Quote from: Bill;573755Why would you ignore anyone instead of having a reasonable discussion with them?

It's impossible to have a reason discussion with the people I listed, you either agree with them or you are subhuman in their minds.

You aren't them however, and we're having a reasonable discussion. We likely won't agree. But that's actually not important.

Quote from: Planet Algol;573761Upon further reflection on my previous post, I'm wondering if the "generation gap"/"challenge gap" may be that for old-guard D&D the D&D world was based on myth and fantasy fiction whereas to the new-guard the D&D world was based on post-D&D games.

From a world where things "just are" to a world where things are "designed for play."

I see what you are trying to say, but I think that the way you put it runs contrary to some of the stuff I've learned, like the fact that the game in Lake Geneva was very much a game and that, as Mike Mornard puts it, they were mostly "making shit up they thought would be fun." D&D itself is an amalgam of lots of different influences and cool readings (Conan, John Carter, HPL etc) and movies (Sinbad, the Adventures of Robin Hood, etc etc) watched by the Gygax family that just sedimented at the game table and the minds of its participants to make "D&D" what it is.

I'm not saying that what you observe is wrong. Just that construing it to mean that there was no "created to play" dimension to the game at its inception is incorrect. There is something to what you say... but it's not a strict "1st versus 3rd person role playing" thing. It's more complex... or simple than that, in fact. I just can't quite put the finger on it right this moment. Maybe it's that the game was a vehicle to fantasy and enchantment, as Rob Kuntz would put it, to the moment of wonder and entertainment itself as experienced through play, whereas now the game itself, the intricacies of its rules and identity itself, is the subject of play.

Hm. Stuff to think about.

Meh.  Discussion was at an ebb around here for a bit before it became "Fighter vs Wizard vs Bone Devil vs Assholes" season.  The pendulum swings.

I strongly encourage folks - old and new - to get on about the business of actually discussing the playing of roleplaying games for a bit and leave all this wankery aside.

Y'all are making this place depressing to browse.

Quote from: Bill;573755Why would you ignore anyone instead of having a reasonable discussion with them?

Sure, we all get angry at times, but Ignore seems a bit over the top to me.

For the record gleichman, we may disagree a lot, but I do value the fact you challenge my opinions and make me think.

Tried to engage with Benoist and Storm. Benoist straight up doesn't care and Storm... I could write an essay on how he's fucked up. Take your pick logic, math, reading comprehension, game design, etc.

Ben, oh I agree I'm not spot on here, I'm just trying to condense some inchoate thoughts.

Certainly the "dungeon itself" was an explicitly gameboard structure, with level appropriate levels and all that jazz.

...but even that funhouse game dungeon could have features that aren't "fair", "balanced", "gameable" or even make sense.

For example, I try to have a fair amount of magic thrones, pools, fountains, etc. in my megadungeon that have the capability of, through random chance, radically changing a characters's abilities. You may become a strongman or a retard or be teleported to another level or anything else. Why? Because it's a inscrutable magic feature that has total disregard for fairness AND it's a game changer that can play play more fun/easy/difficult/?!?!?!, a wild card.

I don't think that such elements (a pool that can randomly change random ability scores) would be tolerated in contemporary D&D culture.

'A magic pool that can change my ability scores randomly?!?! That could Ruin A Build!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe the culture change between old-guard and new-guard is from embracing chaos to embracing predictability?

Quote from: MGuy;573773Tried to engage with Benoist

Actually no, you haven't.

Quote from: MGuy;573773Tried to engage with Benoist and Storm. Benoist straight up doesn't care and Storm... I could write an essay on how he's fucked up. Take your pick logic, math, reading comprehension, game design, etc.

Perhaps you just rubbed each other the wrong way and can patch things up and start over?

Quote from: Planet Algol;573776Maybe the culture change between old-guard and new-guard is from embracing chaos to embracing predictability?

There's been a definite shift in what is construed as fairness between the participants of the game, and thus what constitutes a fair obstacle or how the rules play into the equation of actual play. The inclusion of chaotic and/or humorous elements in the game, the role that mathematical equality plays, if any, in those scenarios, and the predeterminism of the rules' design play into that picture. There is a good column written by Rob Kuntz about it ... here, have a read (the comments are worth reading too).

Quote from: Rob KuntzThe actual thought that someone might summarize my commentary as suggesting that either EGG or myself were abusive DMing actually made me laugh real hard, thanks!

This is where the true division lies between what people perceive through rules and by implementing them on different levels and at different times.

The condensed version is stated:

"His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand..."

This is to make it utterly clear that this is how we (players and DMs) perceived this. The fairness of DMs is never a question, for in doing so you must honor the neutrality of the station maintained. That's part of the game, just as any other games has rules sets; and we are definitely dealing with many Masters here of not only games design, history, game theory and so forth, but mature adults (wel,, I as on my way with all the guys coaxing/coaching, and at a frenetic pace and speed). We are here talking about some of the best game designers of the time--Gygax, Mike Carr, Arneson, Don Lowry, Mike Reese, Leon Tucker, Jeff Perren, and the list goes on.

So, No, there was no abuse, but the idea that we were still opponents, well, that is consistent in all games, and was no different then. I really do not see where the other line of thought ever entered into the picture, really, as a DM, though not adversarial, still role-plays adversarial NPCs/Monsters (and if good, to their fullest), and that through the conduit of his or her mind, as he or she, fortunately, can't afford a brain transplant, let's say, to that of an ORC, at mid-point of the adventure... Gary being a mighty fine opponent only transferred his toughness into those encounters and they were played smartly and without reserve, just as he had done on the tabletop or sand table

Quote from: Bill;573779Perhaps you just rubbed each other the wrong way and can patch things up and start over?

With Ben? I'll pass. I highly doubt he will say anything I want to read. With Storm, I did, though I admit in the thread I created where I engaged him again, upon rereading, I ended up being more hostile toward Storm than I should have since i should have approached him as if we had no history but I didn't. I doubt though at this point that it'll do anythinng but if I can talk to kaelik regularly anything is possible.

Quote from: Benoist;573786There's been a definite shift in what is construed as fairness between the participants of the game, and thus what constitutes a fair obstacle or how the rules play into the equation of actual play. The inclusion of chaotic and/or humorous elements in the game, the role that mathematical equality plays, if any, in those scenarios, and the predeterminism of the rules' design play into that picture. There is a good column written by Rob Kuntz about it ... here, have a read (the comments are worth reading too).

I checked out that link, some good stuff there.

Man, I wish Rob K. would have stayed the course instead of going full-Gleichman.

Quote from: MGuy;573790With Ben? I'll pass.

The day you are willing to have a discussion in good faith, I'll listen to you.
All you have to do is try me. But you can't fake it. I'll know.

EDIT: Denner changed to "Denner Invader" at Kaelik's request.

My main problem with the "Denner Invaders" arguments was they toss off casual one-liners all the time like...
"fighters are useless after 4th level"
"Charm Monster makes all fighters worthless in a party"
etc...
a lot of times these statements aren't even the primary point of the post, they just get tossed in as if they were known and accepted facts (which at the Den, they are).  I forget what you call it, but it's a tactic in Forensic Debate (as in HS/college debate) where tangential contentions are made obfuscated by the main point or structure of the sentence.  Why? Because any point not answered is automatically judged for the contender.  That annoying type of speech isn't limited to the Den or to 3e discussion boards, but the Den seems to have it as a primary means of sentence structure.

When you make those tangential arguments, and those arguments are accepted without proof, then you get yourself a nice echo-chamber and start producing groupthink.

Another big problem with some of the "Denner Invaders" inability to let stand their own arguments about 3e.  It's not enough that this is the case in 3e.  Oh no.  "All the earlier versions had the problem too.  I don't know anything about those earlier editions, but they had the same problem...Frank (or whoever) told me."
BMX? Same problem in 1e.
Build? Same culture in 1e.
Any argument made against mine I feel I need to validate by pretending it was always that way? Same problem in 1e.

If the response to
"0e,1e,2e didn't have that problem." Was...
"Oh really?  Thanks Grandpa. Maybe you want to start a thread about that then, because this one is about 3e, where the problem fucking occurs."
They would have fit right in.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573809Another big problem is the inability to let stand their own arguments about 3e.  It's not enough that this is the case in 3e.  Oh no.  "All the earlier versions had the problem too.  I don't know anything about those earlier editions, but they had the same problem...Frank (or whoever) told me."
BMX? Same problem in 1e.
Build? Same culture in 1e.
Any argument made against mine I feel I need to validate by pretending it was always that way? Same problem in 1e.

If the Denners response to
"0e,1e,2e didn't have that problem." Was...
"Oh really?  Thanks Grandpa. Maybe you want to start a thread about that then, because this one is about 3e, where the problem fucking occurs."
They would have fit right in.

So just to be clear, you believe that you are responsible for the actions of Stormbringer and it is perfectly fair for me to say "rpgsiters do X" where X is anything Storm does ever, and you have to accept that all rpgsiters do that because every person on a forum is responsible for the arguments made by one person?

Quote from: Kaelik;573813So just to be clear, you believe that you are responsible for the actions of Stormbringer and it is perfectly fair for me to say "rpgsiters do X" where X is anything Storm does ever, and you have to accept that all rpgsiters do that because every person on a forum is responsible for the arguments made by one person?

Are you suggesting in the WvF thread you never made any claims about the problem in earlier editions?

or are you just crying Foul about the term "Denner" in general.

Because there may be 150,000 posters on TGD, but if the 5 that come here all exhibit the same behavior then "Denners" is a decent term a posteriori.  However, for those other 149,995 TGD posters, I'll change Denner to Denner Invader.

Quote from: Kaelik;573813So just to be clear, you believe that you are responsible for the actions of Stormbringer and it is perfectly fair for me to say "rpgsiters do X" where X is anything Storm does ever, and you have to accept that all rpgsiters do that because every person on a forum is responsible for the arguments made by one person?

You had almost interested until you said I might follow whatever Stormie said.  Try again because this is entertaining, I am done being mice.