Quote from: Mr. GC;591415I don't think my approach is the problem.

And yet every single forum you join you find yourself in the middle of a shitstorm with nearly everyone else saying what an idiot/douche you are.  You should ask yourself why that is.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591415I

Anyways Team Gimp is just a snarky name. The entire premise of this board is that there is a subset of gamers called Swine, as in pigs. Hardly the place I expected someone to get offended by such things.

?

Swine is pundit's thing. Some of posters on the board here have a different position on the issue from him and some agree with him. This thread isn't about pundit, therpgsite or storygames though, so that is all I will say on the at matter.

It isn't about being offended. It is about whether people trust you to run a scenario objectively.

You can take any approach you want. No one cares if you want to throw around the term basket weaver. I am just pointing out that your apporach may be the reason for people not having an interest in signing up for this.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;591417And yet every single forum you join you find yourself in the middle of a shitstorm with nearly everyone else saying what an idiot/douche you are.  You should ask yourself why that is.

And yet you can make obvious baiting threads based on an obviously false premise (those enemies were clearly being played very stupidly, and a Roper, while weak is still easily capable of killing even a good level 3 party so all you've proven is that you can play pretend well and not D&D) and yet you enter this one - a thread in which people like you are called to step it up or step on out and instead of proving it (as you could easily do if you were actually onto something) you instead throw out a one liner fuck you type post and again refuse to actually address the subject matter... something that you do in just about every thread you ever participate in.

So what will it be Sacro? Can you actually prove your claims, or should you just have a nice tall glass of STFU?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;591418Swine is pundit's thing. Some of posters on the board here have a different position on the issue from him and some agree with him. This thread isn't about pundit, therpgsite or storygames though, so that is all I will say on the at matter.

It isn't about being offended. It is about whether people trust you to run a scenario objectively.

You can take any approach you want. No one cares if you want to throw around the term basket weaver. I am just pointing out that your apporach may be the reason for people not having an interest in signing up for this.

The very premise of the "basket weavers can't play D&D" claim is that if you do run scenarios objectively (as opposed to cheating for the basket weavers) they will die horribly. So not being objective is pointless and counterproductive. And if people were that concerned about it, they could try actually making a party, seeing what happens and THEN start bitching if they don't like it. Which is probably what will happen anyways, but at least then there is a non zero chance they'd have a point.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591419And yet you can make obvious baiting threads based on an obviously false premise (those enemies were clearly being played very stupidly,

So if a chimney gets plugged up and the smoke starts to fill all of the rooms in the caves, orcs won't investigate?  They'll just sit there and die from asphyxiation?  Yeah...no.  

Quoteand a Roper, while weak is still easily capable of killing even a good level 3 party so all you've proven is that you can play pretend well and not D&D)

D&D is pretend you idiot.  Once again, you are just showing everyone how you don't even know how to play an RPG, or what one is.  I mean, it's the literal definition of the title of the type of game, for Christ's sake.  Do you know what RPG stands for?

Quoteand yet you enter this one - a thread in which people like you are called to step it up or step on out and instead of proving it (as you could easily do if you were actually onto something) you instead throw out a one liner fuck you type post and again refuse to actually address the subject matter... something that you do in just about every thread you ever participate in.

So what will it be Sacro? Can you actually prove your claims, or should you just have a nice tall glass of STFU?

Everyone.  And I mean everyone, has already told you that your little experiment here is fucked seven ways from Sunday, and that's why no one is taking you seriously.  Making threats like this only make you look like a bigger douche.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591419So what will it be Sacro? Can you actually prove your claims, or should you just have a nice tall glass of STFU?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;591420No, I will continue babbling bullshit.

Right then. While Sacro is having his drink, anyone else want to continue the actual discussion?

Quote from: Mr. GC;591419The very premise of the "basket weavers can't play D&D" claim is that if you do run scenarios objectively (as opposed to cheating for the basket weavers) they will die horribly. So not being objective is pointless and counterproductive. And if people were that concerned about it, they could try actually making a party, seeing what happens and THEN start bitching if they don't like it. Which is probably what will happen anyways, but at least then there is a non zero chance they'd have a point.

The point is, the title of the thread and your posting style don't suggest objectivity to people. So it is unlikely anyone will assume you can run the scenario in a fair and unbiased way. It is up to you, you can do what you want. I just thought you might get a better reception here if you shift approach a bit.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;591422The point is, the title of the thread and your posting style don't suggest objectivity to people. So it is unlikely anyone will assume you can run the scenario in a fair and unbiased way. It is up to you, you can do what you want. I just thought you might get a better reception here if you shift approach a bit.

Valuing fluff over substance is for those other guys... no I'm not going to use that phrase again right now.

That said, if someone actually stepped it up and proved it, we might go somewhere. Notice how this thread instantly went from people spamming bullshit and me smacking them for it to productive the instant someone did.

If people were capable of proving me wrong they'd take the open opportunity. They'd put their money where their mouth is, make a party, and go through the scenario. This is not happening. You're not stepping up, the S twins aren't stepping up, and all those other people that entered the thread only to spam it aren't stepping it up either. I believe this is because they can't, none of them can. They are welcome to take the gauntlet up at any time.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591423If people were capable of proving me wrong they'd take the open opportunity. They'd put their money where their mouth is, make a party, and go through the scenario. This is not happening. You're not stepping up, the S twins aren't stepping up, and all those other people that entered the thread only to spam it aren't stepping it up either. I believe this is because they can't, none of them can. They are welcome to take the gauntlet up at any time.

No one is going to step up when A) it isn't even entirely clear what it is you are trying to prove at this point  B) no one trusts you to run a scenario objectively and C) you take the outcome of a single play by post as definitive evidence of a general claim about playstyles (it is just one data point).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;591424No one is going to step up when A) it isn't even entirely clear what it is you are trying to prove at this point  B) no one trusts you to run a scenario objectively and C) you take the outcome of a single play by post as definitive evidence of a general claim about playstyles (it is just one data point).

1: That gimp characters cannot play D&D. Like I've said from the beginning.
2: Objectivity, by definition says basket weavers die. Interestingly enough, I am saying the same thing.
3: This is hardly the only such test that's ever been run, just in case you missed my talk of precedents which definitively require prior instances.

So you can't prove it either in other words, you're only interested in empty dismissal posts. Got it.

What "claims" have I made that I need to prove?  Show me specific quotes.

Quote from: Mr. GC;5914261: That gimp characters cannot play D&D. Like I've said from the beginning.
2: Objectivity, by definition says basket weavers die. Interestingly enough, I am saying the same thing.
3: This is hardly the only such test that's ever been run, just in case you missed my talk of precedents which definitively require prior instances.

So you can't prove it either in other words, you're only interested in empty dismissal posts. Got it.

1) this is demonsably false. Any character can play D&D. You need to clarify what you mean here. Even a character that dies 100% of the time in the first round of combat is being played in D&D. By definition. So your whole premise is faulty.
2) objectivity says nothing about basket weavers at all. That is like saying science by definition says the earth revolves around the sun the deinition of science doesnt tell us anything about its specific concusions.
3) and others brought in their own precedents.

I am not the one trying to prove anything here. You have made the argument that basketweavers cant pay D&D. It is up to you to prove.

Mr. GC: Here are bunch of wild claims that no one on earth agrees with
Everyone else:  WTF are you talking about?
Mr. GC: Back up your claims or STFU!


However, I fully expect that this realization is lost on him, since every other obvious realization has also been lost on him.  It's not very often when you can see someone claim victory while at the same time claiming to be the victim as well.  The fact that he accuses Brendan, of all people, of being disingenuous is the cherry on top.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;5914291) this is demonsably false. Any character can play D&D. You need to clarify what you mean here. Even a character that dies 100% of the time in the first round of combat is being played in D&D. By definition. So your whole premise is faulty.
2) objectivity says nothing about basket weavers at all. That is like saying science by definition says the earth revolves around the sun the deinition of science doesnt tell us anything about its specific concusions.
3) and others brought in their own precedents.

I am not the one trying to prove anything here. You have made the argument that basketweavers cant pay D&D. It is up to you to prove.

1: A character who dies 100% of the time in the first round of combat means the player is spending > 99% of their time in character creation, and is not by definition playing D&D.
2: And yet, any objective game causes those incapable of playing it to be prevented from playing it via constant death.
3: Others have brought in playing pretend instead of D&D, then refused to actually prove it by playing D&D.

Now I could go make a basket weaver party and run them through the scenario that I also know. And they'd lose, despite the metagame advantage. I don't think that me playing against me really accomplishes anything though, and more to the point... the basket weavers claim they're about living and let live, and yet do not STFU when effective play is being discussed. Instead they derail those discussions with empty post spam. And just to preempt more sperglord pedantic bullshit, empty post spam means posts that technically contain words but are empty of actual content.

So when basket weavers make claims like "There are no worthless classes, only worthless players." and other such pro basket weaver claims, it's on them to prove it. And they won't, because they can't. They will instead be S&S, or channel their inner S&S to make more useless empty posts and refuse to even attempt to defend their gimp builds. Because, again, they cannot.

Quote from: Mr. GC;5914341: A character who dies 100% of the time in the first round of combat means the player is spending > 99% of their time in character creation, and is not by definition playing D&D.
2: And yet, any objective game causes those incapable of playing it to be prevented from playing it via constant death.
3: Others have brought in playing pretend instead of D&D, then refused to actually prove it by playing D&D.

.

1) one percent is still play. By definition your claim does not work. The character is being played. You have to modify your premise here for it to work. Gimped characters cant play D&D is flawed. It doesn't work. Something like: gimped characters have low survivability over multiple encounters might work. But then you are just stating something that is, and still need to fit an ought to it. You may do so by making your ought conditional: gimped characters have low survivability over multiple are therefore a bad choice if you want to play the same character over a standard long campaign with regular combats. Even then, you still need to define gimped.
2) i believe you are equivocating here on the term objectivity. And it still does not follow from the definition of objective that gimped characters can't pay D&D.
3) again, you have examples of play and so do others.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;5914381) one percent is still play. By definition your claim does not work.

Not only that, but D&D is not "make a character and go instantly into combat."  There's this thing called role-playing, which takes up roughly 1/4 to 1/2 of the time spent playing the game in most gaming groups, if not more.  That time is still "playing the game".