Quote from: Saurondor;897282Now, hear me, hear me and don't get all worked up like that. It's not that I don't give a shit literally, it's that you've said it before to challenge my arguments by saying that I don't understand what you're saying. I do. I do understand your definition and what you're saying. I don't give a shit about it because you can't bring up such made up "misunderstanding" as an argument. It seems that whenever you don't have a fucking clue as to what to reply with you come around with this "misunderstood rant", and this is what I don't give a sit about, this rant and the lack of any points that actually address what I'm saying. Address my points with your own arguments, and if you come around ranting that you're "misunderstood" the be certain I won't give a shit.

If you want me to respond to you, limit the scope of your posts. One point at a time would be ideal. Responding to a single paragraph of gibberish is far more feasible than responding to a wall of gibberish text. And do you know what "debating in bad faith" means? When you continuously ask for clarification on shit that you then profess to understand? That is bad faith. It is asking me to waste words pointlessly.

Quote from: Manzanaro;897285If you want me to respond to you, limit the scope of your posts. Responding to a single paragraph of gibberish is far more feasible than responding to a wall of gibberish text. And do you know what "debating in bad faith" means? When you continuously ask for clarification on shit that you then profess to understand? That is bad faith. It is asking me to waste words pointlessly.

Yea, whatever. I clearly exemplified two cases that addresses issues you brought up: completeness of skill sets and mechanical representation. Address those in your response.

Fine.

Quote from: Saurondor;897286Yea, whatever. I clearly exemplified two cases that addresses issues you brought up: completeness of skill sets and mechanical representation. Address those in your response.

Completeness of skill sets. They aren't going to be complete. What does this have to do with anything?

Mechanical representation. Of what? I scanned over some of your last posts and nothing jumped out at me. Can you sum up whatever issue you want me to respond to in one or two well honed sentences?

Quote from: Manzanaro;897287Fine.



Completeness of skill sets. They aren't going to be complete. What does this have to do with anything?

Mechanical representation. Of what? I scanned over some of your last posts and nothing jumped out at me. Can you sum up whatever issue you want me to respond to in one or two well honed sentences?

Completeness, not going to be complete? Why?

The mechanical representation refers to you pointing out the +4 or whatever numerical value attached to the skill representation which was a "better fit" for a simulationist game than a "narrated" one.

Quote from: Saurondor;897288Completeness, not going to be complete? Why?

The mechanical representation refers to you pointing out the +4 or whatever numerical value attached to the skill representation which was a "better fit" for a simulationist game than a "narrated" one.

1) Are you seriously suggesting that you don't understand why TTRPG rules of simulation are not going to comprehensively cover every possible eventuality? That they should cover everything from business simulation to combat simulation to farming simulation to relationship simulation? That isn't going to happen. Even if you have a single core mechanic that models every imaginable process as a "conflict" it is not going to be able to give you exact results, but will rely very heavily on narrative interpretation.

2) Okay. A strong slow warrior with a broadsword and chainmail shirt fights a fast hobbit with a knife. Go ahead and use my words to run a simulation of the fight.

You can't.

You can make up an outcome, which is authoring, which means you are returning the outcome based on narrative principles. Or you can find a way to quantify how strength and armor and weapon damage and speed and etc. works and than determine the outcome via rules of simulation.

Quote from: Manzanaro;8972942) Okay. A strong slow warrior with a broadsword and chainmail shirt fights a fast hobbit with a knife. Go ahead and use my words to run a simulation of the fight.

You can't.

You can make up an outcome, which is authoring, which means you are returning the outcome based on narrative principles. Or you can find a way to quantify how strength and armor and weapon damage and speed and etc. works and than determine the outcome via rules of simulation.

No, you can't and within your ego trip you believe others can't either.

Here's the deal. The warrior has a roll and the hobbit has a roll. There's no initiative "I attack first", there's initiative I make my first move, but within the range of the broadsword the hobbit can get hit. Any move into the kill zone allows for a hit from either side, preferably the broadsword given the range. To resolve this there is also a stance. The hobbit can't make an all out attack, but must rather wait for a break in the warriors defense. This leads to combatants to hold a stance, the strong warrior may hold a more offensive stance and the hobbit a more defensive one. Now working on the opposing die roll mechanics I mentioned let me clarify the following: 0 or better is a hit, 10 or better is a critical hit (deliver damage and gain initiative), -10 or worse is a critical miss (your opponent hits you). So the stances can modify the required rolls in a way that the hobbit requires a 4 or better to hit (bad), but hits the warrior if the warrior's attack results in a -6 or worse (good!, instead of -10 or worse). The warriors stance may result in a hit on a -2 or better, but the hobbit can counter this by dexterity and ability. The point is that the hobbit needs to push the warriors required toHit to 0 or higher, possibly 2 or better while keeping the -6 advantage. Round after round the hobbit dodges the broad sword waiting for that moment in which the warrior rolls in such a way that the opposing roll difference is -6 and the hobbit hits after a horrible swing by the warrior. The hobbit has low odds of delivering damage when rolling for "attack", but higher odds of delivering damage on a fumble on the warrior's part.

BTW, I've been strongly focused on modern CQB mechanics as well as prehispanic mesoamerican combat without iron (armor, swords, etc.). Fighting with obsidian bladed clubs and without metal armor is one of my main interests. Facing an Iberian with metal chest plate and a long sword with a Jaguar warrior with wooden shield and an obsidian bladed club that can cut off a horse's head is precisely one of my "mechanical" interest. Please don't assume "I can't".

Did you seriously just respond to my claim that you couldn't run a simulation without converting things into numbers... by angrily proposing a system of simulation in which you converted things to numbers?

The mind boggles.

Quote from: Manzanaro;897308Did you seriously just respond to my claim that you couldn't run a simulation without converting things into numbers... by angrily proposing a system of simulation in which you converted things to numbers?

The mind boggles.

If I associate good with a set of dice and excellent with another set of dice, and I associate easy with a set of dice and hard with another set of dice I don't need to explicitly convert things to numbers. I'm not rolling a base set of dice and adding 2 for good and 4 for excellent, the dice are already adding them because of the way the sets are made up.

Obviously it is necessary to interpret the (numerical) die roll outcomes back to words, but there's a difference between saying +4 combat and good combat (use good dice set).

Quote from: Saurondor;897311If I associate good with a set of dice and excellent with another set of dice, and I associate easy with a set of dice and hard with another set of dice I don't need to explicitly convert things to numbers. I'm not rolling a base set of dice and adding 2 for good and 4 for excellent, the dice are already adding them because of the way the sets are made up.

Obviously it is necessary to interpret the (numerical) die roll outcomes back to words, but there's a difference between saying +4 combat and good combat (use good dice set).

"Associating good with a set of dice and excellent with another set of dice" = explicitly converting things to numbers = correlating a descriptor (though a very vague and meaningless one) with a numeric variable.

Seriously? My recommendation is you take a break from this and look up "bad faith" on Wikipedia. Maybe you just need a good dose of Heidegger and Sartre.

Quote from: Manzanaro;897313"Associating good with a set of dice and excellent with another set of dice" = explicitly converting things to numbers = correlating a descriptor (though a very vague and meaningless one) with a numeric variable.

Seriously? My recommendation is you take a break from this and look up "bad faith" on Wikipedia. Maybe you just need a good dose of Heidegger and Sartre.

So your dice have winnie the pooh and teletubby figures on them instead of numbers? What's this whole deal with numbers out of a sudden?

I recommend you take a break and team-back with your "coaching" team, articulate yourself a proper response. Worry not, I'll be right here while you "get back to your computer", he he he.

Quote from: Saurondor;897314So your dice have winnie the pooh and teletubby figures on them instead of numbers? What's this whole deal with numbers out of a sudden?

I recommend you take a break and team-back with your "coaching" team, articulate yourself a proper response. Worry not, I'll be right here while you "get back to your computer", he he he.

You... don't understand that dice generate numbers?

And "what's this whole deal with numbers all of a sudden" Are you even paying attention to what either one of us is saying?

Quote from: Manzanaro;897317You... don't understand that dice generate numbers?

Dice generate information, which in some cases is in the form of numbers, but dice can have figures on their sides. The fact that they don't "generate numbers" in such cases doesn't mean they fail to inform you of something.

Quote from: Saurondor;897319Dice generate information, which in some cases is in the form of numbers, but dice can have figures on their sides. The fact that they don't "generate numbers" in such cases doesn't mean they fail to inform you of something.

But IN YOUR FUCKING EXAMPLE, they DO INDEED GENERATE NUMBERS. Can you read the big letters, bro?

You know what? Fuck this. You are not prepared to have this conversation and I am done shooting fish in a barrel while simultaneously trying to teach them the fundamentals of logic.

Quote from: Manzanaro;897283And here is the guy who solemnly vowed to read and post in every thread on this site. About time you showed.

Come on, sir.

It would be easy for me to produce your post total per weekend or so, if I'd really want and need that. Not that said comments would be worth reading (or resembling coherent English, for that matter) - it's just that the RPG site is very slow forum compared to the rest of the Internet and I'm used to streams featuring a dozen or so comments per second (what still isn't much, really). Besides, there are whole sections of The RPG Site I don't and won't visit, among them a few most popular and active threads, so it's not that you're sentenced to meet me all the time in each and every thread.

Word of advice: you're dealing with "a drill" (or whatever is the name of that device used to bore holes in strong surfaces) style of commenting. It's a slow technique, and its purpose is to exhaust the target, make him to give up. The best way to deal with it? If you value your time and nerves, skip it. It's not that you really have to prove a thing. But if you want to continue this tirade, then consider lengthening the time between your answers and DON'T, no matter how alluring it seems, DON'T EVER use comparisons. Ever. Trust me. After all, I've seen shit.

That'd be all, good luck. :cool:

I stand by my fish metaphor as pure gold. And the marsupial non sequitur for that matter.

I am actually not intending to use the drill strategy. It isn't that I want them to give up. I would prefer if they actually attempted to understand rather than to not understand. Failing that I would settle for if they just would occasionally talk sense.

I actually think that at least one person went from thinking I was full of shit to understanding me. Maybe the same holds true for the 4 or 5 folks still reading along.

And plus, there actually is some useful advice scattered throughout the thread, like golden kernels of corn in a steaming pile of- Oops! There I go with the comparisons again.

EDIT: And I have a lot of down time at work at night when everyone else is asleep. That's why I post so often at times. It isn't that I am mad as a hatter. Not at all.