Quote from: VectorSigma;545409And, apparently, waggle your thumbs at the big cats and shout "You haven't got 'em, dumbass!", then feel really good about yourself.

Actually, I find my visits to be somewhat depressing.

Back in the 90s there were of wealth of people to talk to online, both similar and disimilar to myself. Ad hominem was limited to basically the rare troll. And disagreements were doorways to learning new things.

Now each time I find fewer people able to debate something on its merits, more common and intense ad hominem, less and less sophicated gaming styles, and fewer old friends as these same factors drive them away.


I've looking for the bottom of the cycle for all cycles have a bottom, and I haven't found it yet. I'm beginning to dread what it looks like.

Quote from: gleichman;545412Back in the 90s there were of wealth of people to talk to online, both similar and disimilar to myself. Ad hominem was limited to basically the rare troll. And disagreements were doorways to learning new things.

Now each time I find fewer people able to debate something on its merits, more common and intense ad hominem, less and less sophicated gaming styles, and fewer old friends as these same factors drive them away.

Let me give you a piece of wisdom my wife recently gave me:
"People aren't getting dumber or crazier; you're just getting older, with all that entails."

Quote from: gleichman;545412Actually, I find my visits to be somewhat depressing.

So do we.

QuoteBack in the 90s there were of wealth of people to talk to online, both similar and disimilar to myself. Ad hominem was limited to basically the rare troll. And disagreements were doorways to learning new things.

This is unalloyed bullshit.

QuoteNow each time I find fewer people able to debate something on its merits, more common and intense ad hominem, less and less sophicated gaming styles, and fewer old friends as these same factors drive them away.

Also complete bullshit.  I do like how you bemoan ad hominem, then finish that thought with a broadsides ad hominem on everyone.  Stay classy, you special snowflake.

QuoteI've looking for the bottom of the cycle for all cycles have a bottom, and I haven't found it yet. I'm beginning to dread what it looks like.

It resembles Gleichman returning to shit up the forums...

Ohhhhhhh.

Quote from: gleichman;545408Nope.

I remember clearly.

Your conversation showed no interest in any of the following:

1)Whether there was an actual correlation between preference for ad/disad and preference for gridless/mapless.

2)Whether there was an actual correlation between the reasons for these preferences.

3)What the reasons for these preferences actually were.

Otherwise you might have found out (for example) that I am nonplussed by ad/disad for the same reason I prefer mapless/gridless: Because online play makes tracking modifiers a nonissue.

The reality is that you didn't actually ask though, and your conversations with others followed a similar pattern. You failed to show either interest in or understanding of the positions of others, which is what the quoted post claimed was the purpose of the conversation. In response to Marleycat asking what any of this has to do with 5e. It sure looks like you forgot what she asked, as you didn't answer her question either.

Quote from: gleichman;545406People with my gaming style rarely post online IMO. In the dozens of people who played in and enjoyed my games- I'm the only one that does. And over the years, I've only met a handful online who actually understand my style of play.

As John Morrow said years ago in rec.games.frp.advocacy (paraphrasing and using an old Threefold term), "Gamists seem to be playing games, not talking about them online."


In my case, I pick up the online habit pre-web internet as a techie, and it carried over.

There are plenty of gamists posting online, just not here. Go to enworld and you are likely to find more gamists than immersionists.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545424There are plenty of gamists posting online, just not here. Go to enworld and you are likely to find more gamists than immersionists.

What part of "I don't have any interest in D&D" did you not understand?

Quote from: gleichman;545430What part of "I don't have any interest in D&D" did you not understand?

The part where you post dozens of time in a thread about D&D?

Quote from: beejazz;545423Your conversation showed no interest in any of the following:

I got my answers, or at least my answers for those posters I was interesting in getting them from.

Quote from: Aos;545432The part where you post dozens of time in a thread about D&D?

I was posting in answer to the concept of "mother my I", and have said a number of times that I have no interest D&D- only that concept which is a much wider issue.

Does no one here actually read the posts?

Quote from: gleichman;545434Does no one here actually read the posts?

Where's the fun in that?

Quote from: gleichman;545433I got my answers, or at least my answers for those posters I was interesting in getting them from.

Could've fooled me.
Also, you purported interest in a trend (a correlation between two preferences) but are only interested in the responses of specific individuals? So you're deliberately limiting your sample size? Seems like a great way to size up a trend. Please tell us more about what any of this has to do with 5e.

Quote from: beejazz;545438Could've fooled me.
Also, you purported interest in a trend (a correlation between two preferences) but are only interested in the responses of specific individuals.

?

Yes, to the people who have posted in reply to this thread. Not very useful, but a nice time killer.

Quote from: beejazz;545438Please tell us more about what any of this has to do with 5e.

another person who doesn't read posts.

I have no interest in 5e, only in the 'Mother My I' concept.

Quote from: gleichman;544598People are prone to poor judgement. They are really bad with numbers and games like D&D are in the end about numbers. This is a fact that any psy 101 course will cover.

Yep. This is why I am very partial to using visual aids.

Quote from: John Morrow;545167I'm willing to tolerate a fairly high level of abstraction in combat because I think speed is also a form of realism.  That said, when I hear people saying that they find most combat boring and want it to be over very quickly, I find myself wondering why they don't just have less combat.  And maybe with less combat, there wouldn't also be a perceived need to have characters heal fully overnight as an added bonus.  It seems rather odd that there are people who seem to want to sprinkle combat generously throughout their games but don't want it to mean anything -- wanting it to be over quickly, to involve few if any meaningful tactical decisions, and the consequences to be magically healed away as if they've never happened.  What's the point of what's left?

Bravo, sir. Well said.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545339I think people naturally slow down when the grid comes out. But yes, set up takes time. Placement of terrain or mark up takes time. Calculating things like blast radiuses on the board take time. People figuring out where they move takes time. I am sure there is more i am just not observing but i know from my own experience it takes longer. I thinkthe simple fact you have a bird'seye view leads peopoe to assess more, wheras with theatervof the mind, you just say what you do and roll (i scramble up te hill and ready my bow). I do like some of BV's suggestions though to retain the chaotic feel of battle.

Doesn't this imply that players in a verbal-only are taking a lot less into consideration when they make their decisions?  For example, instead of looking at all the possible places they could move, which could easily lead to a "20 Questions" scenario in a verbal-only situation, do they simply just pick the most obvious such as "I run up to [monster] and attack"?  In other words, doesn't the fact that they are assessing a lot less before making a choice imply that their tactics are correspondingly more simplistic?  And that would mean that much of the speed increase comes from simplifying the choices of the player, correct?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;545339Again though for me it largely comes down to feel. Theater of the mind has just always felt more like a real fight to me than moving guys on a grid. Speed is one aspect of that, but not the only factor.

While I understand that the map grid can consume one's attention, I think it can be difficult to convey a complex situation verbally.  And my concern is that the speed improvement that people are claiming are coming at the expense of detail because for anything but the most simple of scenes, a picture should be worth a thousand words.  Consider why most published adventures include dungeon maps, for example, instead of text-only descriptions of the environment.  As for feeling more real, what I'd like to understand is why people find the grid distracting, which might allow people to control the problem without throwing the tool out entirely.

I really want to give you the benefit of doubt Gleichman but your attitude stinks thereby making it painfully easy for me to assume you're less than relevant, pretty much like BT most times.

You're in the wrong thread and you know it so I figure you like the drama like any other threadshitter that's purposely fucking this thread up with a topic that has no business being discussed on said thread.

I should just put you on IL and save myself the trouble of losing the last shred of respect I have for you but I'm believer in the basic good in people, even you.