The Gaming Den

Yeah, I forgot the Den censors the C-word. In Australia it's about as acceptable as in England: you use that word for people you actually want to insult in as few words as possible, but also isn't a racist slur, thus you can apply it against anyone, and using it doesn't make you a complete shit.

Just don't address a pig as [EDITED]-stable or you'll end up with stitches in your scalp.

Kaelik wrote:I think it is the word for a women parts that is totally okay in the UK, and probably Australia, but is considered super bad in the US for no apparent reason.

Ah. I think the issue is that in the US it isn't really used as a general insult (you basically never hear it) but specifically as a sexist insult against women or gay/effeminate men, putting it in the same category as hate speech like the n-word. I think it is more gender-neutral across the pond (not sure about Canada).

Anyway, to get back on subject, Koumei's claim that the time you don't get a magic sword and can't fight golems undoes and more than undoes the fun you get from the time you find a buster sword at 2nd level and rampage around is basically not true. At least, it's not true in AD&D because it doesn't have a challenge rating system.

Enemies are locational rather than personal, so if you don't find a magic sword yet, you can to a first approximation simply stay in lower level areas until you get one. Secondly, there is a chance that you'll meet enemies that are simply very powerful, so being in the situation where you have to run or negotiate is simply a normal part of the game.

AD&D has many many problems. But the fact that sometimes you ended up somewhat over or under powered because of how the item lottery worked out was not one of them. That made the game more replayable. Fuck, that game had very little character customization, if you didn't get randomized items and henchmen, the game would get boring incredibly quickly.

In 4th edition, being somewhat over or under powered based on equipment drops is considered unacceptable - because you end up fighting the same XP budget worth of enemies all the time no matter what items you do or do not have. But if the power of enemy warbands is higher or lower all the time and you're already expected to meat enemy warbands you can crush easily and enemy warbands you should run from, it's absolutely not a problem. It actually makes power gains feel less like a meaningless treadmill, since you can actually perceive that you're making progress against the average enemy warbands you are facing.

-Username17

Kaelik wrote:So PL, what the fuck does the gygaxian failure of a ruleset with shitty saves mechanic and shitty THAC0 and shitty player killing have to do with items?

It had rules for them. Written in the same gygaxian shitty failure style. They were gygaxian shitty fail rules for items. Frank likes them with Grognard love because he has rose tinted glasses from playing games when he was a little kiddums or something. But there really were item rules and they really were alternatively "oops these rules don't even fucking make sense"/"fuck you ahahahahaha" about as much as anything else about those now legendarily atrocious systems were.

By the way, an "ad hominem" is when you argue against a position by saying that an unrelated thing is bad or wrong with someone who holds that position. It's a major formal fallacy, and people who invoke it are often being deliberately deceptive. People on the internet are constantly getting that definition wrong, attributing "insults" or "being mean" to ad hominem.

However, Phone Lobster's current tirade that item lotteries are bad because Gygax was a douche and AD&D had terrible rules for adjudicating to-hit rolls and saving throws actually is an ad hominem. His reasoning is formally invalid, and I don't really think it's necessary to say anything more about that.

-Username17

Koumei wrote:Misrepresent? You're the one who said:
A. It's important to sometimes have a TPK, thus ending the story and ending the campaign on a sour note, leaving everyone unhappy.

Eh. That's close enough.

B. It's important that sometimes you get absolute shit in a game where you need certain stuff, and then you just say "okay my character stays home for this mission" and go play Smash Brothers, or you join in, do nothing and maybe die.

This, however, is a blatant misrepresentation.

So let me re-iterate for posterity's sake: my ideal magical item system would be one in which you didn't need at any level of play any kind of magical item in order to function at level-appropriateness. Any magical item that you received, from a +1 longsword found in a ditch to a Holy Avenger, is a bonus above and beyond what you need to perform.

Yes, this does mean that games that are actually played tend to be easier than the baseline assumptions. Anywhere from slightly easier to much easier. We can have a discussion about those ramifications if you'd like.

Koumei wrote: The Regret theory isn't one of rewarding people for playing, it's of withholding enjoyment and some degree of punishing them for not playing longer, as a way of milking payments out of people.

Look, any game -- even games like Bingo, in which there is literally no player agency -- has some degree of outcome regret in it. Otherwise, it becomes completely deterministic and ceases to become a game. Some games have too high of a regret and become discouraging (like high-stakes poker) while some have too little and create blaise detachment (like Choose Your Own Adventure books) but it has to have it in order to be a game. I've seen some really avant garde or simplistic games in my time, but I've seen no game in which there isn't regret bourne of probability and/or choices.

And really, even if the outcome of a choice is broadly or even equally-but-differently positive, there's always going to be some degree of regret. When properly managed, that can become a very strong hook. People still play 3E D&D after all of these years because there's so much replayability and customizability; but this is only meaningless if you can't get the entire play experience at once. And while you're roleplaying a Halfling Archer Cleric this necessarily means that you can't be playing a High Elven Wizard.

Koumei wrote:To be honest, I'm not interested in your character, no matter how much or little I know about them. Surprise has nothing to do with that, I just don't give a shit about your character, as we're not in the same game. In a game, the amount I care about other people's characters depends exactly on how much I interact with them in-game (which in turn depends on the attitudes of their character, whether they're engaged in the game, whether they've taken the effort of having nice character art, their proficiency with English and so on). If they play the same character every time, it makes it easier for me to make a snap judgement and decide how much I care, but that's all.

I found this paragraph soul-crushingly sad. I don't even know what to say to this. I guess I'll just start with some Socratic questioning:

1.) Do you find it, all things being equal, more interesting to be told something you don't know or something that you already know?

2.) Do you believe that what happens to their character in the game (gets a cool sword, close family member dies, they get promoted to general, is a stout and muscular halfling instead of a dwarf, etc.) is disconnected from how much fun you'd have with them in-game and out-game?

If you answer 'no' to the first question and 'yes' to the second question, I'm just going to say that we'll never see eye-to-eye and I'm going to flat-out say that TTRPGing or cooperative storytelling in general is just not for you. I mean, 'the amount I care about other people's characters depends exactly on how much I interact with them in-game' very strongly implies that the answer to 2.) is no, but nothing you said in that parenthetical statement is influenced by the rules or tropes of a particular game. I could be playing any character in any game and still meet those requirements.

I've said this to people before but it's usually over people who whine that their fun is ruined if someone contributes an input that derails their expectations or plot -- this, however, would be literally the first time I've said it to someone who thinks that what other people do within the game's specific paradigm is ultimately unimportant to their enjoyment.

Koumei wrote:So why again do you want random factors people have to make an effort to think about, rather than stuff people have pre-chosen that they already know?

1.) I think that it's pretty obvious that 1E/2E D&D's method of player magic item acquisition requires less player investment and game attention than 3E and 4E D&D's. People have literally spent hours going through magic item catalogs between games and agonizing over various permutations. And while I think that it would be a shame to rob people of that experience, I still maintain that people can get this experience through other means. Like stronghold building or character creation.

2.) This is special pleading, but as far as D&D is concerned I think that people spend too much time thinking about what tools they're holding and what they're wearing. Except for some rare cases, the shape and functionality of the weapon you're wielding is the least interesting thing about your character. Samus Aran and Tony Stark both own power suits with a dizzying array of personalized weapons, but Samus is a shallow and boring character while Tony is an amusing and/or complex character depending on the story. By the same token, The Question is just as amusing and/or complex of a character as Tony Stark despite not owning anything cooler than a canister of tear gas. This, to me, strongly implies that for all of the focus games like D&D give to magical items that they're one of the least likely reasons why we'd find a character fun to watch or even play. Even A Game of Thrones has named and even magic weapons in it but when people are talking about the reasons why we should care about Brienne the fact that she owns Oathkeeper is at the bottom of the list.

Every second someone goes off about their wicked-sweet scythe or their Boba Fett armor is a second they aren't talking about how they're scheming to chop off their lord's head when they get back or researching a new kind of fertilizer. If people are prevented ahead of time from wanking to what's in their right or left hand then that encourages them to talk about more interesting and less shallow shit. And randomized magic items are a perfect way to cut Drizz't clones and Warrior Barbies off at the knees.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:1.) Do you find it, all things being equal, more interesting to be told something you don't know or something that you already know?

That is a question which cannot be answered by just saying "the former" or "the latter". It's much more complex, because it depends, among other things, on the current emotional status and your expectations. As an example, sometimes people do prefer rewatching a movie than watching a new one, because they either are not in the mood or rather can't be bothered for getting into something new or, expect something they don't like.

[quote="Lago PARANOIA]

2.) This is special pleading, but as far as D&D is concerned I think that people spend too much time thinking about what tools they're holding and what they're wearing. Except for some rare cases, the shape and functionality of the weapon you're wielding is the least interesting thing about your character. Samus Aran and Tony Stark both own power suits with a dizzying array of personalized weapons, but Samus is a shallow and boring character while Tony is an amusing and/or complex character depending on the story. By the same token, The Question is just as amusing and/or complex of a character as Tony Stark despite not owning anything cooler than a canister of tear gas. This, to me, strongly implies that for all of the focus games like D&D give to magical items that they're one of the least likely reasons why we'd find a character fun to watch or even play. Even A Game of Thrones has named and even magic weapons in it but when people are talking about the reasons why we should care about Brienne the fact that she owns Oathkeeper is at the bottom of the list.

Every second someone goes off about their wicked-sweet scythe or their Boba Fett armor is a second they aren't talking about how they're scheming to chop off their lord's head when they get back or researching a new kind of fertilizer. If people are prevented ahead of time from wanking to what's in their right or left hand then that encourages them to talk about more interesting and less shallow shit. And randomized magic items are a perfect way to cut Drizz't clones and Warrior Barbies off at the knees.[/quote]

Summary: "People shouldn't have fun in ways I don't like."

Fuchs wrote:Summary: "People shouldn't have fun in ways I don't like."

The actual moral was and is 'in a TTRPG, people shouldn't have fun in a way that excludes, annoys, or bores other people'. If you don't agree with this then cooperative storytelling is probably not your cup of tea. Unless you absolutely MUST have an audience while you furiously masturbate your shriveled leper genitals in order to get off.

Fuchs wrote:Summary: "People shouldn't have fun in ways I don't like."

I feel you are wrong on this. It's "Lago has unrealisticly high standards for amateur fiction".

We hit this in his last thread and he refused to answer.

Characterizations like "Wears lots of Red", "Uses Swords A Lot" and "Is Kind Of Like Zorro" were ALL dismissed by Lago as "not good enough". He expects players, d&d players random gamers no less to be capable of more, to understand more and want more.

He demands unique and creative characterization that doesn't refer to familiar stereotypes or shallow item themes.

WHAT he demands is a fucking mystery though, because when asked "So what fucking characterization IS fucking good enough for you Lago?" he clams the fuck up.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Fuchs wrote:Summary: "People shouldn't have fun in ways I don't like."

The actual moral was and is 'in a TTRPG, people shouldn't have fun in a way that excludes, annoys, or bores other people'. If you don't agree with this then cooperative storytelling is probably not your cup of tea. Unless you absolutely MUST have an audience while you furiously masturbate your shriveled leper genitals in order to get off.

That should be "'in a TTRPG, people shouldn't have fun in a way that excludes, annoys, or bores other people in the same group". If you cannot agree that not every group must conform to your preferences, then roleplaying is probably not your cup of tea. Unless you must come over as some control freak with delusions of grnadeur.

Fuchs wrote:

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Fuchs wrote:Summary: "People shouldn't have fun in ways I don't like."

The actual moral was and is 'in a TTRPG, people shouldn't have fun in a way that excludes, annoys, or bores other people'. If you don't agree with this then cooperative storytelling is probably not your cup of tea. Unless you absolutely MUST have an audience while you furiously masturbate your shriveled leper genitals in order to get off.

That should be "'in a TTRPG, people shouldn't have fun in a way that excludes, annoys, or bores other people in the same group". If you cannot agree that not every group must conform to your preferences, then roleplaying is probably not your cup of tea. Unless you must come over as some control freak with delusions of grnadeur.

add to that that the game should NOT be made for your niche group within a niche game, but YOU can do whatever you want, WITHOUT trying to force your little babysitting bedtime stories game concept into D&D such as WotC did from the start when it took over.

YOU could always do what you wanted, but D&D didnt have to change for everyone just so you had a rulebook to pleasure yourself over because it is YOUR set of houserules printed that all must now buy. this iw aht WotC did, and also what TSR did to some extent with monsters coming from Dragon and such. D&D doesnt need all that shit. DO IT YOURSELF.

why even be on a forum to discuss what "the game" needs if NOT to alter it in some way via its design? why can you not just play your game your way and let others pay theirs? for those retards that will try to through this back in my face... you have PF and SRG/OGL to play 3rd with, 4th is getting lost, etc; and as noted above i NEVER denied people playing their home game their way, ONLY that they need to keep that shit behind closed doors, not force it unto EVERY fucking gamer or D&D player that exists. the game should be simpler at its core as a foundation, and then people add splat to whatever. THEN and ONLY THEN will there be a DDN that can "capture the feel of older editions", but only when it provides TWO systems since it is the rules and level advancement and "item drops" that work together with TSR edition as opposed to WotC editions.

so seek your babysitter DM to give you your every whim in YOUR game (in the same group), and let others play how they wish around the world without being confined to YOUR way to play.

FrankTrollman wrote:By the way, an "ad hominem"

No, I think I was VERY clear. I described the item rules in question as arcane fuck you Gygaxian bullshit DIRECTLY. Yes, they were like that like the rest of the system, but they themselves specifically were Gygaxian fuck you bullshit as I stated clearly.

In fact they are almost definitive examples of Gygaxian fuck you bullshit.

Fuck you type cursed item mechanics? Yep, almost definitive Gygaxian fuck you bullshit.

Fuck you suck the GMs cock with guidelines for him to screw you over as a means of handling item creation? Yep, Gygaxian bullshit.

Needing at least a +1 dagger to even damage your enemy but not having one because of sheer random chance or failure to read the GMs mind or suck the GMs cock? Yep, utterly definitive Gygaxian fuck you bullshit.

So no, you don't get to say "how dare you impune the good name of utterly depriving players of +1 daggers then making them fight monsters with normal damage immunity by associating it with THACO!" I mean after all, aside from anything else that just there is the first time I mentioned THACO in this thread. It's almost like I'm NOT the one trying to muddy the water and make false associations.

FrankTrollman wrote:By the way, an "ad hominem" is when you argue against a position by saying that an unrelated thing is bad or wrong with someone who holds that position. It's a major formal fallacy, and people who invoke it are often being deliberately deceptive. People on the internet are constantly getting that definition wrong, attributing "insults" or "being mean" to ad hominem.
-Username17

Informal, actually. There are very few formal fallacies, and they're all strict logic errors, not just obfuscation.

Further, even if people on the internet aren't always clever enough to split the hair between ad hominem and well-poisoning, that doesn't make the technique in question any more valid (nor any less valid either; a fallacious argument does not imply a false conclusion).

fectin wrote:(nor any less valid either; a fallacious argument does not imply a false conclusion).

The fallacy fallacy is quite possibly the most common logical fallacy on the Internet, and it isn't helped by the fact that most people get logical fallacies wrong. For example, the most common misuse of logical fallacies I have seen is for someone to misread someone else's post and then accuse them of moving the goalposts when they are corrected (there are a number of variants to this, for example the original post might have hyperbole but some dumbass insists on reading it literally and when the op explains this the dumbass will say they are moving the goalposts).

Basically I think people on the Internet should just never mention logical fallacies.

Ad hominems are underrated. For example, I think this is a decent argument:

"Bill O'Reilly believes X is true; Bill O'Reilly is a fucking idiot; therefore X is probably not true."

It's not necessarily ad hominem to say that someone is probably wrong because they have been wrong and, in fact, outright deceitful on the same subject oftentimes in the past, and if you are wrong/deceitful on all subjects like Bill O'Reilly then it's even safe to say that not a single thing you say should be trusted. But that's different from, for example, "we shouldn't trust what this man has to say about magic item distribution because he is a misogynist." Misogyny is totally a thing that we should discourage, but it's got bugger all to do with magic item distribution. If you took the same guy and said "we shouldn't trust what this man has to say about gender relations" you would be right on the money. The fact that he's known to have been wrong or bigoted about the same subject means that it is reasonable not to give his arguments much weight.

"Because he's been wrong in the past" is well poisoning, and is also a fallacy.

Technically, this is true. But that's stupid. There's no sense in wasting your time with arguments which you know in advance are extremely likely to be completely broken wastes of time. I mean, sure, I'm told that on rare occasion Shadzar says something that makes sense, but it's not worth the time to go digging through his ravings to find them. It is entirely reasonable and rational to simply assume that someone who is wrong consistently enough is always wrong even if that is, technically, not completely true.

fectin wrote:"Because he's been wrong in the past" is well poisoning, and is also a fallacy.

This is what I was talking about. First off well poisoning isn't a fallacy, it is a rhetorical device. When you "poison the well" you are trying to prejudice the audience against your opponent, but you do not come out and say "my opponent is wrong because of what I'm saying", if you did that it would be an ad hominem and people would be more likely to notice. The point of poisoning the well is to prejudice your audience without actually stating anything untrue; it is deceptive, but it is not strictly a logical fallacy.

Second, while "he has been wrong in the past, therefore he is wrong now" is an ad hominem, "he has proven unreliable in the past, therefore I shouldn't give his argument any weight or even negative weight" is completely valid.

infected slut princess wrote:Ad hominems are underrated. For example, I think this is a decent argument:

"Bill O'Reilly believes X is true; Bill O'Reilly is a fucking idiot; therefore X is probably not true."

I think that is a terrible argument. Idiots are idiots because they believe 7% false things instead of 3%. Idiots still believe that breathing air is good, and any number of things that are also true. Therefore, if O'Reilly believes X, X is still probably true unless you can give us more information about X, such as "X is a divisive political issue."

Kaelik wrote:

infected slut princess wrote:Ad hominems are underrated. For example, I think this is a decent argument:

"Bill O'Reilly believes X is true; Bill O'Reilly is a fucking idiot; therefore X is probably not true."

I think that is a terrible argument. Idiots are idiots because they believe 7% false things instead of 3%. Idiots still believe that breathing air is good, and any number of things that are also true. Therefore, if O'Reilly believes X, X is still probably true unless you can give us more information about X, such as "X is a divisive political issue."

X is of course a "divisive political issue" because that's what Bill O'Reilly talks about. Obviously X does not refer to things like "breathing is necessary to live" or "1+1=2".

My item wishlist has a "Sword of Bill O'Reilly Destruction +5."

infected slut princess wrote:"1+1=2"

Actually I'm not sure Bill understands that.

Ad Hominen is a fallacy in formal logic. That means that whatever conclusion is being offered does not properly follow from the premises given. This has nothing to do with whether the conclusion, or the premises, are true. Only the argument is invalid.

That said, making an argumentum ad hominem is disingeuous and deceptive, and usually suggests that the other side has the stronger case. But you can find people on basically any side of any argument who will resort to fallacies and poor logic--it doesn't mean their side is actually wrong, although their arguments don't show that it's right.

For example, I could say "Opponents of evolution are backwards, fear-mongering, narrow-minded, religious assholes. Therefore, evolution is true." That's an argumentum ad hominem, and it's invalid. Yet, evolution is still true. Poor logic tells us nothing, rather than telling us the opposite of what it's trying to show.