Quote from: gleichman;641794but as your reaction and others in this thread shows- people will excuse just about anything.

Thats a pretty baseless statement. What have I said in this thread that "will excuse anything"?

Quote from: TristramEvans;641798Thats a pretty baseless statement. What have I said in this thread that "will excuse anything"?

CoC's insanity rules currently.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641745I agree people ought to have thicker skin about their style being insulted or people not agreeing with it. I also think the insults here, though an outgrowth of a valid free speech policy, don't do the forum any favors. I usually try to keep my tone pretty civil unless something s particularly egregious and warrants a strong reaction.

That is more or less my point.

QuoteBut if you accuse me of carefully constructing a persona to seem unrealistically even tempered or reasonable, I am going to be insulted by that. Normally I don't respond. But the fact that he continues to level this accusation against me does make me pay more attention to his posts and respond less charitably to them than I otherwise would. And my point is he is largley just reaping what he sows. I often disagreed with Gleichman, but I have always tried to treat him like a human being and not engage in some of the real nasty attacks some others here direct at him.

I agree with you, certainly.

Quote from: The Traveller;641767Yes I'd imagine working in HR, people like job applicants have to sit there and listen to you regardless.

Do not forget that I am also a professor and trainer. Sometimes people have to listen to my shit FOR HOURS.

QuoteSadly you aren't in your office now. You appear to be dividing the world into two parts - your part, where real gamers game from on high, and the other part, where petty internet bickering wears down the keyboards of the hoi polloi, and never the twain shall meet.

Nope, not at all. I don't divide the world in any parts. I just make an observation about the behavior of people in places like this, and that is all.

QuoteNaturally of course the world is far from that simple, and people are quite capable of holding discussions, often with vim and vigour, on subjects you find petty, while simultaneously being able to enjoy gaming just like a real gamer and have productive conversations on that basis.

I agree, and that has nothing to do with what I was saying or anything I have said, ever.

QuoteGetting pulled up by both the real and substantive contributions I do make to gaming discussions as well as the recent unpleasantness with maid is severely jarring to your two tone worldview, and so you must needs respond with a good dollop of that venom you attribute to my posts; it's either that or change your worldview and we both know that's not going to happen.

I love when people try to psychoanalize other people they have never met over the web.

QuoteLest we forget, this delightful segue is a result of you telling people not to take things too seriously, an impressive logical contortion.

Again, I've told no one what to do or not to do. Saying "this looks weird to me" doesn't equate to "you should be doing this or that." You are having a conversation based on things no one said.

The problem, Gleichman, is that your guidelines are no more than a catalog of your very personal ideosyncrasies, hence useful only for designing for a market of one!

To see what really practical game design advice looks like, hunt down, e.g., Dunnigan, or Jackson and Zocchi, or Chris Crawford's classic on video games (sadly no longer freely downloadable).

Quote from: Phillip;641803The problem, Gleichman, is that your guidelines are no more than a catalog of your very personal ideosyncrasies, hence useful only for designing for a market of one!

I believe I've made it clear that I care not one bit about the market at all. Success measured either by sales or agreement is not a goal I seek.

Edit: These are my goals

1. Wave the Flag for the best of traditional RPG design (now a lost art)
2. Measure the waters of the current online mindset and its trends
3. See if I encounter people worth encountering be they in agreement or disagreement

Quote from: Imperator;641800Do not forget that I am also a professor

Good god, really?

Quote from: Imperator;641800Nope, not at all. I don't divide the world in any parts.

Yeah you do. Everyone does, a psychologist should know this, especially a professor.

Quote from: Imperator;641800I love when people try to psychoanalize other people they have never met over the web.

In fairness it's not that hard in some cases.

Quote from: Imperator;641800Again, I've told no one what to do or not to do. Saying "this looks weird to me" doesn't equate to "you should be doing this or that." You are having a conversation based on things no one said.

Centuries of linguistic nuance weep.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641726If there's only one guy with high defense you attack everyone that isn't them first, because either:

The other guys have better offenses in addition to lower defenses, so killing them makes you safer.
The other guys have the same offense, but worse defense, so killing them makes you safer.
This one guy is better at both offense and defense... but unless it's by a large margin you still take less damage if you clear the field first. If for some reason it IS by a large margin, that's some serious group balance problems at work.

This is all irrelevant to what I was talking about.

QuoteThe only game in which that doesn't happen is 4th edition D&D... and that's because it's actually defense that scales faster, meaning you eventually can't even hit anything, much less hurt it when you hit. So you're going to have to explain exactly what you mean and how you avoid replacing it with a worse problem.

Easily: Stuff scales at the same rate. I explained this upthread, I think, but you also could have just asked me instead of asserting that attack scales faster than defense. Seeing as how you don't know anything about my homebrew and all.

QuoteNo it doesn't. Attempting to limit who is adjacent to you and who can/will attack you are two different things. Between reach attacks, ranged attacks, and spells there is no practical limit to the number of units that can engage a single unit... and they can pick just about any unit they want.

So some guy wants to stand in front of a door while his buddies hide inside? That's cool, eat an AoE. Want to come at me? No? Eat another. You'll run out of resources before me.

While this is particularly ineffective in D&D (where reach weapons are mandatory to counter enemy reach, and most of the good spells are AoE) I'm speaking system agnostically. I'm also not getting into the many, often system particular means of just bypassing the chokepoint. Or getting into how likely it is any given area has only one way in or out (and if it does, it means you're trapped there).

Okay, so there are two rooms with one door between them. There's an attacker (A) on one side, a defender in the door (D), and a vulnerable target (V) on the other side. The attacker wants the vulnerable target for whatever reason (irrelevant for now).

The attacker must move through the door (if melee attacker) or at least into the door (if ranged attacker) to hit (V). Reach and AoE do not significantly affect this in my game. If the attacker does either of these things, an AoO can interrupt them in the door. Reach and AoE do not change this. If a ranged attacker then starts shooting or casting from the door, (D) can interrupt and prevent these actions with an AoE. Reach and AoE do not change this. If a melee attacker tries to ignore (D) and engage (V), (D) can AoO (A) and prevent the movement.

Basically, (D) can control who (A) can reach and attack, unless they are overwhelmed by numbers (should this not be possible?), killed (should this not be possible?), or circumvented by (A) (should this not be possible?). The second two possibilities can constitute a variable delay based on the strength of one's enemies or the shape of the battlefield, respectively (and should the effectiveness of a tactic not vary with circumstances?).

Finally, AoOs are something anyone can do, so (D) is not a class. If there are more doors, all you need to plug them up are more bodies really. There are classes that have extra boosts to (D)-ing, but that's not the whole concept of a given class either.

Quote from: The Traveller;641810Good god, really?

Yup.

QuoteYeah you do. Everyone does, a psychologist should know this, especially a professor.

So, if you are right, what it has to do with anything I said? If you are right, I make certain divisions and you make others. So what?

QuoteIn fairness it's not that hard in some cases.

Given how wrong people are doing that, I think it's more the Dunning-Krueger effect talking here

QuoteCenturies of linguistic nuance weep.

I am sorry for them. Here, have a cookie.

Quote from: Imperator;641824I am sorry for them. Here, have a cookie.

I wish I was a weeping linguistic nuance then I could have a cookie too.

Quote from: jeff37923;641825I wish I was a weeping linguistic nuance then I could have a cookie too.

Based on what I know of you, a stout beer would be a better choice, probably.

Also, it would be a better choice for me.

I think a lot of what Brian is talking about comes of rigor in method.  Frankly I believe Toon is about the crowning achievement of game design and if I found any rigor therein I would mock it until it fell down for three minutes.

That's not to say I don't like rigor of method in a game.  My chief complaint against Savage Worlds and Castle and Crusades is that the design is insufficiently rigorous.

What do I mean by that?  I mean that the parts don't interlock well with each other.  That there are inexplicable blind spots and weak points in the underlying structure.  That the sum of the parts is less than the whole.  That the floors aren't level and the walls aren't verticle and I can see the blue sky through the roof.  In short, the game was assembled with insufficient attention to the structure and function of the rules and the whole is shoddy and unstable.  That the writer was in fact a lazy, incompetent, hack unworthy of the term designer.

I brought up Toon because it hangs together so well.  I can't imagine it took more than a month to write it and yet the whole thing hangs together remarkably well.  Of course, part of that is that it sets out to simulate Warner Brothers cartoon physics which are based on reversal of expectation.  Most rpgs strive to model expectation to produce that "versmilitude" that has become such a popular replacement for the more difficult and contentious term, "simulation".  Toon dances on its corpse.

Quote from: gleichman;641738I understand the first time, I don't happen to agree.

So then you claimed I said something I did not actually say, and then attacked that? Hey, isn't that that thing you're constantly bitching about other people doing to you?

QuoteThere are games where they don't work like they do in D&D.

Meaning, there are games in which longer weapons or longer range weapons do not allow you to attack from positions more distant than "directly adjacent to the enemy"?

I stand by what I said about those sorts of games.

Quote from: beejazz;641815This is all irrelevant to what I was talking about.

That was also directed at gleichman and not you.

QuoteEasily: Stuff scales at the same rate. I explained this upthread, I think, but you also could have just asked me instead of asserting that attack scales faster than defense. Seeing as how you don't know anything about my homebrew and all.

You know what system tried to make attack and defense scale at the same rate? 4th edition D&D. Look at what actually happened.

This is also why I asked for you to explain what you meant as I'm not going to believe it otherwise.

QuoteOkay, so there are two rooms with one door between them. There's an attacker (A) on one side, a defender in the door (D), and a vulnerable target (V) on the other side. The attacker wants the vulnerable target for whatever reason (irrelevant for now).

The attacker must move through the door (if melee attacker) or at least into the door (if ranged attacker) to hit (V). Reach and AoE do not significantly affect this in my game. If the attacker does either of these things, an AoO can interrupt them in the door. Reach and AoE do not change this. If a ranged attacker then starts shooting or casting from the door, (D) can interrupt and prevent these actions with an AoE. Reach and AoE do not change this. If a melee attacker tries to ignore (D) and engage (V), (D) can AoO (A) and prevent the movement.

So A cannot shoot, stab, or cast past D to hit V? D being "in a door" somehow automagically makes V untargetable unless A goes derping in the door after them?

Somehow, D playing doorstop prevents A from detonating a Fireball (or any AoE attack) and hitting V (and likely D as well)?

Hm. Know what else 4th edition does? Has random illogical shit happening for no discernable reason in world.

...I am just misunderstanding, right? That isn't actually how things work?

QuoteBasically, (D) can control who (A) can reach and attack, unless they are overwhelmed by numbers (should this not be possible?), killed (should this not be possible?), or circumvented by (A) (should this not be possible?). The second two possibilities can constitute a variable delay based on the strength of one's enemies or the shape of the battlefield, respectively (and should the effectiveness of a tactic not vary with circumstances?).

Finally, AoOs are something anyone can do, so (D) is not a class. If there are more doors, all you need to plug them up are more bodies really. There are classes that have extra boosts to (D)-ing, but that's not the whole concept of a given class either.

But let's say that actually is how things work. Unless this is a super low lethality game, if all the enemies in an encounter target a single creature they're most likely dead in one round no matter what. To give you an idea, even 4th edition D&D (yes that again) will result in dead PCs quickly from focus fire because the enemies there actually do 3.5 enemy damage - it just gets split about a half dozen ways and you encounter about a half dozen times as many enemies at any given time. Meanwhile, the characters are lacking on defense.

So even if that's how the game actually works, and we ignore the whole magical doors thing, anyone stupid enough to stand in one isn't going to last very long at all.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641847So then you claimed I said something I did not actually say, and then attacked that? Hey, isn't that that thing you're constantly bitching about other people doing to you?

It so, it was a mistake. I aimed for the target that you presented or at least the one I thought you presented.

Perhaps I was wrong, please restate using different words and an example.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641847Meaning, there are games in which longer weapons or longer range weapons do not allow you to attack from positions more distant than "directly adjacent to the enemy"?

It that the only way you can imagine something working differently than in D&D? It's a honest question because the rest of your post directed at beejazz indicates D&D is still your only guidepost in this debate.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641847That was also directed at gleichman and not you.

Beejazz and I are in agreement here and use systems with similar goals. That makes it easy to see comments directed at one for comments also directed at the other.

In this case, my answer was a bit different than his. Again, is it impossible for you to imagine a different direction for combat to go other than D&D's?

Can you imagine a reason that someone would have that a goal in the game's designs? If yes, can you imagine a way to make it that true in game design?

Quote from: David Johansen;641842Frankly I believe Toon is about the crowning achievement of game design

I hold no opinion on Toon. And I mean that completely, I can't say anything I write about applies to it (or any other game meant to be play for pure humor).

Quote from: beejazz;641815Okay, so there are two rooms with one door between them.

For what it's worth, Charlie Sheen's response to this example of yours is why I didn't attempt to provide an actual in-game example of my own.

As he stated, he doesn't know the rules to our games (nor HERO) but instead insists on applying methods and tactics of other games to them (so far, all D&D) even if those tactics would be less than effective.

From our side, it's very difficult to describe emergent play and tactics (and what works and doesn't) work without actually playing the game. And it's the emergent play and the tactics that it imposes which actually control these things.


The best example I have of this is from actual play. I've had this one player in my Star Trek campaign come up with similar statements about how they were going to win without any question the next battle ever bit certain as our Charlie Sheen is here. I warned them to be careful and pointed out some problems and how it wouldn't even take special tactics on the part of his typical opponents, He were not impressed. Until the day of the game that is, when he went down in flames. Also oddly enough, he was a D&D player- it seems to run in their blood until you beat all that blood out of them.

Sadly the lesson I learned is that we can't prove our point to people like that without sitting them down at the table, letting the try and fail. That won't be possible with Charlie Sheen.

We're wasting our time I fear. But this board is for wasting time, so I'm willing to continue just a bit longer.