Quote from: GnomeWorks;389384I do vaguely recall something about how all TCO does here is troll. But I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt.

For which you are a better man than I.  I found myself getting too many headaches doing that, so I hope it works out better for you.

Quote from: LordVreeg;389461I'll feel better after a glass of wine tonight.  Wear me out?  Perhaps made me incredulous at a level of willful ignorance, but I can't say you are totally wrong.  We have online session #41 tomorrow night for the Steel Isle group.  SHould be good stuff.

It's a big bunch on this site. On the one hand you have anonymity and freedom from consequence, and on the other, a constantly shifting bunch of users and a fast paced discussion no one can read all of. So it's not surprising when someone scratches a sore spot by accident and the old guard gets up in arms over vendettas only a few members know or care about.

Have fun with your game.

Did I tell you I like your headings for success, failure, and crit failure on your spell descriptions?[/QUOTE]

Nah, but thanks. I've been working on the framework of my system for over a year now. I figured it was time to put some meat on its bones. What's great is that I can reuse the formula when I get to skills.

Quote from: Seanchai;389407I would imagine it means things like this, where people who don't like 4e, don't play 4e, and don't have an interest in ever playing 4e continue to start thread after thread of inflammatory bullshit about it.

Seanchai

I was curious about people's experiences with the Encounters sessions.  That is inflammatory?  Seriously?

No, in fact, you have just revealed your true colours.  Anything that is not a glowing, utterly enthusiastic promotional piece about 4e is 'hating' from 'griefers'.  You have no interest whatsoever in discussion.  I don't think two months spent quote-mining the last five years of your posting history could have possibly illuminated this more clearly than what you posted here.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine

Quote from: BenoistBut you are doing the exact same thing by consistently turning arguments into rhetorical and lexical catfights. You know it PE. I know it. We're not the only ones.

I don't deny I am willing to keep on insisting on the same questions over and over again until they are answered. I'm perfectly happy with discussion not going forward until they are, because I consider the value of the discussion to come from its foundation in true or at least useful statements.

Or until long after they are answered, substantiated, proven again, and reproven.
or at least that's my take.  
it's your turn again.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389462I don't deny I am willing to keep on insisting on the same questions over and over again until they are answered. I'm perfectly happy with discussion not going forward until they are, because I consider the value of the discussion to come from its foundation in true or at least useful statements.

You are not the center of this discussion.  If your questions are not being answered to your satisfaction, tough shit.  Re-phrase the question, move to a simpler question and work your way back up, try a different line of inquiry...  There are stacks of methods to move forward without stamping your feet and demanding your questions be addressed.  The very act of demanding thus repeatedly should be an indicator that the questions are not necessarily interesting to people, in the manner that 'ROLLplaying vs ROLEplaying' isn't really discussed much anymore.

You may not like the definitions, but they are pretty much settled at this point.  For example, I could start arguing with my Physics instructor that c is not 300,000km/s, but instead should be defined as 56,248.773 gorgle-quatloos per reftar, because I think that is a better definition.

I can guarantee I would fail that class.

Quote from: LordVreeg;389474Or until long after they are answered, substantiated, proven again, and reproven.
or at least that's my take.  
it's your turn again.

But you didn't prove anything. At one point the other dude literally linked to his own website as support, as if to settle the matter. I get that you guys have your own preferences and seem to agree on things like realism, but that doesn't mean anything whatsoever.

Here's an (unproven, I admit) theory of my own: I bet there will be a high correlation between the people who believe in the "Dissasociated mechanics" swinery and people who prioritize "low magic" and "gritty" campaigns. Because what they are really talking about all along is just a preference for a "supposed to be like this" realism.

These people often  don't get cinematicism, (which is fine- it's a matter of personal preference), but that also means they aren't the authority on it either.

Quote from: Benoist;389468You're in it to win, rhetorically speaking.

Most folks are. Consider, for example, this thread title and original subject matter.

Seanchai

Quote from: RandallS;389432There is AT LEAST one other option, 4e fans could simply admit that it is a very different game from all previous versions of D&D (especially the TSR versions that started it all)and that those gamers who don't think it really is D&D in anything but brand name have a position just as valid as the theirs.

If those things were true, perhaps they would. It's certainly a different game than previous editions, but then so were AD&D and 3e. And it has many similarities to older edition as well.

As to folks believing that 4e is D&D in name only, shrug. They're welcome to their opinion.

Seanchai

I swear the last fifteen pages of this thread has just been people arguing about the arguing. Anyone got a scorecard of who disagrees with what at this point?

Are we still arguing about the idea that "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" or is it all just about the fact that Justin decided to attach a buzzword to that idea?

Quote from: Benoist;389468I don't think you are honestly interested in any form of discussion, aka exchanges.
You're in it to win, rhetorically speaking. The subject matter seems completely secondary to your MO.

Still sore about me saying that you said something in "bafflegab"? Grudges are silly.

I'm perfectly happy to have exchanges and discussions with people if they want to have them. I talk about my own personal gaming more than most other people on this site do.

However, very few people on this site want to have discussions involving honest debate and criticism of ideas they put forward, and very few of them discuss actually playing games. Instead, we have gotten repeated waves of adherents to intellectual fads coming into the forums, proselytising, and pretentiously dismissing contrary opinions or ideas until they get slapped down.

I have little patience or intellectual respect for these people unless they can show that their ideas have merit. Almost none have. You may take this for some desire to "win" over them "rhetorically" if you so please. Should they cease their behaviour and start acting like reasonable persons, I'm fine dealing with them on that basis instead.

Quote from: beejazz;389451Seanchi, AM, and TCO: Seriously, quit spouting bullshit.

Here's what you're missing: We're not spouting bullshit. You are. Piles and piles of it.

Quote from: beejazz;389451Every time someone agrees with someone else you cry groupthink

Where?

Quote from: beejazz;389451...and every time someone disagrees with one of you (doesn't even have to be you personally) you cry persecution.

Where?

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;389478You are not the center of this discussion.  If your questions are not being answered to your satisfaction, tough shit.  Re-phrase the question, move to a simpler question and work your way back up, try a different line of inquiry...  There are stacks of methods to move forward without stamping your feet and demanding your questions be addressed.  The very act of demanding thus repeatedly should be an indicator that the questions are not necessarily interesting to people, in the manner that 'ROLLplaying vs ROLEplaying' isn't really discussed much anymore.

I do all of those things. They lead nowhere with these kinds of intellectual fads.

QuoteYou may not like the definitions, but they are pretty much settled at this point.  For example, I could start arguing with my Physics instructor that c is not 300,000km/s, but instead should be defined as 56,248.773 gorgle-quatloos per reftar, because I think that is a better definition.

I can guarantee I would fail that class.

Actually, as has been shown on this very thread, they aren't settled. LVR's many definitions of metagaming, for example, had some very important differences amongst them. Peregrin pointed out in Shaman's thread about Immersion that there are different kinds of immersion.

Quote from: Grymbok;389484I swear the last fifteen pages of this thread has just been people arguing about the arguing. Anyone got a scorecard of who disagrees with what at this point?

Are we still arguing about the idea that "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" or is it all just about the fact that Justin decided to attach a buzzword to that idea?

Yeah, I don't think even think "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" is always true. Sure, there's probably some occasions when it's true, but there's a large number of occasions when it's not.

Spellcasting's a good example of the latter. When my wizard decides to cast fireball, it's at least partially based on my knowledge of how the spell works, since there's no other information to go on - it's not like there are fireball spells IRL that we can transfer to our imagination.

Quote from: Grymbok;389484I swear the last fifteen pages of this thread has just been people arguing about the arguing. Anyone got a scorecard of who disagrees with what at this point?

Are we still arguing about the idea that "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" or is it all just about the fact that Justin decided to attach a buzzword to that idea?

Why do you think I've been using this thread for just general chit-chat?

BTW, are you a mac or PC guy?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;389492Why do you think I've been using this thread for just general chit-chat?

BTW, are you a mac or PC guy?

Yeah, you could probably embed an entire second discussion in here by this point without anyone noticing.

I'm a Mac guy, as it happens. Tapping away on my iPad tonight actually