Quote from: One Horse Town;505595As soon as Justin starts throwing repression and such nonsense about, he's basically got nothing to counter with. It's an old record, played often.

I wonder what genres 'sex moves' do emulate though. Mills & Boon, relationship melodrama and porn, i suppose.

Also grindhouse.

Of course I must be sexually repressed, if I find an idea of role - playing with a fellow friend of mine  that our characters have sex, while 3 other people are watching us. Or I must be repressed because I find the Magically Creating Barter sex move bloody silly.

Oh wait, that's just the ILLITERATE PLEBS AND PETTY BOURGEOIS  DOES NOT UNDERSTAND TRUE ART argument that I had been expecting. Still, 11th page before it came? New high score.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505576Fuck's sake, I read a thread on AW forums where people did not know what to do if you shoot a PC in the head in their sleep. I mean, you obviously can't kill them, because that'd go against the STORY!

Of course they bloody die. You shot them in the head. Forget the damage clock.

That's your story.

Quote from: Ladybird;505625Of course they bloody die. You shot them in the head. Forget the damage clock.

That's your story.

You are far too sane I am afraid.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505576Say, is there an order of evil GMs that almost hunted down every GM that was capable of channelling those energies? Is there a dashing smuggler of RPGs from South America who believes that a fistful of dice at his side is better then all that hocus - pocus?[...] people did not know what to do if you shoot a PC in the head in their sleep. I mean, you obviously can't kill them, because that'd go against the STORY!

Wait twenty years, then re-edit the scene so the PC shoots first.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505552You seem to have forgotten the part where you attempted to draw fallacious conclusions

Hey dude, I didn't "forget" anything—you did. That post was your argument. Your shot against my position. You choice to include or exclude anything I said. To agree with me or disagree with me about anything you wanted.

You disagree with this, and you left it out? Your bad, man.

You forgot. Not me.

Like I said, the next time you want to make an argument, just make the argument. Say exactly what you mean. Include that which you disagree with. Then say why its wrong. Explicitly, in plain English.

If this is genuinely something you disagree with, and want to make a valid case, you should back up, quote my damn post, and say why its wrong. Not in some mealy-mouthed, passive-aggressive faux-analogy fake quotes (with added making shit up), but in plain English.

That way, I'll know what you disagree with. And I'll know why. And I have the chance to disagree with you, or maybe even concede that I was wrong. If I was wrong.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505552But you've already proven that you're firmly entrenched in your ignorance and stupidity.

That's an interesting definition of stupidity. "Read the game, completely understood it, understood why weaknesses in the game design existed, proposed three separate solutions for the problem. Each of which was more suited to the characters, character roles, and setting than the official rules."

And let's not forget "entered an argument, used evidence, judgement, and logic to construct a case, clear and unambiguous English to present the case, and did it so well the gentleman calling me stupid had to resort to the Strawman fallacy and Ad Hominem fallacy to make a counterargument."

Basically, I kicked the game's ass. And yours. That's a level of achievement I'm comfortable with. And you should be uncomfortable with, as it calls into question who's the stupid one here.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505552Your unspoken premise here that "every session of D&D ever played has included a dragon" is also pretty hilarious, BTW.

Horsefeathers. Never said it, never implied it. Your reading comprehension skills have failed you.

And I'm the stupid one?

Quote from: silva;505588Hey guys, thanks for the feedback.

At this point, I think the purpose of the thread is fulfilled - the game seems to play as good as the reading sugests. Ive even convinced some of my pals here in Brazil to give it a try. Maybe later I post some playtest impressions.

Thanks again.

I genuinely hope you have fun with it.

Your game. Your rules. Your fun.

That's my motto.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505576I am still waiting for you to answer me Justin about those mystical energies of GMs that you somehow channel.

(1) You're now a self-admitted troll.

(2) The first person to refer to "GM powers" in this thread? That would be you, dumbass.

I had assumed you were using some rational definition of the term. But if you were actually talking about some new-age "mystical energy", then I'd suggest laying off the peyote before you post in public.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505664

QuoteYou seem to have forgotten the part where you attempted to draw fallacious conclusions

Hey dude, I didn't "forget" it—you did. That post was your argument. Your shot against my position. You choice to include or exclude anything I said. To agree with me or disagree with me about anything you wanted.

(1) I did, in fact, specifically reference that part of your post in my original, mocking reply.

(2) You just admitted you were attempting to draw a fallacious conclusion.

Since Rincewind is trolling himself and you've just admitted you were completely wrong in what you were claiming, I think we're done here.

Victory! :jaw-dropping:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505142The temptation is to describe this as "constraining" the GM's power, but that's not really it: Baker is instead channeling the GM's power.

In a day and age where virtually every RPG just assumes that GMs are magically grown on trees, AW's approach of providing the GM with an actual structure for governing play is more than refreshing. It's needed.

Tis seems your memory is as weak as your arguments, so I bolded the important part.

QED.

PS - still curious about that order of AW Knights, please enlighten me, unless you are afraid Lord V4der will come after you, continuing to execute Order 66.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;505667I genuinely hope you have fun with it.

Your game. Your rules. Your fun.

That's my motto.

As I am drinking, I might as well drink to that.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505770(2) You just admitted you were attempting to draw a fallacious conclusion.

Your reading comprehension skills again failed you. More, a logical fallacy: taking one sentence of a section out of context and claiming it means something it doesn't.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505770Since Rincewind is trolling himself and you've just admitted you were completely wrong in what you were claiming, I think we're done here.

This is, in my experience, the natural end of every Internet disputation: the side lacking credibility, evidence, and intellectual coherence claiming a technical victory based on dubious assumptions, patting themselves on the back, and riding off into the sunset.

It's an art form as stylized and formalized as Kabuki (and almost never leads to honest debates of substantive issues). Bravo, sir, you are a master of Internet Debate Kabuki.

Quote from: One Horse Town;505791Victory! :jaw-dropping:

That's twice, in two different threads, you've said what I intended to (or did), in a far more succinct fashion.

Truth, now, you're going for a laconic Clint Eastwood or Buffy's Oz kinda vibe, aren't you?

If this continues, I may have to get bitterly envious.

I highly disagree on your oversimplification and villification of Kabuki, DW.

As for the victory part - a certain quote by the greatest military mind (according to another great military mind, Hannibal) comes to mind. The one about a few mores like this, and we're undone.

I'm still stealing that "Your game" line on the cover of GMPM.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505797Tis seems your memory is as weak as your arguments, so I bolded the important part.

The problem is that in English the word "channeling" can have a number of different connotations.  To we native English speakers, it was obvious in what sense Justin was using it.  Perhaps due to the language barrier, you've interpreted it in a way that really doesn't make any sense given the context.

Instead of asking Justin politely to explain what he meant by that use of the word "channeling" you chose to engage in juvenile mockery, dragging yet another thread down into the dungheaps of "Look at me! Look at me show how clever I am with my shallow and crude jibes!"

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this site is actually rpg.net's implementation of Dante's Inferno hellban.

Oh please. He started to hurl insults and snark at me with pretty much the first blow here, and you expected me to play a good sheep and turn the other cheek? The rest of the post about "rare GMs and how great AW is in giving power to even most moderate of them" rather clearly sets a premise that just asks to turn that statement about "channeling" into mockery. There was a dozen of words usable here, such as "magnifies", or perhaps "siphons" or "convey". But no, the one used is one that has the sublime note of "AW allows the GM to be the Pretty Unique Flower" to it. I usually presume that people use language in purposeful way, and not just type words randomly.

Of course, like a good knight, you ride in shining armour to the defence of your feudal. I've been using English daily since I was 6, so stuff your theory about native English speakers. I am pretty sure you are being right now borderline nationalistic - "hey look, he's Polish, so he must be shit at English, tally - ho!"

And of course, you included the mandatory I am better then rpg.site in your post. Big whooping surprise.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505818I highly disagree on your oversimplification and villification of Kabuki, DW.

I apologize, I didn't mean to vilify Kabuki. Though I can see why it came across like that.

Quote from: Rincewind1;505818I'm still stealing that "Your game" line on the cover of GMPM.

Go for it. It's a succinct distillation of my reaction to every single gaming thread I've ever participated in.

I'll argue mechanics and their efficacy. I'll argue fine points of setting construction. I'll even argue over which edition of D&D was the best. (3.0 with my House Rules, obviously. I'm not kidding.)

But when it comes to people's own campaigns:

Your game. Your rules. Your fun.

(With the usually unvoiced coda: And fuck anyone who tries to tell you otherwise. I try to limit my vulgarity.)

I'm hoping the sentiment will spread. I know it won't, but wouldn't it be nice if people could argue mechanics and when done, say "I wouldn't do it that way, but I genuinely hope you have fun in your games." The way some gamers get, it seems like they genuinely hope people who disagree will end up with a crappy game.

Yes, I know hoping for that attitude to spread is something straight out of the land of lollypop rainbows and sunshine kisses. But still...

Your game. Your rules. Your fun.

I mean it. Take it with my blessings.

EDIT: And maybe a blurb on the inside about what it means, besides the obvious? I could contribute a paragraph.

(In addition to the lengthy, quality contribution I will also be sending your way, of course. Any day now.)