Quote from: BadApple on December 05, 2023, 06:23:11 PM
Please don't be offended on our behalf.  It undermines us and our efforts to find social equilibrium.

I'm not doing anything on your behalf.  I'm an advocate for this topic on account of the harm the government inflicted on my family.  As an aside, if anyone needs to go to war with the US Public School System, I may be able to help, just ask.

I mean, you're on an internet forum.  Someone who argues the same thing and is overly persistent and emotional is a "faggot", someone who says something another person thinks is dumb is a "retard", and someone who is overly technical and goes into great detail to prove a point is an "autist".  If someone instead takes their "autistic" rant up to incredible rhetoric, they are "sperging out" (this is based on Aspergers).

People who generally avoid the first two will still use the third because, even though it's a slur based on an immutable characteristic, it's not meant (or usually taken) in a universally negative fashion.

You are, of course, well within your rights to find the term used in this fashion offensive, even if the poster may not have meant it in such a fashion.  It's still basically being used as a slur, obviously.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 05, 2023, 05:21:24 PM

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 04:19:03 PM
Jesus...how many fucking autists are on this board?

And no offense to GeekyBugle who is self-admittedly autistic but realizes it and makes some attempt to understand hyperbole and nuance.

Casually labeling someone as autistic as an argument tactic demonstrates a deep, deep lack of understanding of autism.  This is a condition that affects 1 in 36 children in the U.S. and those families bear significant burdens with little, if any, social support.

Maybe next time you just argue better instead?  We've known since at least the 90s that it's not difficult to avoid referencing the Nazis during an argument.  There are entire YouTube series on framing, argument construction, and fallacies.  Give it maybe an hour and see if it helps?

Do you extend your ring finger and pinky when you drink from a tea cup, or just the pinky?

Quote from: Brad on December 05, 2023, 09:19:36 PM
Do you extend your ring finger and pinky when you drink from a tea cup, or just the pinky?

When dealing with you, seems I'd only need the middle.

Quote from: Venka on December 05, 2023, 04:00:29 AM
I doubt it.

I really don't care. I've had this conversation too many times with ADDICT adherents, one by one pointing out the assertions without citations, citations that don't match what's claimed, and cases that were completely missed by ADDICT. And it doesn't go anywhere. Not once has any of them ever had any sort of counter argument at all. Just name-calling and denial.

The most recent case was with a player in DM Prata's group. And his responses went from, "You have no idea what you're talking about," to "Nuh uh" to "Obviously you don't know how to read," to "I'm traveling and don't have my books with me at the moment." By the way, this was several months ago, and I still haven't heard back on this. I hope he made it safely back home to his books.

As far as I'm concerned, this is 100% settled. ADDICT, while being mostly accurate, does have serious errors and is not a reliable authority on 1E RAW initiative, and nobody has disputed that with any substance at all. So I'm not here to argue it with you. The debate was already over on this. I'm just letting you know what is. If you prefer to not believe what's true, that's your choice. For anyone out there who is actually honest and demands proof, the ADDICT and the 1E manuals are out there, and everyone is free to check for themselves without anyone trying to tell them what to think.

QuoteThis may be about the casting starting at 0 or whatever,

It's not at all.

Quotebut there's examples that ADDICT based this off of.  You can still find the old dragonsfoot threads where ADDICT evolved.

Is that the thread where practically the very day after DM Prata had this all figured out, then one answer from Gary to one of his questions had him saying (paraphrasing) "Yesterday, I thought I understood initiative, now I have no idea."?

Another one of my all-time favorites on DF is the proof that missile attacks are at 30x rate during surprise in which the email from Gary that supposedly proves it has Gary saying (paraphrasing) "That's possible but unlikely."

It is hilarious what you can find following the breadcrumb trail of things the hivemind holds as true and sacred. But you actually have to put in the effort to check.

QuoteWait, are you ONE of them? This is an argument from received knowledge basically.

Learning from actually doing is the exact polar opposite to this. On the spectrum in between, talking about it on internet forums and believing some dude just because he's got citations even though you've never actually bothered to check for yourself is a good 80% of the way to argument from received knowledge.

QuoteI just know if I pulled out a dagger against The Accursed Blacksmith who has some incredibly slow weapon, hoping we'd tie on initiative so I could get like triple attack combo on him, I'd be pretty mad if that didn't work (the multiattack is in the book)- given that I'd be finding that out at that very second and not before.  If my DM thought that whole section was munchkin bullshit I wouldn't be mad until I had fully committed to the actual action, got the 1/6 chance of the flurry of stabs, and found out I got robbed.  That's why I'd want to know it ahead of time.

That's really interesting. Off-loading the obvious criticisms, getting mad over a game, using out of character knowledge, and the fact that the rules as written say the DM gets to make this call so it's not possible to form a consistent argument from RAW against it, there's a really big problem with what you're saying here even if I accept your premises.

How do you know the weapon the blacksmith is using actually is slow enough to entitle you 3 attacks with a dagger on tied initiative? I mean, can you actually list out all the possible weapons that would allow you to do that? For the sake of expediency, I'll save you the trouble. Only one weapon has a weapon speed high enough for a dagger to get a triple attack on a tied initiative. That would be the awl pike. And by the rules, the awl pike is useless when not used in conjunction with other pikemen.

There is literally no way in the scenario you describe that the triple attack rule would ever be applicable according to the very rules you cite. This is not a "Ha ha, I proved you wrong on this minor detail." If this rule is so important to you that you freely announce you'll get mad if you committed to the act, got tied initiative, and didn't get 3 attacks, I really have to ask why didn't you know this? Surely if you're ever going to consider using the dagger rather than your sword, you HAVE to know what situations that would be advantageous in. An actual player who really cares about this stuff can't not know. But you somehow didn't.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 05, 2023, 09:02:55 AM

I always push back against these ideas when I see them:

1) Gygax made D&D.  (He assembled it.)

Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

Quote from: Omega on December 06, 2023, 04:56:19 AM
Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

No, look, there's a difference between making a car and merely assembling it. If you MAKE A CAR it means you literally have to smelt the iron and pour it into moulds and cool it to form an engine block. Assembling a car means you use a crate 350 SBC and just jam it into an old Nova that you pieced together from the junkyard. You didn't MAKE anything, you just took existing parts and assembled it into a car then sold it! The guy who created an engine but had no marketing skills nor any ability to sell the engine alone is the real creator! You owe him everything!

Taking a bunch of ideas and forming a coherent game from them is just as much "making" as coming up with an idea yourself. Further, Arneson was just doing a new form of Braunstein, wasn't he? Further, by all accounts he fucking sucked as a writer, so there was zero way he could have ever published D&D, much less wrote it in the first place.

Quote from: Brad on December 06, 2023, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 06, 2023, 04:56:19 AM
Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

No, look, there's a difference between making a car and merely assembling it. If you MAKE A CAR it means you literally have to smelt the iron and pour it into moulds and cool it to form an engine block. Assembling a car means you use a crate 350 SBC and just jam it into an old Nova that you pieced together from the junkyard. You didn't MAKE anything, you just took existing parts and assembled it into a car then sold it! The guy who created an engine but had no marketing skills nor any ability to sell the engine alone is the real creator! You owe him everything!

Taking a bunch of ideas and forming a coherent game from them is just as much "making" as coming up with an idea yourself. Further, Arneson was just doing a new form of Braunstein, wasn't he? Further, by all accounts he fucking sucked as a writer, so there was zero way he could have ever published D&D, much less wrote it in the first place.

If this is your definition, then no one makes a car.  A smelting foundry smelts the iron, a casting foundry casts the engine block casting, a machine shop machines the casting into an engine block, and assembly plant assembles the engine, and an auto factory assembles the final car.  At least three different companies were involved in this described process.  Who built the car?

Multiple people had inputs in creating D&D, no honest person disputes this.  It didn't just get drawn from the ether of ideas by one person.  But just like a Ford Bronco, who gets the credit for building it?  Gary Gygax gets credit because he's the one who codified it and made all the different pieces fit together. 

If there was a Microsoft stealing Windows moment, then history needs to to corrected.  Otherwise, Gary gets the crown and everyone else gets a silver.

Quote from: Omega on December 06, 2023, 04:56:19 AM
Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

They weren't all his ideas.  Hit points and armor class came from a naval combat game, for example.

But yes, very common to crib ideas in gaming, even today.  Though attitudes on giving credit have changed, I think.

Quote from: BadApple on December 06, 2023, 06:49:41 AM
If there was a Microsoft stealing Windows moment, then history needs to to corrected.  Otherwise, Gary gets the crown and everyone else gets a silver.

I don't think it's plagiarism, nor have I heard it characterized that way.

I think it's more of a 'Xerox invented the mouse' moment.  Most of the GUIs we all rely on today wouldn't exist without that idea.  Would touchscreens have evolved independently?  Probably.  The concept of touching the screen is far more natural.  But they didn't.  They all started out as mouse replacements because the mouse is integral to UI design.  So Xerox's idea deserves a LOT of credit for modern UI.  They seldom ever get that credit though.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 06, 2023, 08:06:07 AM

Quote from: BadApple on December 06, 2023, 06:49:41 AM
If there was a Microsoft stealing Windows moment, then history needs to to corrected.  Otherwise, Gary gets the crown and everyone else gets a silver.

I don't think it's plagiarism, nor have I heard it characterized that way.

I think it's more of a 'Xerox invented the mouse' moment.  Most of the GUIs we all rely on today wouldn't exist without that idea.  Would touchscreens have evolved independently?  Probably.  The concept of touching the screen is far more natural.  But they didn't.  They all started out as mouse replacements because the mouse is integral to UI design.  So Xerox's idea deserves a LOT of credit for modern UI.  They seldom ever get that credit though.

Apple brought the mouse to the public and Microsoft brought the GUI to the public so they will forever be known for these things. 

To follow through with the allegory, Gary Gygax is the one who brought role playing to the public.  He also made technical contributions to D&D  and he understood how various ideas that were going to work together.

If it were me, I'd be less worried about credit and more interested in my cut of royalties.

Quote from: BadApple on December 06, 2023, 09:02:51 AM
If it were me, I'd be less worried about credit and more interested in my cut of royalties.

That depends very much on the context of the conversation.

In this original case, take Rule Zero.  Was that even Gary's idea?  Was he actually authoritative on it?  It matters if you're trying to use an Appeal to Authority - which, by the way, is not always a fallacy, particularly when the source is the actual authority.

I think probably he was authoritative, but the fact that he contradicts himself in a place or two does leave room for doubt.  Pundits video resolves that (rules for tournament play, etc) well enough for me, but I wouldn't dispute other opinions on the matter.  There's probably zero surviving evidence you can trust anyway.

Creators tend to be like this, by the way.  George Lucas has told a huge number of self-serving half-truths about his creative process over the years, taking credit for a lot of stuff that other people actually did.  Honestly Martha Lucas is probably the true reason we have a Star Wars franchise at all.  But I digress.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 06, 2023, 09:23:32 AM

Quote from: BadApple on December 06, 2023, 09:02:51 AM
If it were me, I'd be less worried about credit and more interested in my cut of royalties.

That depends very much on the context of the conversation.

In this original case, take Rule Zero.  Was that even Gary's idea?  Was he actually authoritative on it?  It matters if you're trying to use an Appeal to Authority - which, by the way, is not always a fallacy, particularly when the source is the actual authority.

I think probably he was authoritative, but the fact that he contradicts himself in a place or two does leave room for doubt.  Pundits video resolves that (rules for tournament play, etc) well enough for me, but I wouldn't dispute other opinions on the matter.  There's probably zero surviving evidence you can trust anyway.

Creators tend to be like this, by the way.  George Lucas has told a huge number of self-serving half-truths about his creative process over the years, taking credit for a lot of stuff that other people actually did.  Honestly Martha Lucas is probably the true reason we have a Star Wars franchise at all.  But I digress.

The whole rules for tournament play about AD&D are are actually in the DMG. There is a whole explanatory section on needing standardized rules for competitive play and that in campaign play things could be very different depending on the desires of the participants.

Quote from: Brad on December 06, 2023, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 06, 2023, 04:56:19 AM
Actually according to others there at the time. Gygax combined his ideas and Arnesons oft sketchy notes and filled in the blanks to get OD&D.

This is actually not uncommon in board gaming for example.

No, look, there's a difference between making a car and merely assembling it. If you MAKE A CAR it means you literally have to smelt the iron and pour it into moulds and cool it to form an engine block. Assembling a car means you use a crate 350 SBC and just jam it into an old Nova that you pieced together from the junkyard. You didn't MAKE anything, you just took existing parts and assembled it into a car then sold it! The guy who created an engine but had no marketing skills nor any ability to sell the engine alone is the real creator! You owe him everything!

Taking a bunch of ideas and forming a coherent game from them is just as much "making" as coming up with an idea yourself. Further, Arneson was just doing a new form of Braunstein, wasn't he? Further, by all accounts he fucking sucked as a writer, so there was zero way he could have ever published D&D, much less wrote it in the first place.

This negates all inventions but a few like the simple machines (screw, inclined plane, etc), since EVERYTHING builds on stuff others made.

Take the Car, who invented the combustion engine? It builds on several other inventions that precede it.
The Wheel? No car company EVER invented that.
And so on and so forth with EVERY single thing that was used to build the first automobiles, so no one invented the automobile.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 06, 2023, 01:59:57 PM
This negates all inventions but a few like the simple machines (screw, inclined plane, etc), since EVERYTHING builds on stuff others made.

Yes and no.  D&D wasn't an innovation in the way you're implying.  It's more of a unique type of car.  They took parts from a Ford, a Chevy, a Volkswagen, etc, and used a welder to put them together.  The first iteration was pretty janky.  They improved it one version at a time, with varying degrees of success.

But make no mistake, some of those rules were just wholesale lifts from other things.