometimes necessary. Also, the nature of writing posts on a forum makes immediate clarification or the realization of intent difficult at best.
What makes it needed? Are you really addressing an emotional response or creating one with your presentation? What makes clarification of intent or realization of intent difficult? How difficult is it to put into words what the intent is?
People looking to argue and fight are going to do so regardless. They're mentally incapable of doing otherwise. The people that want to discuss and understand are also capable of arguing and fighting...but they want to discuss and understand. They want to improve. I want everyone to improve. It's a difficult process. People are going to get upset and emotional. Such is life.
I agree that there are people that are going to look to argue regardless, but how many start arguing even though they agree with you because the message was not clear. If you want everyone to improve then perhaps it's time to improve upon idea presentation. Wanting everyone to improve in how they discuss ideas and concepts relates to, in this case the game of D&D and its design, involves first taking the steps to put everyone on the same page in your first paragraph.
Better than useless conversations where nothing gets accomplished because everything is equally valid because nothing can be challenged.
This is a false dichotomy, which presenting your ideas in a non-hostile tone automatically create the environment you describe. Isn't there some middle ground that can be reached relating to productive discussion? Don't the readers still benefit from the discussion even if they don't participate in it? How to we measure the accomplishment of a discussion?
Also, to further my point...
If people get so very emotional over so very much when something isn't even necessarily directed at them, how can we ever expect to have people’s personal ideas and input actually challenged in a direct manner? Imagine the powder keg of emotions that would set off.
I have the match in hand. Think I'll strike it.
It is perfectly fine, if not desirable, to get people emotionally invested in a subject. However, there are some methods and emotions that are preferable to others.
I'm actually curious; about some of the games you've designed Yagami. I'm wondering if I've perhaps played some of your work. I was curious if you would be willing and can legally share some of the projects you've worked on. Not full details of course, but perhaps name of a few of the finished products, and a guestimate of how many other developers worked on the project.
|
|
|
