Quote from: SettembriniI´m not pitying anybody for him thinking a spaceship CAN be colour.
I pity those who thinky spaceships ARE colour.

And I especially (that´s where it started) pity those who can only see "colour" in the Millenium Falcon. They are crippled in their enjoyment of Star Wars.
Which makes me sad.

Actually what is even more sad are those who only see the "story" of Star Wars, and still like it. They must be terribly stupid and lacking in taste.
The story in Star Wars, my ass.

But that´s another thread.

See, its these kinds of absolutist statements that make ME pity YOU.

Also, I never said that spaceships ARE color. I said they CAN be, and gave a Star Wars-related example. Whereupon you barged in and blurted out some random, inane shit about pity.
Hardly the hallmarks of great conversationalism..

Quote from: SettembriniProof that you don´t understand what is talked about here. Or that I´m hard to understand, sorry for that if that is the case.

Let´s take a different route:
Have you played Traveller?

Explain to me why you dont think I understand what we are discussing.

Also, no. I have never played Traveller. I dont like 80s roleplaying games. Too much number-crunching for a poor dyscalculic guy like me.

I´m raging against the people on that blog, not you (or are you one and the same??).

And their comments are begetting of their inabilty to see that spaceships are anything else than colour.

Quote from: SettembriniI´m raging against the people on that blog, not you (or are you one and the same??).

And their comments are begetting of their inabilty to see that spaceships are anything else than colour.

Your remark about pity was made in direct response to my Star Wars example, so I concluded that it was directed at me.
Which is why I couldnt reconcile it with your justification, which made prefect sense to me.

Quote from: TempleAlso, no. I have never played Traveller. I dont like 80s roleplaying games. Too much number-crunching for a poor dyscalculic guy like me.

Okay, that´s something to work with.
Traveller is from the 70ies, BTW.

Okay.
Traveller.

How do you determine the contents of a star system?
You use a probabilistic model.

You roll up the type of star, if it´s a binary or not.
You derive all other characteristics of the star system from that:

Orbits, Gas Giants, Temperature on the planet. They all derive from the nature of the respective sun.
That´s why you need to stat a sun, for example.

See where this is going?

Quote from: SettembriniOkay, that´s something to work with.
Traveller is from the 70ies, BTW.

Okay.
Traveller.

How do you determine the contents of a star system?
You use a probabilistic model.

You roll up the type of star, if it´s a binary or not.
You derive all other characteristics of the star system from that:

Orbits, Gas Giants, Temperature on the planet. They all derive from the nature of the respective sun.
That´s why you need to stat a sun, for example.

See where this is going?

For one style of gaming, thats cool!
For others, thats too much info. Some might even call it useless info (though it certainly serves its place in certain kinds of games, for certain kinds of gamers).

Im not saying its useless for a roleplaying game to stat up a star in any way, shape or form. In fact, Im not sure anyone is saying that, though I might be blinded by my optimism in that regard. I like to think the best about people.
Im saying that this level of deail is not for everyone. Its certainly not for me. I, personally, think its just ridiculous. But I aknowledge that some people like it, and that there are even some people out there who think it is essential for their enjoyment of the game to know these kinds fo thing beyond a shadow of a doubt.

For me, a star only needs a name to be fully statted out. Even if that name is just "the star."
Thats al there is to it, IMO.

Quote from: SettembriniOrbits, Gas Giants, Temperature on the planet. They all derive from the nature of the respective sun.
That´s why you need to stat a sun, for example.

See where this is going?

"Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language can say 'the green sun.' Many can then imagine or picture it. But that is not enough -- though it may already be a more potent thing than many a 'thumbnail sketch' or 'transcript of life' that receives literary praise. To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art: indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most potent mode."

J.R.R. Tolkien, "On Fairy-Stories"

QuoteI, personally, think its just ridiculous. But I aknowledge that some people like it, and that there are even some people out there who think it is essential for their enjoyment of the game to know these kinds fo thing beyond a shadow of a doubt

OK, that´s great and intellectually decent of you. I can only assure you, that I´m as intellectually decent to other kinds of gaming as well (though not neccessarily to some of the people who play them).

But: Do you understand why some people think it´s absolutely neccessary? Do you know what is lost when you don´t define stuff like that? Do you want to know?
Because you said you think it is ridicolous I have the feeling you don´t understand why for many "a spaceship must be a spaceship and not colour." Or why it´s important to have a defined star.
I mean it could be anything else.

A defined background, if you will.
The number of inhabitants, can you imagine why it is terribly important how many people live on a planet?

Then how do they live?
How are they fed?
What kind of agriculture is possible?
What´s the climate like?

See where this is going?

Quote from: SettembriniOK, that´s great and intellectually decent of you. I can only assure you, that I´m as intellectually decent to other kinds of gaming as well (though not neccessarily to some of the people who play them).

But: Do you understand why some people think it´s absolutely neccessary? Do you know what is lost when you don´t define stuff like that? Do you want to know?
Because you said you think it is ridicolous I have the feeling you don´t understand why for many "a spaceship must be a spaceship and not colour." Or why it´s important to have a defined star.
I mean it could be anything else.

A defined background, if you will.
The number of inhabitants, can you imagine why it is terribly important how many people live on a planet?

Then how do they live?
How are they fed?
What kind of agriculture is possible?
What´s the climate like?

See where this is going?

Yes I understand the need for details like this. I used to think like that myself actually. But I changed (by which I dont mean to imply that I "grew" or became "more mature" or anything).

For me, knowing all those details arent neccessary for me to enjoy something. In fact, I realised that it never was. I could have just as much fun by just accepting that "this is how it is," and it was less demanding becvause I wouldnt have to figure out why dwarves could live several kilometres beneath the earth, have huge forges running day and night and not die from lack of oxygene.

To some people, a setting where dwarves defy the laws of physics in their mountainous caves is not fun to play in. Thats ok. They needthings to make sense, intellectually, for them to be able to enjoy it. Cool.

I, on the other hand, am comfortable with glossing over the inconsitencies of a game-world. I dont need everything to hang together like it would IRL.

I guess this could be interpreted by some as a "more mature," or "better" way of gaming. Frankly, I dont care. I have my way, you have yours, end of debate as far as Im concerned.

Which is why the pity-thing really baffled me.

He doesn't get it.

Sett's use of the term pity is..unfortunate. And I'm surprised nobody has yelled "Brain Damage" when he used the word "crippled."  It's Swinery at it's best.

None of which excuses "No, it's making fun of the notion that everything must have stats, which certain contributors to that thread espoused"

See, there's not much difference between pity and mockery; the jump from the same plane.

So Sett - you need to reel in this business about your superior gaming.  It's really becoming rather the bore.  You seem to be reacting to the kind of elitism and arrogance that was directed at "mainstream" or "traditional" games for quite some time with...well...elitism and arrogance. AM seems to think this is a fine approach.  I think it devloves into "nyah nyah, my game is better than yours" bullshit. Besides which, you lose any standing because it makes it too easy for the opposition, who should be answering for years of bullshit elitism and arrogance, to point at you and say "it's only a reaction to that."

It's fine to think your game is better; my lord it's almost human nature.  You need to learn to dicsuss it in ways that don't seem to imply, or explicitly state, that it is an objective truth.

Quote from: TempleI, on the other hand, am comfortable with glossing over the inconsitencies of a game-world. I dont need everything to hang together like it would IRL.

That doesn't have to lead to any conflicts, of course: the internal consistency championed by Tolkien in the earlier quote isn't necessarily that of the real world. Why don't those dwarves suffocate, you ask? Well, who's to say that in their world the air even consists of oxygen?

Quote from: Abyssal MawHe doesn't get it.

How so?

Quote from: GrimGentThat doesn't have to lead to any conflicts, of course: the internal consistency championed by Tolkien in the earlier quote isn't necessarily that of the real world. Why don't those dwarves suffocate, you ask? Well, who's to say that in their world the air even consists of oxygen?

Wel, thats not doing what I do. Thats solving it by going down on the detail level and adjusting the internal consistency to fit your needs. A perfectly valid approach.

I just dont bother with asking those questions that lead to the need for explanations like this in the first place.

James,

I didn´t. And you too, are mistaking things here. I do not think my gamings is superiour to BW-style gaming.

I DO think I´m personally intellectually and morally superiour to the shitheads who posted on that blog, Calithena excluded, Paka emphatically included.

I´m always baffled by the lack of understanding for these differences.

Is this such a hard concept? Games are equal, people are not. And these guys are just stupid fuckwits who don´t know nothing about most of the hobby.

So, where is the difference?

Easy. They say, we are insane and lunatics, because we don´t dig the concept of colour. Which is, for everyone intellectually decent a matter of taste. So we are insane because of our taste. I say they are idiots because they judge stuff they don´t understand AND mock it.
They aren´t idiots because they like colour as a concept, but they say we are insane because we don´t like it.

Big. Difference.

EDIT: I can discuss with Temple, as he has shown he is intellectually decent. I don´t feel superiour to him in any way except being a tad more experienced in areas he doesn´t know.
Add to that that he is maybe even morally superiour to me, because he had more patience with me than some would think is validated by my harsh nature. And patience is a virtue. None of that can be said about the blog-o´-idiots.