Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262415That's because you're confusing two different blog entries.

Two different blog entries by the same person.  Hence, continuity of thought.

Douchebag.

I don't blame you for not being able to find the passage where I talk about short rests and wandering monsters in this thread. I know it's difficult to do so with the level of reading disability you have.

I mean, an ordinary person would simply have scanned through the perhaps twenty or so posts I've made in this thread and looked for the words "short rest" and "wandering monsters" occurring in the same post. Evidently that's too difficult to do though.

And you still don't know what a "culture of play" is.

Quote from: StormBringer;262388That kind of thing makes my brain hurt.  I know tales of killing Thor with a push spell from Dragon magazine and such, but the wandering monster deal is something new.

Which turns the question itself rather around:  For the groups who were encountering Demogorgon and Orcus playing poker with Tiamat and Thor on the first level, were they necessarily complaining about it?  I don't doubt some were having great fun at the time, and others were groaning at the thought of rolling up more characters for the third time that session.

All in all, though, I don't see this as an indictment of the concept of wandering monsters as a whole.

I love wandering monsters. I was sad to see them gradually fade from D&D, especially during the 3e era. It puzzles me when guys like Mearls (and believe me, I'm a fan of Mearls' work, so I'm not a basher) or Ryan Dancey seem not to fully get what made wandering monsters cool, or at least not understand why such an element of the game came about in the first place.

Even as a 13 year old, I understood that wandering monsters lent an air of verisimilitude to an adventure, even if only on an intuitive level. They made the adventure seem like part of a living world, even when the wanderers were strange or seemingly out of place. They made players think - "why the hell are these goblins here, now?"

Dancey (another guy whose contribution to gaming - and D&D, specifically - I esteem) made some statements about having wandering monsters be commensurate with the power level of the PC party. Again, even as 13 year olds in 1979, my gaming group felt somewhat differently. In a dungeon, the wandering critters would be roughly equivalent to the "level" of the dungeon they appeared on. It just seemed logical to us - things got tougher as one descended, but it was a gradual thing - otherwise the dungeon, being an enclosed space, would have been depopulated by the disproportionately powerful critter(s). In the outdoors, though, all bets were off, especially way out in the wilds. Ancient red dragons could fly over 1st level parties, for example. The outdoors allowed more room to both spot such monsters before they spotted the PCs, and more room to run from obviously tougher wandering monsters. Press the issue and pick a fight with that terrasque instead of hightailing it away, though, and you'd pay the consequences. Such stuff also indicated to us as PCs that the world was a living, breathing place that didn't change just to accommodate us.

Overall, we enjoyed wandering monsters, even when they were way too tough. The oddball over-the-top encounters, like Asmodeus, were fairly rare, and became more so as we got older, so they never got annoying. Besides, we knew to run when we were in over our heads. Sometimes the running could be as fun as the fighting.

Quote from: StormBringer;262421Two different blog entries by the same person.  Hence, continuity of thought.

Douchebag.

HAH! That's just about the lamest excuse I've seen you make yet.

Two different blog entries don't have to directly address the same topics. One is on using skill challenges with monsters that are too difficult for PCs to defeat in combat, and the other is about wandering monsters.

As Caesar Slaad himself pointed out, the only link between them is that they're information that Mearls wished he could have included in the DMG. That you're consistently confusing them and talking about them as if they were a single text is hilarious.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262425HAH! That's just about the lamest excuse I've seen you make yet.

Two different blog entries don't have to directly address the same topics. One is on using skill challenges with monsters that are too difficult for PCs to defeat in combat, and the other is about wandering monsters.

As Caesar Slaad himself pointed out, the only link between them is that they're information that Mearls wished he could have included in the DMG. That you're consistently confusing them and talking about them as if they were a single text is hilarious.

Seriously?  And you think I have reading comprehension problems?

Quote from: StormBringer;262431Seriously?  And you think I have reading comprehension problems?

Yes I do. And yes, you are confusing the two separate blog entries. Anything else you need clarified and simplified?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262423I don't blame you for not being able to find the passage where I talk about short rests and wandering monsters in this thread. I know it's difficult to do so with the level of reading disability you have.

Oh, no, I found it.  It was more useless blather, but I found that one.  You'll notice no one else cared enough about it to make comments, either.

QuoteI mean, an ordinary person would simply have scanned through the perhaps twenty or so posts I've made in this thread and looked for the words "short rest" and "wandering monsters" occurring in the same post. Evidently that's too difficult to do though.

You are just about the only one talking about that, however.  The rest of us are talking about wandering monsters in general.

QuoteAnd you still don't know what a "culture of play" is.

That is because I don't involve myself in pseudo-intellectual fappery.  At least Melan put together a thoughtful concept and defended it when asked.  He certainly didn't just respond with "And you still don't know what the Tyranny of Fun is".

I think you need look no further than yourself for this intellectual dishonesty you are on a witch hunt after.  But of course, you really aren't interested in that kind of thing, just the cache of accusing others of falling prey to it.

Here's the deal, you have refused on every occasion to re-define or attempt to defend this 'culture of play'.  Therefore, anyone reading this is going to use my definition, 'learning the rules and talking about them'.  Hence, you have not presented a counter-point, so my point stands.

:popcorn:

:combust:

Quote from: StormBringer;262433Oh, no, I found it.  It was more useless blather, but I found that one.  You'll notice no one else cared enough about it to make comments, either.

Drew did. Once again, you're showing serious problems with actually reading people's posts, whether here or on Mike Mearls' blog or anywhere else.

QuoteYou are just about the only one talking about that, however.  The rest of us are talking about wandering monsters in general.

People are discussing both issues, and several others as well. Try to read what people are writing. I know you have serious problems with that, but do try.

QuoteThat is because I don't involve myself in pseudo-intellectual fappery.  At least Melan put together a thoughtful concept and defended it when asked.  He certainly didn't just respond with "And you still don't know what the Tyranny of Fun is".

Actually, he does as well, should you care to use the search function to find the thread where he defines the "Tyranny of Fun". Once again, you're showing yourself ignorant. Heck, if memory serves, one of the places I defined the term "culture of play" was _on_ the "Tyranny of Fun" thread, which shows how closely you read that.

QuoteI think you need look no further than yourself for this intellectual dishonesty you are on a witch hunt after.  But of course, you really aren't interested in that kind of thing, just the cache of accusing others of falling prey to it.

Here's the deal, you have refused on every occasion to re-define or attempt to defend this 'culture of play'.  Therefore, anyone reading this is going to use my definition, 'learning the rules and talking about them'.  Hence, you have not presented a counter-point, so my point stands.

I'm perfectly willing to define the term "culture of play" to anyone, other than you, who asks, and have done so on a couple of occasions previously, and will happily do so in future.

You're simply not worth my time, because you're a vile, intellectually dishonest troll who especially merits my contempt. Also, it appears to drive you hilariously bugfuck nuts that I won't and I take a great deal of enjoyment from that.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262450You're simply not worth my time, because you're a vile, intellectually dishonest troll who especially merits my contempt. Also, it appears to drive you hilariously bugfuck nuts that I won't and I take a great deal of enjoyment from that.

No, what irritates me is your intellectual laziness, while you attempt to impugn people with claims of intellectual dishonesty.  So keep responding, contrary to your claims to despise doing so.

Douchebag.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;262450Actually, he does as well, should you care to use the search function to find the thread where he defines the "Tyranny of Fun". Once again, you're showing yourself ignorant. Heck, if memory serves, one of the places I defined the term "culture of play" was _on_ the "Tyranny of Fun" thread, which shows how closely you read that.

Oh, look, I found some stuff.

QuoteAnyhow, various groups balance these two options as they see fit, with some tending more towards one extreme or another. Various systems may have features that encourage one style of play over another, but ultimately, the culture of play (individuals, groups, conventions, public discussions between those entities, etc.) surrounding a game is far more important than specific features of the system.

Huh.  So, 'learn the rules and talk about them'.  Good thing I went to the trouble of finding that.  That's five minutes of my life I won't be getting back.

Oh, look, other people think you are a douchebag, too:

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221531Having read this three times, I don't understand how "an imaginative world models modular components interacting according to their own internal logic."

A world models components. No idea whether that's bad English, faulty logic or both. It does sound boardgamey to me-he?

Other than that, do me a favor, Pseudo.

If you have a fundamental disagreement, state it up front rather than engage in a discussion as though there's this basic consensus and you're just arguing a detail. For that IS called muddying the waters, passive-aggressive, obtuse, take your pick.

Simple question of debate culture, kid.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221555You see, PI, the rules are the physics of the world, which is why a game of Othello played on January 10, 1982, between Stephen H. Moss and Andrew Gundersen, in the den of Gundersen's parents' house in Kankakee, IL, is the bestest most epic imagined fantasy world ever.

More seriously, once we get past the "who's marginalizing whom" whining, the point as I see it is that the specific features of the system are strong evidence of the culture of play under whose influence the game was designed, and whom it's designed to cater to.

Yet Pseudoephedrine can't accept commentary on how the game has changed over the years unless it's from a uniformly appreciative perspective. If the change isn't liked, well then, it turns out it wasn't a change after all.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221557Actually, a dozen people here are on the same page, as I explained to you previously. Whereas you'd like to play people's tribune, when with regard to my actual question, those reams of text you produced boil down to one statement:

There are Continual Light street lamps in Eberron.

We do know why that is. How the entirety of Eberron the game world is extrapolated from 3.x is what we'd like to know.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221567This is the last call, kid. After that you pay tuition for talking to me:

Do not pretend you were born yesterday.



I was trying to understand how according to you "the world models components."

Turns out that, beyond the street lamps, it doesn't.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221570Please, O rejector of follicles.

The rules of the game have changed up to and through 4e. That is an objective fact.

Two questions remain.

• Why did they change?

The clue is that the culture had already changed prior to the writing of 4e. For a game produced by a major public corporation, it would be hard to believe that the design wasn't after all intended to cater to contemporary tastes.

I suppose you can argue that tastes (or more accurately the distribution of tastes) haven't changed over the years, that 4e is merely a more perfect version of what people always wanted back in 1973. Be my guest.

• Will the new rules have a further effect on the culture?

Who knows? I suspect they will--a fair number of existing gamers are going to refuse to make the jump, or will even switch to an earlier version of D&D or possibly another game altogether. The dynamics will be pretty complex.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221576And I'm putting you down.

I gave you a whole list of names a month ago.

I don't claim there's a consensus across this entire forum. I am not interested in producing one, either. I do claim there is one within it.

Do not make up straw men. Do not pretend you were born yesterday.

As for arguing with you, it's like pulling teeth. I ask how "the world models components" in Eberron. First, I'm told in reply I'm Edwards because I find the examples rather lacking. Then I'm told that, actually, there's modelling going on all over the place after all.

You have authority issues, young man, and I'm not the one to resolve them. Good luck.

Quote from: James J Skach;221579I don't know about sides here, but don't estimate the number of people who agree with Melan, or at least think the point of the Tyranny of Fun to be something to consider.

As "near-vacuous" as you think it to be, the fact that the rules changed is an objective fact upon which the discussion/debate can be built. Since you seem to be in search of a common agreed framework, perhaps agreeing that the rules have changed is a good starting point.


Well, there's an assumption buried in there. Are you sure WotC wants players of previous editions? Which ones? I'd probably agree they were after 3.x players, but 1e? OD&D? I did not get the sense they were after them. I also didn't get the sense they were much after a certain segment of 3.x players.

And this is one of the points - if you take that list, really break it down, IMHO you could very easily segregate that market along different lines and see a much different picture.


Isn't that a culture influenced by a rule set?

Quote from: Settembrini;221581Missin´ me much?

Pseudo, there´s no argument in your last statements. Only attacks.

There´s a debate. It is about the CULTURE of development & design, and it´s about the intended resulting CULTURE. Let´s call it target-culture.

You are saying that the enlightened Gang of Four has it all wrong, because of ...what? Lacking consensus on a forum? -> Try again.

You are yourself:

1) denying the existance of definable cultures / denying the findings of the old school community and professional pop cultural magazines and journalists regarding the history of D&D

2) proclaiming you know better what CULTURE is behind 4e. You do this here:

SOURCE: out of your ass.

So.

1) you attack the basis of debate itself
2) use the same basis for your interpretation of the same thing

Pretty please, discuss which evidence you evaluate differently, instead of denying the technique while using it yourself (only without evidence/source/clues/hints)

For example, my personal hypothesis regarding Mike Mearls is, that he does not even grasp what strategic roleplaying is.

evidence/hints:
- does not get Traveller
- has said in 2005 discussions, that he did away with "charged" magic items
- his monster design series
- other blog entries
- no wargaming background that is known of

So. Why do you think Mike Mearls understands strategic gaming? Which other evidence can you field?
Which ones do you interpret differently?

THAT`S the way to discuss. But I fear, it´s not about things, but all about you and your place in the world. If it´s not so: prove it.

Quote from: Settembrini;221601Wow. You are not only seeking your place in the world, you are also inconsequential and stupid.

Go back and read what you said yourself:

Houserules etc.

So. They will be created in a culture. That is purveyed by diferrent channels. Any social/humanities/XXX academic will KNOW BY HART. Now you are narrowing it all down to rules?

That´s what you were accusing US of doing.

That´s. Well. Sorta retarded.

I wish you luck on your personal journey. Get yourselves more important people to fight with. And get yourselves better arguments. Steal some, that´s a time proven thing. Naive people like to use soem form of Marxism. It´s the easy way, and it´s always effective.

Go, rebel.

Quote from: Melan;221690While I have neither willingness nor time to engage an enthusiastic and productive tetrapiloctomist, some of Pseudoephedrine's commentary requires reaction.


Wrong, I made no such claim; in fact, the crux of my argument hangs on the interrelation of rules and their interpretation through the lens of game culture. This is either a case of being mistaken or deliberate misinterpretation.

 
Wrong again; I did not pretend to objectivity. Read my posts. Any perception of such is on the interpreter's side.

And coincidentally as well as on a lighter tone,

Wrong again and again. I am a Times-reading, pocket watch and fountain pen-carrying reactionary. If people were still wearing top hats, I'd own one, if only for the moustache-twirling villainy of it.

(On SL's advice to read the books, I will if I get the opportunity.)

Are you sure you want me using the search function?  Because I am really good with it.  I just kind of figured you might not want to offer that again, since it really undercuts your random babbling that you think passes for 'argument'.

I just saved 5 minutes of my life by not reading that last post!

Quote from: Cranewings;262467I just saved 5 minutes of my life by not reading that last post!

You don't really have to.  It just a pointer to a previous thread where Pseudo thought he defined his culture of play as something other than 'learn the rules and talk about them', when he didn't.  Also, a bunch of other people pointing out his own intellectual dishonestly and laziness, so when he uses that again, it's clear that he needs to clean up his own house first.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;262424I love wandering monsters. I was sad to see them gradually fade from D&D, especially during the 3e era. It puzzles me when guys like Mearls (and believe me, I'm a fan of Mearls' work, so I'm not a basher) or Ryan Dancey seem not to fully get what made wandering monsters cool, or at least not understand why such an element of the game came about in the first place.

Even as a 13 year old, I understood that wandering monsters lent an air of verisimilitude to an adventure, even if only on an intuitive level. They made the adventure seem like part of a living world, even when the wanderers were strange or seemingly out of place. They made players think - "why the hell are these goblins here, now?"

Dancey (another guy whose contribution to gaming - and D&D, specifically - I esteem) made some statements about having wandering monsters be commensurate with the power level of the PC party. Again, even as 13 year olds in 1979, my gaming group felt somewhat differently. In a dungeon, the wandering critters would be roughly equivalent to the "level" of the dungeon they appeared on. It just seemed logical to us - things got tougher as one descended, but it was a gradual thing - otherwise the dungeon, being an enclosed space, would have been depopulated by the disproportionately powerful critter(s). In the outdoors, though, all bets were off, especially way out in the wilds. Ancient red dragons could fly over 1st level parties, for example. The outdoors allowed more room to both spot such monsters before they spotted the PCs, and more room to run from obviously tougher wandering monsters. Press the issue and pick a fight with that terrasque instead of hightailing it away, though, and you'd pay the consequences. Such stuff also indicated to us as PCs that the world was a living, breathing place that didn't change just to accommodate us.

Overall, we enjoyed wandering monsters, even when they were way too tough. The oddball over-the-top encounters, like Asmodeus, were fairly rare, and became more so as we got older, so they never got annoying. Besides, we knew to run when we were in over our heads. Sometimes the running could be as fun as the fighting.

I agree with you totally. I don't tend to run a lot of wondering monsters. I don't get to play often, I'm almost always the GM, especially for dnd. It seems like my players enjoy random fights, but, they don't seem fun to me (; I will throw in a seemingly random encounter from time to time if there is too much talking though.

Running a big group makes it hard to have random fights. First off, not a lot of random stuff will mess with 6-8 armed men in the woods. Secondly, if we only get to play for 3-4 hours, a random fight or two can eat a huge % of the session. Finally, people expect their characters to only die in story related ways... so random encounters don't have any teeth and are hardly worth running in my game.

I know what you mean though... I'm about to start running a new dnd game, and after reading your post I'm thinking I'm going to bring them back.

Quote from: StormBringer;262469You don't really have to.  It just a pointer to a previous thread where Pseudo thought he defined his culture of play as something other than 'learn the rules and talk about them', when he didn't.  Also, a bunch of other people pointing out his own intellectual dishonestly and laziness, so when he uses that again, it's clear that he needs to clean up his own house first.

Damn StormBringer, I wanted to get in on the drama. You could have been a dick... but now I feel ashamed. Way to take the high ground and just explain yourself.