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?

Go back and make note of the principles in starting the meta-arguing.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut 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.

Justin Alexander is not Lord Vreeg. You're doing your paranoia and guilt by association shtick again. People who happen to disagree with each other about something you disagree with are not automatically on a "side" with each other. Holding Vreeg accountable for the way Justin A. shills his blog (or appeals to his own authority, as you tend to spin things a little more sinister than they probably are) is kind of silly, isn't it?

QuoteHere'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.

I don't know if I'd call Vreeg's approach to magic "low." He just has a setting where professional killers aren't the only spellcasters.

Personally, I'd say I'm a fan of higher magic than 4e, in that I think players should be capable of accomplishing a greater variety of tasks. And even that's a mixed bag, as a lot of what I liked was simply moved sideways into rituals (which I prefer over Vance magic). So 4e does some things better than prior editions.

As for grittiness, I'm pretty sure JA advocated on his blog often enough for taking the CRs of monsters down and the numbers up, knowing this made fights faster and easier and PCs more badass.

So... Yeah... people who think that mechanics that don't reference anything in the gameworld encourage thinking of/from/about outside the gameworld? A diverse bunch. Kind of like people who think water's wet.

QuoteThese 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.

Cinematicism? Really? I sympathize with the position that the terms used are defined in ways that have positive/negative connotations, and that there are clearer ways the statement could have been made, but... at least when they used words they gave them clear definitions and ascribed those definitions to real world phenomena. Cinematicism is intentionally vague and positive. So you're basically just throwing out there that "you just don't get [vague thing with positive connotations]." If using immersion as a buzzword is wrong that makes you a hypocrite.

Quote from: GrymbokI 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?

It's mostly about the buzzword for Pseudo, it's about accusing people of intentional ignorance all around for the rest of us. I'm somewhat guilty of the latter myself, though I think there's less intention behind it than a lot of people believe.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389485Still sore about me saying that you said something in "bafflegab"? Grudges are silly.

Nope. If I was, I wouldn't have told you what I think of your Moragne effort, which I think is pretty cool.

Do not make the mistake of translating disagreement for grudge, here. What I'm saying is that your rhetorical tactics suck. Not only for the conversations themselves, which are obliterated in the process, but for your own goals as well, since these are more transparent than you think they are. You are consistently dishonest intellectually, and focus on form rather than substance, and yet, you point the finger at other people for doing the very thing you yourself should correct. Quit the act, man.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389490Yeah, 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.

Well I was quoting someone else from a page or two back as a proxy for thinking since I'm rather tired tonight. You're right of course though that there's a big side order of "it depends" when things are phrased as loosely as that.

I think that, like a lot of things, it's a continuum. At the one end you have rules which are purely in service to in-character decisions and motivation ("I attack the goblin with my sword" "ok, roll to hit"). Somewhere in the middle you have things like your Fireball example, where the mechanics contain elements that don't really exist in character, and so there's a degree of out-of-character thinking going on in your actions decisions, but probably not enough to break kayfabe. I've seen people try to patch around that with odd setting justifications ("the power of a fireball is determined by the circle of mastery to which its caster has ascended"), but that's something that never worked for me (although I did like the idea of the NPC shopkeeper in Ptolus who could tell a sword's plus by swinging it around a bit).

Then a bit further on you have things where the mechanics can be at odds with in-character motivations. Daily Martial powers in 4e go here. Also the whole thing in 3e and 4e where various combat manoeuvres can only be accomplished if you have a certain feat. Basically anything where an action seems reasonable in-character based on the shared understanding of the setting, but is not acceptable or optional because of the mechanics.  

What lies beyond there on the continuum I have no idea, since that point is already well past my preference point!

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389488I do all of those things. They lead nowhere with these kinds of intellectual fads.

Honestly, you don't.  As far as intellectual 'fads' go, you are guilty of trying to start several.

QuoteActually, as has been shown on this very thread, they aren't settled.

... for you.  That isn't the same as not being settled.  For example, I don't think the definition of the speed of light is 'settled'.  Not really relevant to a discussion of physics, however, and I would still fail the class.

QuoteLVR'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.

Then you will need to point out those differences, and don't assume that everyone will just take your word they are there.  I know this is the kind of dialogue you are looking for, but it doesn't happen.

"These are all the same!"
"No, they aren't."
"Holy shit!  You are right!  They have nothing to do with each other!"

Positive or negative assertions are good for a start, but if they are not followed with examples, they are useless.

Quote from: AM

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegOr 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.

Ok, What's your opinion on the definition given for metagaming as, "Using OOC information to affect character IC actions?"
Or linking 18+2 other websites with similar definitions, almost all from RPG glossary-type sites?  I will agree that there is nothing that makes any one of these the be-all or end all authority.  
But what's your take on that?


BTW, I wonder about your theory (though the term Swinery is making me laughin the context you are using it.).  I'm sure there are other correllative factors, but there are some things about low-power, low-magic, gritty that make you prioritize things differently.

Quote from: Seanchai;389486Here's what you're missing: We're not spouting bullshit. You are. Piles and piles of it.

Seanchai

Looking back on it, the specific accusations are usually AM and TCO things. You have your own unique way of being insanely frustrating for no reason.

Mainly multiquotes filled with one line assertions followed by pages and pages of repeating yourself with similar brevity when people contradict you. Usually combined with a healthy dose of interpreting everything literally, ignoring things that don't suit your argument, and did I mention obsessively multiquoting and responding with one liners that contribute nothing that you haven't already said?

I think it's more productive all around if I just apologize for lumping you in with the other two (you're not paranoid, just obstinate) and we leave it at that.

Quote from: beejazz;389497Personally, I'd say I'm a fan of higher magic than 4e, in that I think players should be capable of accomplishing a greater variety of tasks. And even that's a mixed bag, as a lot of what I liked was simply moved sideways into rituals (which I prefer over Vance magic). So 4e does some things better than prior editions.

Just a minor nit:  you know 'rituals' is just a fancy term for 'scrolls (anyone can use)' and a minor tweak or two to balance availability, right?

I mean, I am glad you find them useful and enjoyable, but rituals aren't Vancian magic, they are scrolls by another name.

Quote from: Grymbok;389493Yeah, 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

Excellent.  The Apple price point was always a big turn off for me.  Anyway, I'm looking for some info on a good PVR card to get for my HTPC.

Anyone else?

Quote from: StormBringer;389505Just a minor nit:  you know 'rituals' is just a fancy term for 'scrolls (anyone can use)' and a minor tweak or two to balance availability, right?

I mean, I am glad you find them useful and enjoyable, but rituals aren't Vancian magic, they are scrolls by another name.

Um... I was saying they aren't Vancian magic. So... I'm pretty sure we agree with each other.

Also I thought scrolls were a caster only bit, and finite in availability (rather than balanced out by long casting times). At least in 3.x, where a better analogue might be... potions maybe?

I'm just saying at-will casting for minor-ish stuff is pretty cool really.

EDIT: Ah, shit... they are more like scrolls (in that they're caster-only... ish) in that they require a feat IIRC.

Quote from: LordVreeg;389502Ok, What's your opinion on the definition given for metagaming as, "Using OOC information to affect character IC actions?"
Or linking 18+2 other websites with similar definitions, almost all from RPG glossary-type sites?  I will agree that there is nothing that makes any one of these the be-all or end all authority.  
But what's your take on that?


BTW, I wonder about your theory (though the term Swinery is making me laughin the context you are using it.).  I'm sure there are other correllative factors, but there are some things about low-power, low-magic, gritty that make you prioritize things differently.

Rest assured, it is swinery.

I don't know if using OOC information to affect IC actions is necessarily "metagaming". Or if it is , then I don't know if that's "proven to be" against immersion.

I mean, as an example, disease mechanics. A player could use his OOC knowledge of the mechanics of how a disease affects his character to create a more interesting roleplaying scene. For example, if it merely says he's -2 to hit when in sunlight, because he's suddenly light sensitive as the opening stage of vampirism or something,  well that doesn't sound too immersive, but a player who knows that fact can really play that up, and use that OOC knowledge to make something even more immersive.

Quote from: beejazz;389508Um... I was saying they aren't Vancian magic. So... I'm pretty sure we agree with each other.

I apologize, I must have correlated where there was not one intended.

QuoteAlso I thought scrolls were a caster only bit, and finite in availability (rather than balanced out by long casting times). At least in 3.x, where a better analogue might be... potions maybe?

That would also be a reasonable analogue.  I was considering scrolls because of the 'form-factor' of rituals is essentially a scroll.
EDIT:  I may not have been clear earlier with the parenthetical part.  I meant that rituals are literally 'scrolls anyone can use'.  More in line with your potion analogy, but in scroll form.

QuoteI'm just saying at-will casting for minor-ish stuff is pretty cool really.

No argument there.

QuoteEDIT: Ah, shit... they are more like scrolls (in that they're caster-only... ish) in that they require a feat IIRC.

I also forgot this detail.  I don't think the feat is limited by rules to only casters.  I am not sure the strategic wisdom of a non-caster taking such a feat, however.  Even in older editions, CharOp stuff is just not something I can wrap my head around(starting with the question "Why would I want to?"    )

Quote from: thedungeondelver;389506Excellent.  The Apple price point was always a big turn off for me.  Anyway, I'm looking for some info on a good PVR card to get for my HTPC.

Anyone else?

Inexpensive Dell or HP laptop, then install Linux.

Quote from: StormBringer;389519Inexpensive Dell or HP laptop, then install Linux.

Sorry, I'd like to spend more time watching recorded shows and films than fucking around with the OS!  Also I have the box ready to go, just looking for a good card.  People speak well of Happauge or however you spell it.

Quote from: StormBringerI also forgot this detail.  I don't think the feat is limited by rules to only casters.  I am not sure the strategic wisdom of a non-caster taking such a feat, however.  Even in older editions, CharOp stuff is just not something I can wrap my head around(starting with the question "Why would I want to?"    )

I don't know, mechanical representation for somebody that just dabbles has always been kind of spotty for me. So even if it's not optimal, it's still pretty cool, and the sort of thing I might run with.

Though maybe CharOp matters sometimes... if Track had been a skill instead of a feat, I think more non-rangers would have used it (to give an example). But skill based magic in D&D is probably too much to ask, and about as "not D&D" as anything 4e did.

EDIT: Ah, and now I get the parenthetical note.