Gygax was an authority on game design.  What he designed with mostly cosmetic changes, is still here, selling well.  What he was terrible at was business, no argument there.  But to go back and pick over mistakes he made in failed games after D&D or design changes he "should have made" when he is literally the only reason anyone here is posting, is a bit....off.   I did not like everything he did, and AD&D was a mess.  Inventing something new is a lot harder than streamlining or engineering a proven design.

Quote from: Brad;1135080

Quote from: Itachi1) Constant fighting for playstyles or gatekeeping.

I'm burned out on people claiming that advocating a playstyle is "fighting". Also, anyone who insists "gatekeeping" is a..

Thanks for your insight.

Quote from: Brad;1135080I'm burned out on people claiming that advocating a playstyle is "fighting". Also, anyone who insists "gatekeeping" is a thing because someone doesn't want to play with them.

I mean, "gatekeeping" isn't inherently bad either. I find most arguments where people invoke the concept and accuse someone of doing it are usually just appeals to popularity (5e is the best because its player so much, and you're dumb for not liking it) or strawmen (you're just a grognard, incel, boomer, etc.). Discussion about what playstyles you prefer, when done in good faith, I can't see anything wrong with that.

Quote from: Itachi;1135083Thanks for your insight.

You're welcome!

Quote from: ZetaRidley;1135089I mean, "gatekeeping" isn't inherently bad either. I find most arguments where people invoke the concept and accuse someone of doing it are usually just appeals to popularity (5e is the best because its player so much, and you're dumb for not liking it) or strawmen (you're just a grognard, incel, boomer, etc.). Discussion about what playstyles you prefer, when done in good faith, I can't see anything wrong with that.

My whole issue with this gatekeeping crap is that it implies you're somehow keeping people from playing D&D if you don't want them in your game. Yeah, so what? Make your own fucking group. When I was younger, there was a lot of "gatekeeping" from the older kids who didn't want some of us to play with them because they were SERIOUS about their campaigns. And looking back, they were right: they were running dark shit with lots of assassins and demons and whatever, my group had fucking X-wing fighters and dudes beating the shit out of each other with talking clubs. That's no different than telling some girl who dresses up like a cat she's not welcome at your table because you really don't want to shoehorn some dumbass feline-humanoid thing into the campaign you've been running for the past ten years.

I gate keep all the time when I make decisions on who I want to invite into my home. I, personally, am not there to "make as many people as possible comfortable". If I invite you over, I'll do my best. If I decide not to, fuck off.

Quote from: Brad;1135091My whole issue with this gatekeeping crap is that it implies you're somehow keeping people from playing D&D if you don't want them in your game. Yeah, so what? Make your own fucking group. When I was younger, there was a lot of "gatekeeping" from the older kids who didn't want some of us to play with them because they were SERIOUS about their campaigns. And looking back, they were right: they were running dark shit with lots of assassins and demons and whatever, my group had fucking X-wing fighters and dudes beating the shit out of each other with talking clubs. That's no different than telling some girl who dresses up like a cat she's not welcome at your table because you really don't want to shoehorn some dumbass feline-humanoid thing into the campaign you've been running for the past ten years.

This is basically right, and what I agree with. More often than not, groups fall apart because its a bunch of people that all want different things. That's why noobs have such a hard time with their early groups, I think. That and the society and the culture war as of late has this idea that we all can get along and be able to do anything with anyone else. Yeah, no way. You are never going to mesh with every person you meet, its not going to happen.

Quote from: SavageSchemer;1135092I gate keep all the time when I make decisions on who I want to invite into my home. I, personally, am not there to "make as many people as possible comfortable". If I invite you over, I'll do my best. If I decide not to, fuck off.

Yeah. I've kicked people out before from games and what not, so I get this. I don't owe anyone anything, and vice versa.

Further, I really don't think gatekeeping is a bad thing. It can be. But, without proper criticism and analysis, the unwashed masses on the internet would declare harry potter the be-all of literature. There is a reason why literary, film, culture criticism exists, and it definitely has merit. Now, being a dick about your opinion, rather than having a discussion, that's the difference.

Min-maxers. I'm just fed up with them. They turn the whole situation into an arms race that the GM is forced to keep up with. And frankly, it is tiring to put up with their bullying need to make the game group bow to them.

It's a group activity. Don't want to play like it is? Then there is the door!

I have gotten too old to put up with bad players. And that's what min-maxers are. BAD PLAYERS!

Quote from: oggsmash;1135082Gygax was an authority on game design.  What he designed with mostly cosmetic changes, is still here, selling well.  What he was terrible at was business, no argument there.  But to go back and pick over mistakes he made in failed games after D&D or design changes he "should have made" when he is literally the only reason anyone here is posting, is a bit....off.   I did not like everything he did, and AD&D was a mess.  Inventing something new is a lot harder than streamlining or engineering a proven design.

His fingerprints are still all over D&D.  The game has undergone many changes, but we still roll a d20 to hit the armor class of monsters which have been in the game for over 40 years.  A tip of the hat to Arneson too.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135118Min-maxers. I'm just fed up with them. They turn the whole situation into an arms race that the GM is forced to keep up with. And frankly, it is tiring to put up with their bullying need to make the game group bow to them.

It's a group activity. Don't want to play like it is? Then there is the door!

I have gotten too old to put up with bad players. And that's what min-maxers are. BAD PLAYERS!

Stop gatekeeping.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135118Min-maxers. I'm just fed up with them. They turn the whole situation into an arms race that the GM is forced to keep up with. And frankly, it is tiring to put up with their bullying need to make the game group bow to them.

It's a group activity. Don't want to play like it is? Then there is the door!

I have gotten too old to put up with bad players. And that's what min-maxers are. BAD PLAYERS!

I'm sure that people of superior intellect must seem threatening to those with lesser minds, but the game was turned into an arms race by crap designers who failed to institute proper constraints into their systems. And as cathartic as pounding on your betters might seem, they are not responsible for the ineptitude of game designers or for the failings of weak GMs who lack the testicular fortitude to don the Viking Hat, or the foresight to place their own limits or build requirements in their campaigns, rather than slavishly adhere to broken game rules or whine that other people won't follow their unspecified criteria when building their characters.

Quote from: ZetaRidley;1135078Also, really tired of getting interested in running a Palladium game, and then remembering that the system is shit, and will always be shit.

Being a Palladium gamer requires zen...and it's worth it.

Deep breath.
Accept the system is shit.
Accept that Kevin will NEVER change.
Accept that the slightest balance was never the goal.
Accept that you will hammer the system to make it work at your table.
Exhale.
Now go play your favorite Palladium game and have a great time.  

I don't know why and I don't know how, but hot damn, Palladium freaking rocks at the table in actual play if you have a good group.

Hey, kevin allowed Savage Rifts to be made.  I think he has certainly changed just a little bit.   I have several books, but never played, but Unisystem always struck me as a marriage of GURPS and Pallidium's system.   Ah the days of taking boxing to get extra attacks with a sword.  Or a gun.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135135I'm sure that people of superior intellect must seem threatening to those with lesser minds, but the game was turned into an arms race by crap designers who failed to institute proper constraints into their systems. And as cathartic as pounding on your betters might seem, they are not responsible for the ineptitude of game designers or for the failings of weak GMs who lack the testicular fortitude to don the Viking Hat, or the foresight to place their own limits or build requirements in their campaigns, rather than slavishly adhere to broken game rules or whine that other people won't follow their unspecified criteria when building their characters.

All I see here is more bullying. And the same old washed out excuses pushed forward by players who refuse to play well with others.

Like I said earlier. I've gotten too old for this tired old line of bullshit. Bad players have their invitations to my table rescinded. End of story.

I have become picky about who I invite to any game I run. Gone are the days of dealing with random strangers in online media for running games. If I don't know the player, they aren't going to game with me. That's the beginning and end of it.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135163All I see here is more bullying.

Like begets like. I almost never see min/maxers tout their superiority or belittle others for not sharing their gaming habits or criteria, yet I can't join a conversation about RPGs, particularly online, without running into someone whining about min/maxers and portraying them as this somehow subhuman (despite having superior talents for optimization) class of gamers worthy of scorn. So I responded to you in kind, cuz frankly I'm tired of the passive aggressive bullshit and superior attitudes from people who are clearly inferior (otherwise they wouldn't have a problem with others being able to build better characters than them).

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135163And the same old washed out excuses pushed forward by players who refuse to play well with others.

Like I said earlier. I've gotten too old for this tired old line of bullshit.

All I see is the same washed out excuses pushed forward by people who refuse to accept reality or take responsibility for setting their own campaign standards and being upfront about their expectations like a grown up.

Like I said earlier, these are game design and GMing issues. And rejecting reality won't make that not a fact.

Also, having a talent for optimization and refusing to play well with others are two different things. I have met people with close to zero talent or inclination for min/maxing who are also asshats, and the only time I've had a problem with min/maxers was back when I didn't heed my own advice and I was the passive aggressive idiot bitching at my players for maxing their Strength when they were playing melee characters (like the game allows them a better alternative), or not taking enough "background" skills and such.

Eventually I grew wiser, accepted the game limitations I couldn't change (if melee attacks were tied to STR melee characters would naturally max it), and houseruled the ones I could, such as handing out free background skills from a limited list (before 5e standardized backgrounds) to ensure all characters were well rounded, rather than bitch at my players for failing to build their characters in accordance to some criteria I never specified.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135163Bad players have their invitations to my table rescinded. End of story.

I have become picky about who I invite to any game I run. Gone are the days of dealing with random strangers in online media for running games. If I don't know the player, they aren't going to game with me. That's the beginning and end of it.

As is your right as a GM. But if you want to use your Viking Hat to kick players out, perhaps you should consider the more effective strategy of using it instead to set your campaign standards and expectations up front, rather than whine that people with a superior grasp for game mechanics exist.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1135181Like begets like. I almost never see min/maxers tout their superiority or belittle others for not sharing their gaming habits or criteria, yet I can't join a conversation about RPGs, particularly online, without running into someone whining about min/maxers and portraying them as this somehow subhuman (despite having superior talents for optimization) class of gamers worthy of scorn. So I responded to you in kind, cuz frankly I'm tired of the passive aggressive bullshit and superior attitudes from people who are clearly inferior (otherwise they wouldn't have a problem with others being able to build better characters than them).



All I see is the same washed out excuses pushed forward by people who refuse to accept reality or take responsibility for setting their own campaign standards and being upfront about their expectations like a grown up.

Like I said earlier, these are game design and GMing issues. And rejecting reality won't make that not a fact.

Also, having a talent for optimization and refusing to play well with others are two different things. I have met people with close to zero talent or inclination for min/maxing who are also asshats, and the only time I've had a problem with min/maxers was back when I didn't heed my own advice and I was the passive aggressive idiot bitching at my players for maxing their Strength when they were playing melee characters (like the game allows them a better alternative), or not taking enough "background" skills and such.

Eventually I grew wiser, accepted the game limitations I couldn't change (if melee attacks were tied to STR melee characters would naturally max it), and houseruled the ones I could, such as handing out free background skills from a limited list (before 5e standardized backgrounds) to ensure all characters were well rounded, rather than bitch at my players for failing to build their characters in accordance to some criteria I never specified.



As is your right as a GM. But if you want to use your Viking Hat to kick players out, perhaps you should consider the more effective strategy of using it instead to set your campaign standards and expectations up front, rather than whine that people with a superior grasp for game mechanics exist.

I would say min-maxing is just a style of play that, depending on the game and group preferences, can be desirable or not.

Example: I'm playing Shinobigami right now. It's a game that promotes min-maxing explicitly (it's a PvP game). Everybody bought the idea and is having tons of fun trying to find the most devastating combos.

I can see it being a problem for groups or games that promote more a storytelling vibe or something.