Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;908566Not to mention, what is your idea of "tactics" and "fun" and "cool"?  For instance, in Peter Jackson's movie "The Two Towers," where Legolam goes skateboarding down the stairs on a shield while shooting arrows?  I thought that was pants-shittingly stupid.  One of the stupidest things I've ever seen in my life.  I literally groaned out loud.  But I'm sure there are people who thought that was oh-so-cool and want to do that in a game and that's their idea of "good tactics".

Those people and I will never have a fun game together, which is why I try to make my expectations explicit as early as possible.

I guess I have a pretty middle-of-the-road approach when it comes to these things. On the one hand, I do want to see creative and original approaches to specific situations in the game. On the other hand, I don't want to see cool done to death or goofy shit being commonplace. To wit, sliding down the stairs on a shield while firing arrows is possible in my game. There's going to be a to-hit penalty associated with it. And some kind of ability check to keep from falling on your ass. Neither of which makes it appealing as a good battle tactic. However, who knows. There may be a character sufficiently skilled where these drawbacks aren't too crippling, and there may even be specific situations where for some reason you do want to slide down stairs on a shield while firing arrows. But those are the two catches. "Stunts" are only ever good ideas in a very specific and narrow range of circumstances. And they're only ever done competently by someone highly skilled. They can thus be easily adjusted like a volume knob simply by changing whether I play a "high level" or "low level" game. I do usually run low-mid level games. So a stunt like this is possible, but mainly only in theory. I don't feel it violates anyone's expectations. If you really want to do that, now you have something to strive for.

Quote from: Lunamancer;908639I suppose it's possible to create a standardized consensus. But how does it help? What problem does it solve? How does it make the game more fun?

Some degree of consensus is required to make the game possible. How much consensus is desirable differs among participants.

QuoteIf PhDs are such a high benchmark, why is it the most successful people in the world generally don't have one?

It was an exemplar benchmark for deep knowledge of an aspect of the world. Don't make more of it than was intended or than is needed to understand the point.

And if you really and truly don't understand why lots of wealthy, powerful, and famous people don't have PhDs or why academic success does not equal wealth, power, and general fame...well I doubt anything we say will enlighten you on that.

Quote...why assume we would need a whole lot more information, knowledge, and/or expertise to play a game of make-believe?

He was somewhat stating the opposite. That because no one person has deep and thorough knowledge about every aspect of the world that expecting a game to feature deep, thorough knowledge about every aspect of reality is unreasonable.

QuoteIf unfulfilled expectations is such a drag, why is the answer always "set expectations"?

Because some common understanding is necessary. Its why we write our posts in English and not in 100 different, indecipherable collections of squiggles, dashes, pictures, and dots while holding in abeyance any attempt at shared understanding of language so as not to "set expectations."  

QuoteWhy can't we instead recognize and emphasize that the very nature of the game is full of mystery and unknowns such that it is premature for any player to hold any expectation strongly enough that it makes or breaks fun?

You certainly can. And some people certainly will find that sort of play to not be fun. All you are doing by avoiding any attempt at prior consensus is shuffling around which people aren't going to have fun or shuffling about what they aren't going to have fun about.

QuoteYou can say "rules cannot fix stupid," but what exactly does "stupid" mean?

If you don't know, then there's a really good chance that Bill Engvall has your sign.

Quote from: Omega;908539Actually . . .

With all due respect, Omega, this was the point at which some variation of the phrase, 'I'm replying to JesterRain? What the fuck am I thinking?' probably should've crossed your mind.

Quote from: David Johansen;908552If you ever read Roleplaying Mastery and Master of the Game, you know that Gary Gygax felt that a Dungeon Master should have a pretty broad library and familiarity with many historical and mythical topics.

Mr Gygax was right, but I would add to that, get the fuck out of the house, early and often. Mouth-breathing basement-dwellers make shit referees.

It doesn't take a gawddamned PhD, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt to have some Lazarus Long in you.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;908649With all due respect, Omega, this was the point at which some variation of the phrase, 'I'm replying to JesterRain? What the fuck am I thinking?' probably should've crossed your mind.

Hush, stranger. No need for drama. Let adults solve things adult way. :cool:

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908541It was postulated, that when it comes to getting food, every animal is smart, or it's dead. While there's nothing wrong in the claim that "certain" animals might be smarter than other, the assumption that EVERY animal is either smart, or dead is nothing short of glorification. And a false one - plenty of animals are dumb as a brick.

No one said that in the first place.  What animals have is a set of instinctive and learned behaviors that have evolved over time to be effective.  A behavior doesn't have to be complex to be effective.  Plenty of animals are quite dumb but they are mostly herbivores.  They are dangerous simply because of their mass and power.  Predators often have to be cannier or they starve.    

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908541As for sharks - don't mistake them for ostriches. Some simply eat whatever they find, including things like nails or electronics, not because it supplements their digestive process, or makes a good "ballast", but simply because it's within their reach and they are too stupid to tell the difference between "food" and "not food".

That's not actually true.  Shark species often display distinct prey preferences.  They only feed opportunistically when they have to.
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v398/p221-234/
Diet and prey preference of juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris

ABSTRACT: Sharks are often regarded as opportunistic asynchronous predators that feed on the most abundant prey. In the present study, 2 populations of juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris were investigated from Bimini, Bahamas, with well-defined home ranges facilitating the estimation of prey preference. Stomach contents were quantitatively analysed from 396 lemon sharks with data on prey species and abundance obtained from quantitative sampling of mangrove and seagrass faunal communities to elucidate preferences with respect to prey type, prey size and location. Yellowfin mojarra Gerres cinereus dominated the diet of juvenile lemon sharks (>50% by weight and percentage index of relative importance, %IRI), even when present in lower abundances in the environment. Preference was determined and compared using abundance, %IRI values and original weight of prey, with the latter preferred due to their close relationship with energetic intake. Juvenile lemon sharks do not feed indiscriminately, but exhibit prey preference and size selection. Juvenile lemon sharks at Bimini demonstrated a hierarchy of prey preference: parrotfish (Scaridae) > mojarra (Gerreidae) > toadfish (Batrachoididae) > filefish (Balistidae) > grunts (Haemulidae) > barracuda (Sphyraenidae). High overlap between shark diet and mangrove communities revealed the importance of mangroves to lemon sharks and their prey. Lemon sharks fed disproportionately on intermediate sized teleosts and crustaceans, with maximum prey size of nursery-bound sharks primarily limited by availability in the environment. We conclude that sharks can be highly plastic foragers, capable of selective feeding, but will switch to more opportunistic foraging when environmental conditions deteriorate

Quote from: yosemitemike;908651No one said that in the first place. (...)

We're past that stage, Mike.

QuoteThat's not actually true

My link:
- Fact Sheet:Tiger Sharks

Your link:
- Diet and prey preference of juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris

They aren't one and the same species.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908656We're past that stage, Mike.

The comment is still there.  It can still be responded to.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908656They aren't one and the same species.

There are 400 shark species.  Every one has not been studied this way.  Lemon sharks are not an atypical species though.  The studies available suggests that sharks are not the indiscriminate predators they were once thought to be.  This is supported by studies on shark attacks that suggest that attacks on people by Great Whites are usually caused by misidentification.
http://saveourseas.com/why-do-white-sharks-bite-people/
That picture of sharks just eating anything and everything is just dated.  It's more true of tiger sharks than other species.  As for why they swallow metallic objects and electronics
http://www.pelagic.org/overview/articles/sixsense.html
Their reputation may hinge on their jaws, but when it comes to setting records in the animal world, it's not their relative jaw strength that tops the charts - it's their ability to detect electric fields. In fact, sharks are almost as precise as the best physics laboratories in the country when it comes to sensing tiny electric effects. They can use this "sixth sense" to find food and even mates, since all living animals create their own electric fields. When a fish swims, or even moves its gills, it creates a change in the surrounding electric field that sharks can detect with the hundreds of electrically sensitive, gel-filled canals around their heads.
--------------
The metal fools their senses.  They think it's prey.

Quote from: yosemitemike;908660The comment is still there.  It can still be responded to.

Of course and Omega already addressed that. And I responded to it, by pointing which part of the original statement I have trouble with.

QuoteThere are 400 shark species. (...)

Mike, I agree with that.

It's just that it's neither mutually exclusive with my tiger sharks example, nor disproves my counter-claim. And even if it did, there are still animal species outside of shark-kind, and outside of water environment, that aren't very bright when it comes to food choice/acquisition, which contradicts the original statement and which is what I'm talking about here.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908663Of course and Omega already addressed that.

So?  I did as well.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908663It's just that it's neither mutually exclusive with my tiger sharks example, nor disproves my counter-claim. And even if it did, there are still animal species outside of shark-kind, and outside of water environment, that aren't very bright when it comes to food choice/acquisition, which contradicts the original statement and which is what I'm talking about here.

Tiger sharks are a very atypical species with an unusually broad prey range.  Claims don't need to be disproven.  They need to be proven.  That's now burden of proof works.  The evidence we have suggest that sharks are selective unless the environment deteriorates so that they can't be.  Is it absolute proof?  Of course not.  You aren't going to get that in behavioral studies.  However, it is the best evidence available.  that's what we have in the real world.  We make the best theory we can based on the best evidence we have,  

Most large predators are.  All of the ones that have been studied have been.  It's not an intellectual exercise but they have prey selection algorithms based on things like risk vs reward.  Large predators use quite developed prey selection models.  If they failed in the hunt because they chose prey poorly, they died.  They survivors were the ones who had good prey selection strategies.  They survive and pass these on.  However, even very simple predators like gastropods exhibit differential prey selection based on prey selection models.  It's purely simple instinctive behavior but it doesn't take a lot of brain power to hunt based on a simple algorithm.  The ones with effective prey selection models survive and pass on their instincts.  The others don't.

Quote from: yosemitemike;908672So?  I did as well.

The only answer I can give is the same I gave to him.

QuoteTiger sharks are a very atypical species with an unusually broad prey range. (...)

I don't disagree.

Still, there's no contradiction. All I need is one species, one example that proves that not EVERY animal (etc, etc). I find tiger sharks a good example of what I have in mind - an animal that's not very "smart" in its dietary choice. You might say that it doesn't have to be smart, that it's an effect of evolution, specialization, or that external elements influence its behavior, and you're gonna be right about that... But it's not the same discussion.

The point is that tiger sharks are beasts known of being "garbage eaters", willing to swallow just about anything ranging from tires to metal buckets. Which is relatively dumb. And this proves the claim I made.

Then again, tiger sharks are merely first example that came to my mind. I'm sure, given enough time, I could find a better one. :cool:

Quote from: yosemitemike;908672Tiger sharks are a very atypical species with an unusually broad prey range.

So you are saying that their prey range is what gives them niche protection?

Ironically wht is often considered one of, if not the, most intelligent species is also one of the dumbest when it comes to eating.  I refer, of course, to H. sapiens. Humans will eat all sorts of dumb stuff. Just ask poison control or ER workers. Consider that poison warning lables are on products because without them someone might try to eat the stuff. People routinely poison themselves with toxic wild mushrooms, spoiled food, etc. Then there is the ingestion of alcohol in lethal quantities.  And the widespread instances of dietary and nutritional diseases that plague modern society.

Rat poison works because the clever rodents are dumb enough to eat it.

But if a species overall is dumb enough in food selection it will die out.

I am not sure that tiger sharks consuming non-food items is neccesarilly "dumb". It doesn't seem to harm the sharks.

Quote from: Bren;908584You forgot the charge of the Rohirrim at the siege of Gondor. The one where Jackson had them ride their horses straight into and through the prepared polearms of the orcs. Tolkien didn't write it that stupid. And then we have Legolas and the Mumak.  :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:

Oh, there's plenty of examples, I just named one.  Like at Helm's Deep, I was sitting there muttering "Why the hell have you let a hostile army get within twenty yards of your curtain wall?" during the ritual grimicing scene before the battle.

Quote from: Opaopajr;908637The Hobbit log flume ride will forever take this cake.

Am I glad I've never seen any of the "Boggie" movies?

* stations archers to cover the exits *
* fills thread with water *
* releases the tiger sharks *