Quote from: gleichman;641582The closest I come is when dealing with someone like you, I often wonder if your status as a person who sells games alters what you're willing to say online and if it results in that finely crafted public image of reasonability you employ. That would be ad hominem, and I try to beat that tendency down as it would wrong.

Lol. If I were worried about sales and my public image, I wouldn't post in this thread in the first place.

Quote from: TristramEvans;641578If the attacks were going along with actual explanations, responses or arguments, then I'd honestly could give a crap. as yous ay, its par for the course around here. Its the fact Gleichmann cant actually respond to any question/inquiry/debate and uses them to cover up that really makes his entire argument overall simply an exercise in ad hominem with no substance. That whole "I'd need to start a whole bunch of other individual threads to answer these questions" or "the reason you disagree with me is because you don't understand" weaseling that makes the constant personal attacks so obviously covers for a person who is so desperate for validation of their "onetruewayism" gaming that makes it so distasteful to me. Or at least a very easy target.

I am not defending his posting style, as I do think the insults he makes overwhelm his point in most cases. Just saying an ad hom isn't an insult alone but needs to be part of an effort to dismiss or ignore a person's actual arguments.

Quote from: gleichman;641582Saying your argument is stupid and thus you are stupid is not ad hominem.
.

And I never asserted this.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641584Lol. If I were worried about sales and my public image, I wouldn't post in this thread in the first place.

Better would be to not post on therpgsite.com at all, so I'll give you that much.

As usual.

Quote from: gleichman;641545That's what I generally see. AoH uses completely free AoOs btw, we considered limiting it but realized that the only case where it would be excess is where the character's opponents were being rather silly so we didn't waste the time on another rule.

In my case, AoOs interrupt actions, including movement. I made them cost partly so that characters could bypass AoOs by concentrating attacks and forcing the guy-in-the-way on the defense. It's a common reason for a common decision, but works for me.

QuoteI think I recall a thread where I noticed he was attempting some goals similar to mine. But I think my methods and the ones you and he are going for might be very different. It's possible you wouldn't enjoy mine, and vice versa despite having those similar goals.

I think there's a distinction to be made between running and playing here. I'd be less likely to run either of your games, having my own comfortable game (3.5) and my platonic ideal of a game when I finish the damn thing. But I might play in a game either of you ran with your respective systems.

Quote from: beejazz;641603In my case, AoOs interrupt actions, including movement. I made them cost partly so that characters could bypass AoOs by concentrating attacks and forcing the guy-in-the-way on the defense. It's a common reason for a common decision, but works for me.

As long as we're on an epic derailment anyways...

Concentrating attacks is something you had to encourage? Just about every possible damage system already mandates it, the only difference is if you hit one target until it dies/is KOed before retargeting or if you retarget when it has -Large Number to all actions and might as well not be able to act at all.

What I do not get about these threads is why everyone gets so worked up.

So, Brian has some personal criteria he uses to determine if a given RPG is shit, and of course, he believes those criteria to be objective and valid. According to those criteria, 99% of RPGs are shit, and only the HERO system and Brian's own Age of Heroes escape being shit.

So what? He has some criteria that are useful to him, and he comment them here because this is a place to comment and discuss RPGing matters. Again, if Brian thinks your favourite game is shit, so fucking what?

I mean, BRP is by far my favourite system, RQ my favourite version of BRP followed closely by CoC. If Brian thinks those games are shit, or defective, or slightly wrong, that is an opinion I can consider, and nothign wrong. IT'S NOT A FUCKING THREAT TO MY WORTH AS HUMAN BEING.

I mean, I disagree with him but Idon't feel the need to defend my tastes. And if he thinks I am a fucking moron for liking a given game, more power to him.

Quote from: Imperator;641635What I do not get about these threads is why everyone gets so worked up.

You may be reading "worked up" into cases where its more like "bored at work and found an easy target". Seriously, I don't think anyone here is losing sleep over these little bitchfests. Its just blowing steam at someone who goes running around with a giant target sign on.

Quote from: Imperator;641635I mean, BRP is by far my favourite system, RQ my favourite version of BRP followed closely by CoC. If Brian thinks those games are shit, or defective, or slightly wrong, that is an opinion I can consider, and nothign wrong.

BRP is slightly wrong

Few people seem to notice that I treat my own game about as badly as I treat others. I'm very hard on all games. It seems for too many people, their game is the same thing as their personal ego.

Quote from: Imperator;641635What I do not get about these threads is why everyone gets so worked up.

To be honest the only ones getting worked up are yourself and gleichman. Everyone else appears to be here for the popcorn value. Not that we don't appreciate your ever more infrequent appearances and their accompanying declamations, but really, these threads are a standing joke as far as I can see. A bed I might add that he made entirely for himself. Don't bother replying G, I can't see it and I never will.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641623As long as we're on an epic derailment anyways...

I don't really think it's that far off. We're discussing how our preferences and dealbreakers are applied in actual design and selection of games, instead of having another semantic argument about subjective preference vs objective quality (as exciting as that might be for some).

QuoteConcentrating attacks is something you had to encourage? Just about every possible damage system already mandates it, the only difference is if you hit one target until it dies/is KOed before retargeting or if you retarget when it has -Large Number to all actions and might as well not be able to act at all.

Simply, there are unrelated counterincentives in my game, and it wasn't to incentivize concentrated attacks so much as to allow a tactical option to break the hold of a defender on his zone of control.

Quote from: beejazz;641647Simply, there are unrelated counterincentives in my game, and it wasn't to incentivize concentrated attacks so much as to allow a tactical option to break the hold of a defender on his zone of control.

What are the counterincentives?

I love having them present in a game btw, concentrated attacks are frankly rather boring to me and I look for games that provide reasons to engage in more interesting tactics.

Quote from: beejazz;641647I don't really think it's that far off. We're discussing how our preferences and dealbreakers are applied in actual design and selection of games, instead of having another semantic argument about subjective preference vs objective quality (as exciting as that might be for some).

Really? Seems people want to say:

Whether or not Gleichman is a nice/smart person.
Whether you should post here.
Etc.

All of which are a derailment. That said...

QuoteSimply, there are unrelated counterincentives in my game, and it wasn't to incentivize concentrated attacks so much as to allow a tactical option to break the hold of a defender on his zone of control.

Meaning what, exactly? And choice already has an attacker bias. For that matter, systems are offense biased by default.

Quote from: gleichman;641652What are the counterincentives?

I love having them present in a game btw, concentrated attacks are frankly rather boring to me and I look for games that provide reasons to engage in more interesting tactics.

For clarity, these are counterincentives and not disincentives, in that I've provided alternatives rather than nerfing concentrated attacks (which are still very effective, though whether they are too effective remains to be seen... again very little testing of the system as a whole).

First there's the wounding itself. Since one shot has a fair enough chance of rapidly reducing enemy capabilities (especially if you can improve your odds of hitting by stealth, timing, or positioning), hitting more than one crucial target simultaneously and early has its advantages.

Second there's attacks as interruption and ZOCs. You really only need one guy with a sword to prevent casting, prevent movement, etc. per target.

Those are the big ones in the main combat system. Beyond that there's the class system, which gives some cool non-attack options for the standard actions that might otherwise be used for concentrated attacks.