Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 06:57:36 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2022, 01:30:01 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM
I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

Speaking for myself, I haven't participated in any of that, so put that all aside for the moment if you can, and let's see if I can't address a few points from my perspective.

Neither have I. But fuck you, and specifically you, Lunamancer, for implying I did.

No, you never "start" anything... you just seem to consistently read everyone else's comments in the worst possible light so you can justify going on offense against some imagined insult the one who "started it" probably never even intended.

You also seem to go right to insults when you feel you've been slighted, which just shuts down communication, instead of trying to get confirmation of whether what they said should really have been taken that way or not. So, basically, you always escalate what may have been a misunderstanding into a fight.

The above is a prime example, Lunamancer didn't even mention you, but you assume he's implying you're being obnoxious by his silence and then insult him for an insult he probably didn't even intend to make towards you.

Because Lunamancer "started it."

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 07:46:01 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 06:56:30 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 08:47:55 PMAh yes, you're just speaking the Truth. That excuses your miserable behavior!

I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

I said I disliked the community. I defended its right to be itself and gatekeep its preferences (in this thread even). But I also said that its fans put the game on a pedestal and are immensly rejective of any sort of critique (in a way full of rationalized double standards), while absolutely caustic to things they dislike.

I also think the core system is unintuitive and full of mechanical warts that are only intuitive to the people that grew up with the game.

The game is an absolute rorschach test. And what bothers me is that its defenders can say completly contridictory information in its defense but not engage in argumentation over said defense as long as its in praise of the game.

Tough. I never initiate anything, but I do respond in kind.

Dude, you get bitchy and jump at people for perceived slights all the time, often accusing them of shit they didn't do, while getting bent out of shape if they even phrase something in such a way that may potentially (but not even necessarily), from some twisted point of view, appear to mischaracterize or deviate in phrasing (but not in essence) from something that you said, even as you mischaracterize and level mostly or entirely unfounded accusations at them. Often even adding things/interpretations that aren't even there (then it goes on, and on, and on for a bunch of pages, like this discussion has gone so far).

Case in point...

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 06:57:36 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2022, 01:30:01 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM
I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

Speaking for myself, I haven't participated in any of that, so put that all aside for the moment if you can, and let's see if I can't address a few points from my perspective.

Neither have I. But fuck you, and specifically you, Lunamancer, for implying I did.

Where did Lunamancer mention you, or anyone else for that matter--or even imply that people who fit what Shrieking Banshee was saying actually did exist? As opposed to simply stating that didn't apply to him personally and asking Banshee to "put that aside" as a rhetorical device to try to reason with him?

But instead you have to get pissy and see personal attacks that aren't there, then attack Lunamancer for tossing imaginary dust your way.

Did you miss the "I haven't participated in that"? Lunamancer went out the way to quote the section where SB made a series of completely unfounded personal attacks against me, just to say they weren't like that (me). Now unlike you or SB, I'm pretty sure that Lunamancer didn't intend it that way. But it was still a shitty thing to do.

And hey, more general and completely unfounded attacks from you. Hey, keep on being a dishonest pissy bitch. It's your trademark.

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMBX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

I'm not sure WoD quite applies as "race as class", since it's a mostly classless, skill-based system and every "game" (at least in the older books, haven't read any recent stuff) allows you to play only one "race", though, it goes into great depths about various "subraces" (so to speak) within that core "race" and special powers and abilities tied to those races or subraces. It's a different style of how D&D handles "race as class", and pretty much all "races" in WoD have access to the same skill sets. Everyone can be a "fighter", for example, if they focus on combat skills, or a "rogue" if they focus on sneaky stuff, etc. The main distinction is magic and special powers, which tends to be "race" specific, or based on the human "classes", like Mages, being an Aberrant super and stuff.

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMYes its missing skills. Guess what? Alot of us could care less and lack of the Great God Skill System others so worship is a boon, not a bane. Whereas with other games like say Star Frontiers its the backbone of a character and what helps define them. Without it the game would be not as great. And then there are other games where there are way way way too many fucking skills. Do we really need a skill for "pick up stuff off the ground"? Someone out there thought so!

I worship at the altar of Skillz, but this is a common issue with many skill-based systems, where they go to ridiculous depths outlining overly long and specific skill lists that often deal with tiny variations or specializations of essentially the same type of activity, such as fighting, social interaction, book-knowledge, etc. Which then tends to create a bunch of issues both, from a mechanical point of view (many skills do essentially the same thing, but if you don't have the exact skill you're as bad as someone who doesn't even have related talents; among other issues) as well as character creation/progression PoV (players get stuck in analysis paralysis trying to pick from huge lists or figuring out how to budget their limited points across different, but sometimes similar skills, etc.).

I've often said that skill-based games should focus on general/broad skills, and handle specifics as specializations that grant an extra bonus on top, or unlock extra capabilities tied to a core skill (like for example, adding new languages on top of a universal "Linguistics" skills used for language-related rolls, or specific type of tech you can use or build tied to a universal "Technology" skill, etc.).

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2022, 07:54:47 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 06:57:36 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2022, 01:30:01 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM
I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

Speaking for myself, I haven't participated in any of that, so put that all aside for the moment if you can, and let's see if I can't address a few points from my perspective.

Neither have I. But fuck you, and specifically you, Lunamancer, for implying I did.

No, you never "start" anything... you just seem to consistently read everyone else's comments in the worst possible light so you can justify going on offense against some imagined insult the one who "started it" probably never even intended.

You also seem to go right to insults when you feel you've been slighted, which just shuts down communication, instead of trying to get confirmation of whether what they said should really have been taken that way or not. So, basically, you always escalate what may have been a misunderstanding into a fight.

The above is a prime example, Lunamancer didn't even mention you, but you assume he's implying you're being obnoxious by his silence and then insult him for an insult he probably didn't even intend to make towards you.

Because Lunamancer "started it."

Lunamancer quoted a piece where SB made a series of nasty attacks against me, just to say they weren't a part of that. They could have said they had no opinion on the topic, or said they disagree with the nasty shit being slung around by your buddy, but they didn't. At the very least, that's a tacit reaffirmation. Like I said before, I don't think it was intentional. But doesn't change the clear reading.

I've stopped trying to be nice all the time. This isn't the board for it, it simply doesn't work. Because I used to extend every possible courtesy, and never responded with attacks even after I had been attacked constantly for dozens of pages. And all that happened was I got attacked relentlessly for it. But you'll notice I always respond proportionally. I never attack or insult someone, unless they attack or insult me first. If they stop attacking or insulting me, I immediately stop it as well. And unless they start randomly attacking me in unrelated threads, I'll keep the conflict in the original thread, and won't carry it over to other unrelated threads. It's also almost impossible to get me to carry a grudge. If I respond to them in another thread, I'll do so civilly. If they're the one who responds civilly in another thread, I'll respond civilly as well. And I always give thought out answers, even in response to attacks. And yet you're pretending that makes this my fault? For that, you deserve a fuck you. Because guess what? Blaming someone for being attacked is an attack.

And you'll notice I make direct attacks. You know why? Because I believe in treating people, even people who have behaved abominably, with a basic modicum of respect. I will not play these passive aggressive games. I don't make vague insinuations, I won't make group attacks and then try to pretend I wasn't attacking all the members of the group, and I won't make a list of claims about specific traits without specific quotes or reference. Instead, I'll use general insults, or I'll specifically point out where someone (for instance) was dishonest. Because I believe, very strongly, that you should be upfront and straight with someone, when you disagree or have a problem with them. It's these "I'm not touching you" insults that SB and VS have been engaged in that are truly toxic.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

But you know that, you're just being a pissy bitch again.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:08:27 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMBX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

I'm not sure WoD quite applies as "race as class", since it's a mostly classless, skill-based system and every "game" (at least in the older books, haven't read any recent stuff) allows you to play only one "race", though, it goes into great depths about various "subraces" (so to speak) within that core "race" and special powers and abilities tied to those races or subraces. It's a different style of how D&D handles "race as class", and pretty much all "races" in WoD have access to the same skill sets. Everyone can be a "fighter", for example, if they focus on combat skills, or a "rogue" if they focus on sneaky stuff, etc. The main distinction is magic and special powers, which tends to be "race" specific, or based on the human "classes", like Mages, being an Aberrant super and stuff.

Right. But every "class" in like 75% of WOD products is some race or quite often a sub-race as it were with a particular set of skills and powers they can and can not access. Just like BX, only magnified massively. And done quite well too. I may have a very big axe to grind with WW. But I do like the overall system. Especially when used well like with Aberrant which was the first WW game that I actually really grasped and that helped better grasp their other games.

Quote from: Omega on March 01, 2022, 08:54:35 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:08:27 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMBX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

I'm not sure WoD quite applies as "race as class", since it's a mostly classless, skill-based system and every "game" (at least in the older books, haven't read any recent stuff) allows you to play only one "race", though, it goes into great depths about various "subraces" (so to speak) within that core "race" and special powers and abilities tied to those races or subraces. It's a different style of how D&D handles "race as class", and pretty much all "races" in WoD have access to the same skill sets. Everyone can be a "fighter", for example, if they focus on combat skills, or a "rogue" if they focus on sneaky stuff, etc. The main distinction is magic and special powers, which tends to be "race" specific, or based on the human "classes", like Mages, being an Aberrant super and stuff.

Right. But every "class" in like 75% of WOD products is some race or quite often a sub-race as it were with a particular set of skills and powers they can and can not access. Just like BX, only magnified massively. And done quite well too. I may have a very big axe to grind with WW. But I do like the overall system. Especially when used well like with Aberrant which was the first WW game that I actually really grasped and that helped better grasp their other games.

I'm curious, how would you adapt that to B/X?

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

Quote from: Omega on March 01, 2022, 08:54:35 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:08:27 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMBX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

I'm not sure WoD quite applies as "race as class", since it's a mostly classless, skill-based system and every "game" (at least in the older books, haven't read any recent stuff) allows you to play only one "race", though, it goes into great depths about various "subraces" (so to speak) within that core "race" and special powers and abilities tied to those races or subraces. It's a different style of how D&D handles "race as class", and pretty much all "races" in WoD have access to the same skill sets. Everyone can be a "fighter", for example, if they focus on combat skills, or a "rogue" if they focus on sneaky stuff, etc. The main distinction is magic and special powers, which tends to be "race" specific, or based on the human "classes", like Mages, being an Aberrant super and stuff.

Right. But every "class" in like 75% of WOD products is some race or quite often a sub-race as it were with a particular set of skills and powers they can and can not access. Just like BX, only magnified massively. And done quite well too. I may have a very big axe to grind with WW. But I do like the overall system. Especially when used well like with Aberrant which was the first WW game that I actually really grasped and that helped better grasp their other games.

Yeah, a lot of the "subraces" and related stuff, like Auspices for Werewolf and such are kinda like race-specific classes now that you mention it. So there is an element of that. Though, it's somewhat mitigated by the fact that a lot of the action is handled by skills. But it is a special case, since each book is heavily focused on each "race" as a separate game. So it goes into great depths with them.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

In the name of de-escalation il admit to being wrong by coming into the thread with hyperbole and a lack of more specific arguments. It was inflammatory.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 09:13:30 AM
In the name of de-escalation il admit to being wrong by coming into the thread with hyperbole and a lack of more specific arguments. It was inflammatory.

I respect any attempt at deescalation.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense.