Quote from: Benoist;413683VERY MUCH this. Quoted for motherfucking truth.

Maybe WotC should have hired Ron Edwards to design and develop 4E, and cut out the middleman (ie. Mearls).  :pundit:

Quote from: Seanchai;413677Badmouth him? I'm doing nothing of the sort. His moderation practices came up again - and not because of my doing - and I responded with calm, accurate statements about his past attempts at moderation. That said attempts are negative are his doing, not mine.

Moreover, your dislike of me doesn't make it "badmouthing."

Finally, isn't it just a tad hypocritical of you to be flinging around that word?

Seanchai

I consider the following:

"It's easy to think he's the bees' knees when you're kissing his ass, but when you actually say things he doesn't like, the mask starts to slip and you begin to understand what actually motivates him."

"Folks can see for themselves how well he reacts to certain stimuli - for example, being told that he didn't actually win his silly war."

... to be badmouthing him, and that's just in this thread. You're almost always badmouthing someone, it's apparently in your nature. That has nothing to do with the specific language you are using, it's about you always seeking to prove him wrong and/or paint him in a bad light... on his website, his forum. Like if someone were to come into your house and point out what a dick you are while relaxing on your couch.

No, it's not hypocritical at all. I've never said I don't badmouth anyone. I just don't badmouth my host. If I didn't like it on this forum I just wouldn't read or post here. Mentioning me is just your textbook tactic of trying to deflect attention from the point anyway, its something you do every time you get called on your bullshit.

Quote from: Sigmund;413679RPG.net mods have no qualms about altering/removing people's posts with alarming frequency, and almost sem to relish banning folks... wielding power for what that's worth.  [...] I don't see Pundit or OHT or anyone else around here wielding the ban-hammer with near the relish or frequency that I've seen at RPG.net, and hell I've never even been a regular there.

I'm not saying this is RPG.net. I just wanted to state my position that I'd rather not see posters banned on these grounds.

Quote from: two_fishes;413670Kicking off with a classic rant from Pundit in his peak mirror-Ron glory, with an extra helping of delusional self-aggrandizing, quickly followed cross-forum drama, sycophancy from his sycophants, detraction from his detractors (with attendent bilious response), a random twit-banning, and side-serving of edition wars, is this the best RPGsite thread ever?

And now arrogant posturing from someone trying to convince everyone they're "above" all this while rolling around in it. Yeah, it's awesome.

Quote from: ggroy;413684Maybe WotC should have hired Ron Edwards to design and develop 4E, and cut out the middleman (ie. Mearls).  :pundit:

Edited my post to basically point out I think the target (Mearls, and yes, I know his original relationship with the Forge nonetheless) is incorrect. It's clear to me someone, somehow, a group of people (I'd personally look more towards Andy Collins, but that's just my gut feeling talking) got influenced by GNS theory when designing the original 4e rules. I agree on the principle. Not all the particulars.

The truth dies 1000 deaths here.

Here's the link:

http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=4024472&postcount=110

"The Forge might be useful. It's the sort of thing that you have to go look at and judge for yourself. I find it a bit too steeped in jargon, but a lot of the end ideas are useful to think about in terms of my work.

There really is no definitive right answer. Just stay curious, inquisitive, and intellectually energetic, and things will come to you. I think the most important thing is to play lots of games with a critical, inquisitive eye."
-Mearls.


(and newsflash here- a lot of those end ideas are useful to think about. Very few of them ever came from Ron Edwards..in the end he was just a self-centered guy with very few original ideas. But he wasn't the only guy on the Forge back then.

It probably should be noted that Mike didn't design 4e, either.

Quote from: Seanchai;413673Are you always this foul-tempered when you lose? Here's the thing: You didn't stand a chance because I'm right about Pundit. I'm right about his moderation practices. I'm right about what motivates him. I know it. He knows it. And now you know it.

Seanchai

I'm always this foultempered, win or lose obviously. You have no idea whether you're right about Pundit. You have no idea who he is. However, it's obvious that I'm right that you're wrong about the fact that the kind of criticism you level at the Pundit on his own forum would not be tolerated on RPG.net, which is the point I've thoroughly made. I'll grant you victory in your strawman argument though, congratulations.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;413603Stop speculating on shit that has clear answers that you could just fucking look up your own fucking self. For fuck's sake.

-Frank

I think it's more probable that there was a groupthink effect at work as well (involving Mearls too, but not solely Mearls), with the R&D team basically engaging in groupthink that backfired when the rubber (4e) hit the road (shelves).

Quote from: Cole;413686I'm not saying this is RPG.net. I just wanted to state my position that I'd rather not see posters banned on these grounds.

I feel ya bro. As I said, I would not have pulled that trigger yet myself, but Cylon had been pushing that envelope for awhile, so i guess I'm not as bothered by it as you are. He did also contribute some decent stuff as well, and I'm guessing probably will again.

Quote from: Benoist;413691I think it's more probable that there was a groupthink effect at work as well (involving Mearls too, but not solely Mearls), with the R&D team basically engaging in groupthink that backfired when the rubber (4e) hit the road (shelves).

Was Heinsoo, Wyatt, and other 4E designers, secretly followers of Forge?

Wonder which person was the "alpha-geek" which had the most sway and veto power in 4E design decisions, in the "design by committee" environment.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;413689The truth dies 1000 deaths here.

Here's the link:

http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=4024472&postcount=110

"The Forge might be useful. It's the sort of thing that you have to go look at and judge for yourself. I find it a bit too steeped in jargon, but a lot of the end ideas are useful to think about in terms of my work.

There really is no definitive right answer. Just stay curious, inquisitive, and intellectually energetic, and things will come to you. I think the most important thing is to play lots of games with a critical, inquisitive eye."
-Mearls.


(and newsflash here- a lot of those end ideas are useful to think about. Very few of them ever came from Ron Edwards..in the end he was just a self-centered guy with very few original ideas. But he wasn't the only guy on the Forge back then.

It probably should be noted that Mike didn't design 4e, either.

Dude, that's the post of his I already linked to.

Quote from: Benoist;413688Edited my post to basically point out I think the target (Mearls, and yes, I know his original relationship with the Forge nonetheless) is incorrect. It's clear to me someone, somehow, a group of people (I'd personally look more towards Andy Collins, but that's just my gut feeling talking) got influenced by GNS theory when designing the original 4e rules. I agree on the principle. Not all the particulars.

I also think this is probably true. While it's common wisdom that the average D&D player pays no attention to all the internet RPG discussion, especially from as marginal a corner as the Forge, the 3e & 4e design & development personnel have been people who are not only versed in, but seem to spend a lot of time on the internet. Given the trend of what the staff around the time of the 3.5 revision considered fun vs. unfun and what was a good vs. a poor approach design, elements of GNS that seemed familiar would turn the whole thing into a discussion topic. And game designers LOVE jargon.

Quote from: ggroy;413693Was Heinsoo, Wyatt, and other 4E designers, secretly followers of Forge?

Wonder which person was the "alpha-geek" which had the most sway and veto power in 4E design decisions, in the "design by committee" environment.

Impossible to tell without having been there in the room during design brainstorms.

I think it's a matter of historical record now. I think that basic ideology considering 4e itself has been defeated.

Quote from: Sigmund;413694Dude, that's the post of his I already linked to.

Yes. And apparently nobody read it. It was being treated as "evidence" sort of after the fact and nobody even bothered to look at what it actually said.

Here's another major alumnus of the Forge (and more frequent participant there as well in the early years): Gareth Hanrahan. He's contributed to everything from Unknown Armies to Mongoose Traveller. Mike was pretty much done with the Gaming Outpost when he started getting his own work published (starting Elevator to the Netherworld in 2000, for Feng Shui, and then a huge run of D20 stuff, which was considered horrifyingly mainstream by the forgies of the period..because it was D20). They may be taking credit for his success now, but back then, he was the first person they turned on for "going corporate". He was also the only person who didn't have to vanity publish his work.

People really do have their own ideas.  While Ron Edwards may have had his followers, he wasn't Voldemort. he doesn't hold an unnatural influence over people.

Quote from: Benoist;413696I think it's a matter of historical record now. I think that basic ideology considering 4e itself has been defeated.

For 5E D&D, wonder if they will drop the forge-isms along with the MMO style stuff.  MMO style stuff like the striker/defender/leader/controller roles, and the power sources (martial, primal, divine, etc ...).