Quote from: jeff37923;263058Never said that Stormbringer was one, just Pseudoephedrine. Try to keep on track.

And we still haven't seen a definition for "culture of play" yet.

I defined it earlier in this very thread. Are we already back to the point where you're not even bothering to read what I've written before you spout off?

Quote from: StormBringer;263054The major downside, which may not be as obvious, is the effort to emphasize the 'play' part.  Pseudo has repeated many, many times that the only people who are qualified to speak of 4e in any manner are those playing it.

Incorrect Stormy. I said that only those who had _read_ 4e were qualified to comment on it. I said it to you because as we all recall, you were busy spouting off about the contents of 4e despite having not even read the books.

I do hold the position that playing a game does make one better qualified to talk about playing the game. Despite the once-again-obviousness of that statement to most people, it remains a fairly contentious sentiment on these forums.

QuoteThe general idea of 'culture of play' is so obvious because it isn't meant to be discussed on its own merits, it is simply a method of separating those who don't play in order to dismiss their opinions out of hand.  The hostility is thick enough to cut with a knife, in fact, as evidenced by Pseudo and Drew on this very thread.

You poor martyr. Here you were bitching and moaning and fulminating and pretending you had an important opinion and big bad me came along and knocked over your shit-castle.

Quote from: StormBringer;263008Well, if you consider 'douchebag' on the same level of vulgarity as 'on an obvious fuck up', well, it just shows that you are a douchebag.

To everyone else, I'll point out the level of hypocrisy here. This is the kind of sloppy, inconsistent thinking that underlays almost everything Stormbringer says.

Quote from: jeff37923;263083Pseudoephedrine likes to create smokescreens a lot, its why I just put him on ignore a long time ago.

I don't think there is a "culture of play". However, I do think you could argue for a subculture for a specific game system and a cuture for RPG gamers in general.

^

You know, I have to accuse people of not reading the things I'm writing often enough that I occasionally worry that I might be in the wrong. Then I read posts like these and realise that I am correct: They actually just aren't reading any of the words I've written.

I would like someone to point out how "a subculture for a specific game system" differs in a meaningful way from a "culture of play" for a game.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263105Despite the once-again-obviousness of that statement to most people, it remains a fairly contentious sentiment on these forums.

That's an outgrowth of the Schweinkrieg.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263105Incorrect Stormy. I said that only those who had _read_ 4e were qualified to comment on it. I said it to you because as we all recall, you were busy spouting off about the contents of 4e despite having not even read the books.

Shouldn't that be the 'culture of read', then?

QuoteI do hold the position that playing a game does make one better qualified to talk about playing the game. Despite the once-again-obviousness of that statement to most people, it remains a fairly contentious sentiment on these forums.

Because it's not at all obvious.  It's only obvious to you, because it allows you to dismiss critique without having to consider it.

QuoteYou poor martyr. Here you were bitching and moaning and fulminating and pretending you had an important opinion and big bad me came along and knocked over your shit-castle.

Claiming victory without having even presented a point yet?  I think you would be a precious little zebra over on tBP.  Maybe you would be better suited to spewing your pseudo-intellectual wankery there, where you aren't required to support any random diarrhoea that dribbles onto your keyboard.

Quote from: David R;263096So, you concede that a definition has been given only that you don't agree with it.

Regards,
David R

I concede that a crap definition will only produce crap results.

Quote from: David R;263096Listen I know you're a little bit sore about your Election results, but try not to be such a dick about it, OK. I wasn't trying to misrepresent your position, only that I think neither Stormbringer nor Pseudoephedrine are douchebags. But hey, if you want to carry on with your little hissy fit, go right ahead.

Nice attempt at obfuscation, you douchebag. Want to try and stay on topic or is that just too intellectually taxing for you?

Quote from: David R;263096So, you concede that a definition has been given only that you don't agree with it.

Regards,
David R

I concede that a crap definition will only produce crap results.

Quote from: StormBringer;262699But PCs have all kinds of 'detailed stats' to resolve non-combat situations.  Why do the players have this superfluous information outside of their statblocks?

The PCs need it, the NPCs don't, and it's the NPCs/monsters that we are talking about.

QuoteThat isn't a 'wandering' monster, then.  That is a triggered encounter.

Which is my point. If the aim is to increase the verisimilitude of the dungeon environment then triggered encounters and an environment which reacts to the actions of the PCs is just as valid as one which random monsters happen to wander along are irregular intervals, if not more so. Unless you think that a dungeon where making noise in room 1 will bring the inhabitants of room 2 over for a look is somehow less realistic than one where the inhabitants of room 2 will stay in their room regardless of events in room 1, but a random patrol might still wander into room 1 at any time?

QuoteWhy would the orcs in room 15 give a flip about the goblins in room 17c?  Why would the bugbears in 24 give a crap about either of them?

That's an artifact of a disconnected dungeon environment. Essentially, if the orcs in 15 and the goblins in 17 are two srparate communities in the same underground space then tehy wouldn't, but iherent in the assumption of the 4E model is that the inhabitants of a relatively small location are likely to be members of the same larger group, and the goblins, orcs and bugbears are working together, at which point it makes moe sense that they investigate than that they don't.

QuoteNo, the verisimilitude is in the fact that there are other monsters wandering around 'on patrol' as it were.  They are intended to wear down resources.  Much like level drain, it was an in game method for an essentially meta-game concept.

The verisimilitude comes from an essentially metagame requirement rather than from an organically designed dungeon? Interesting... are you sure you really meant to say that?

QuoteI don't think it is a switch in the philosophy of 4e, I think it is an incisive look at the philosophy of the lead designer.  As Caeser Slaad mentioned, hacking away at the mechanics without knowing why they were there was a bad decision, and this is re-inforcement of that.

Nothing indicates that Mearls doesn't know why they were there, he was jsut suggesting ways in which you could put them back should you so wish.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;262708I'm okay with the "idiot" theory.

It explains so much, so often.

QuoteNow if those sorts of considerations had made it into the rules instead of short-sighted "D&D is all about the combat encounter" sensibilities, they might have had a game worth my attention.

I'm not making any sort of claim about any official change here. I just wonder why, if Mearls is as big as a mover as I imagined him to be, this sort of thing wasn't taken account of in the rules instead of needing house rules.

I think it would have helped had some of the possibilities been explained in more detail rather than simply discussed in a number of developer blogs around the time of release, but they're already fully integrated into the rules. We're talking about GMing considerations and encounter design here. If we're lucky then DMG2 will talk more about this sort of thing but it requires no house ruling to use the triggered event approach with 4E.

QuoteNotwithstanding that I think using the skill challenge system as a bandaid for everything missing is a poor replacement for granting creatures noncombat abilities. Which, in turn, is necessitated by the decision to make all stat blocks self-contained. Such decisions are not without consequences.

But the skill challenge suggestion was a way of dealing with significantly more powerful monsters. The stat blocks still contain basic skills and such, all they do is strip out the 3E lists of feats, spell like abilities and so on that required frequent cross referencing and slowed play. You can still run a non-combat encounter without a skill challenge using the stat blocks as written without any difficulty for level appropriate NPCs, it's just the scaling nature of skill levels and DCs that make this more difficult with NPCs of a significantly different level.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263105I do hold the position that playing a game does make one better qualified to talk about playing the game. Despite the once-again-obviousness of that statement to most people, it remains a fairly contentious sentiment on these forums.

It does, and I have no idea why, other than that some people seem to like to argue on the basis of hearsay and prejudice rather than knowledge and experience. Some other people have knowledge and experience and still hold differing views, of course.

I put a lot of trouble down to a failure to distinguish between the precept that everyone has a right to an opinion (true), and that every opinion is equally valid (false).

Quote from: droog;263113That's an outgrowth of the Schweinkrieg.

The what now?

Quote from: jeff37923;263178Nice attempt at obfuscation, you douchebag. Want to try and stay on topic or is that just too intellectually taxing for you?
I concede that a crap definition will only produce crap results.

Douchebag ? Well I guess I should be glad you didn't refer to me as an Abo. You start off by attacking Pseudoephedrine and then claim he didn't give a definition, when he did and then admit he did but you don't agree with it.....when you calm down a little maybe we can talk.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263106To everyone else, I'll point out the level of hypocrisy here. This is the kind of sloppy, inconsistent thinking that underlays almost everything Stormbringer says.

And I will point out that you have, once again, utterly failed to demonstrate in any meaningful way how 'douchebag' and 'fuck' share the same level of vulgarity.

Of course, this has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which isn't unusual for you.  Your fixation on this is indicative of your inability to present or defend a valid point.  You would rather whinge about me than engage the discussion at hand.

Quote from: David R;263185Douchebag ? Well I guess I should be glad you didn't refer to me as an Abo. You start off by attacking Pseudoephedrine and then claim he didn't give a definition, when he did and then admit he did but you don't agree with it.....when you calm down a little maybe we can talk.

Regards,
David R

The definition of "culture of play" by Pseudoephedrine is bullshit. I said that when I conceeded that a crap definitions produce crap results. You want to come up with a better working definition if you can, then please do so. Otherwise you are just doing the same pseudointellectual dance that Pseudoephedrine does when he knows he has backed himself into a corner.

I fully expect to only see the "dance monkey, dance" routine from you on the "culture of play" subject.

Quote from: jeff37923;263207The definition of "culture of play" by Pseudoephedrine is bullshit. I said that when I conceeded that a crap definitions produce crap results. You want to come up with a better working definition if you can, then please do so. Otherwise you are just doing the same pseudointellectual dance that Pseudoephedrine does when he knows he has backed himself into a corner.

I fully expect to only see the "dance monkey, dance" routine from you on the "culture of play" subject.

I have no desire to "defend" Pseudoephedrine's "culture of play", jeff. I was just replying to your post and vaguely stating what I thought of the subject. It was not my intention to misrepresent you in any way and was just surprised at the hostility of your reply.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Trevelyan;263179Which is my point. If the aim is to increase the verisimilitude of the dungeon environment then triggered encounters and an environment which reacts to the actions of the PCs is just as valid as one which random monsters happen to wander along are irregular intervals, if not more so. Unless you think that a dungeon where making noise in room 1 will bring the inhabitants of room 2 over for a look is somehow less realistic than one where the inhabitants of room 2 will stay in their room regardless of events in room 1, but a random patrol might still wander into room 1 at any time?

Here's my question - aren't both really required to increase the verisimilitude? Why get rid of one but leave the other?

Read through B2 - look at how there are both wandering monsters* and triggered events** (spoilers below). Taking out one or the other can lead to the disconnected situation you mention.

*  A one in six chance for goblins to appear when in the goblin area, that increases by one each 10' travelled)

** The goblins, at the first sign of trouble, will go into the ogre's cave and toss him some gold to fight for them. The hobgoblins will come from their area if they hear commotion in the goblin's area.

I'm really enjoying this thread, but at the risk of sounding like a whiner (too late, I know)...can we just keep disagreements from the politics forum from contaminating discussion the RPG section?  It just cheapens your argument.