Why I think Gurps and Hero are having popularity problems

crkrueger · April 25, 2012, 04:04:33 PM

I think the anti-mini backlash from 3.0+ isn't really due to the use of minis, lots of people have been doing that since the hobby began. What started the resentment was the way in which the minis were used. Instead of just providing easy accessible ranges, line of sight, positioning, all the elements Gleichman is talking about that minis easily provide, starting really with 3.5, and then going off the deep end in 4.0, the grid and minis became a metagame unto themselves, with special movements not meant to represent the physics of what was happening, but bringing boardgame level tactics into play similar to chess, checkers, go, etc.

gleichman · April 25, 2012, 04:05:26 PM

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;533706Throughout your participation in this thread I have been wondering what it must be like for you to have such a desperate need to be right all the time, even to the exclusion of polite recognition that others play these games for different reasons than you might.

Is it some pathological issue that drives this need, or is it simply that you are too socially retarded to comprehend that others can differ in opinion about what they find enjoyable and not be wrong?

-TGA

And I've wondered why people just won't admit that they are cheating, have no idea what the ranges and line of sight limits are, and have been playing heavily modified versions of games that should no longer be called D&D, HERO or whatever range/los system they've been abusing.

When I get my answer, you're get yours.

crkrueger · April 25, 2012, 04:06:41 PM

Quote from: misterguignol;533619Can you clear up what the original meaning was? I find the hobby's jargon to be often impenetrable and contradictory, so that would be helpful. (Don't even get me started on how "verisimilitude" gets used.)

You're asking a Something Awful 4venger to describe how a term was used in the early days of the hobby? You having an off day?

Ask Morrow, he's the rec.games.frp.advocacy historian.

gleichman · April 25, 2012, 04:07:09 PM

Quote from: CRKrueger;533709I think the anti-mini backlash from 3.0+ isn't really due to the use of minis, lots of people have been doing that since the hobby began. What started the resentment was the way in which the minis were used. Instead of just providing easy accessible ranges, line of sight, positioning, all the elements Gleichman is talking about that minis easily provide, starting really with 3.5, and then going off the deep end in 4.0, the grid and minis became a metagame unto themselves, with special movements not meant to represent the physics of what was happening, but bringing boardgame level tactics into play similar to chess, checkers, go, etc.

You sir, may have a excellent point here.

The Good Assyrian · April 25, 2012, 04:14:21 PM

Quote from: gleichman;533710And I've wondered why people just won't admit that they are cheating, have no idea what the ranges and line of sight limits are, and have been playing heavily modified versions of games that should no longer be called D&D, HERO or whatever range/los system they've been abusing.

When I get my answer, you're get yours.

I think you have provided all the answer we need. My bet is on pathological need to be right. I don't know you from Adam so I can only guess why you are this way.

In any case, the resulting shitty behavior is the same no matter the root cause.

-TGA

jhkim · April 25, 2012, 04:46:25 PM

Quote from: Halloween Jack;533613If you told someone "emulation" they'd probably think of a program that lets you play NES games on your PC.

Physics-engine has become the everyday use of the term "simulation" because D&D edition warriors didn't understand its original meaning and/or found the misuse of the term to be a handy bludgeon.

Quote from: misterguignol;533619Can you clear up what the original meaning was? I find the hobby's jargon to be often impenetrable and contradictory, so that would be helpful. (Don't even get me started on how "verisimilitude" gets used.)

As far as I know, "simulation" as applied to RPGs mostly derives from the Threefold Model of rec.games.frp.advocacy - mostly via my FAQ from August 1996. That usage was consistent with the physics-engine description - it meant wanting the game-world to resolve consistently from in-game causes. The word was around prior to that, of course, but the meaning was generally similar. For example, the game company SPI that made DragonQuest and Universe was an abbreviation for Simulations Publications Inc. - and that reflected their core simulation wargames.

If you want to I have an article on the origin of the Threefold Model,

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/origin.html

and on later usage and modification to the model terms,

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/evolution.html

misterguignol · April 25, 2012, 05:15:27 PM

Quote from: CRKrueger;533711You're asking a Something Awful 4venger to describe how a term was used in the early days of the hobby? You having an off day?

Ask Morrow, he's the rec.games.frp.advocacy historian.

I don't know Halloween Jack from Jesus; I have no idea where else he posts! When I don't understand jargon, I ask about it--mainly because the jargon has never informed the way I have fun at the table, heh.

misterguignol · April 25, 2012, 05:16:38 PM

Quote from: jhkim;533737Useful stuff.

Thank you!

crkrueger · April 25, 2012, 05:39:12 PM

Quote from: jhkim;533737As far as I know, "simulation" as applied to RPGs mostly derives from the Threefold Model of rec.games.frp.advocacy - mostly via my FAQ from August 1996. That usage was consistent with the physics-engine description - it meant wanting the game-world to resolve consistently from in-game causes. The word was around prior to that, of course, but the meaning was generally similar. For example, the game company SPI that made DragonQuest and Universe was an abbreviation for Simulations Publications Inc. - and that reflected their core simulation wargames.

If you want to I have an article on the origin of the Threefold Model,

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/origin.html

and on later usage and modification to the model terms,

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/evolution.html

or John Kim will do, he's more than a historian, he's a chronicler.

Rincewind1 · April 25, 2012, 07:29:03 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard;533565Care to retract that? :rolleyes:

That post was after a certain lesson in English, and a quite useful one. As in, you know, a contextual joke.

Rincewind1 · April 25, 2012, 07:40:31 PM

I've had my laughs at this thread, but I think I have had enough. Gleichman is a troll. Let us all leave this thread, seal it, and slap a "condemned" sticker on it. Let him drown in his own shit, and we can all just leave to discuss something more useful, like I dunno, FATAL's rules on anals.

One Horse Town · April 25, 2012, 08:30:52 PM

IME, trolls tend to stand back and admire their work. That isn't happening here.

It's quite easy to mistake bloody-mindessness and cleaving to ones beliefs in spite of almost universal disagreement, to trolling, but i don't think they are the same thing.

Logic is your liberator in this case.

gleichman · April 25, 2012, 08:59:47 PM

Quote from: One Horse Town;533869IME, trolls tend to stand back and admire their work. That isn't happening here.

It's quite easy to mistake bloody-mindessness and cleaving to ones beliefs in spite of almost universal disagreement, to trolling, but i don't think they are the same thing.

It's easy to call troll when logic fails, and logic has certainly failed those calling troll here.

I should note that it's nowhere near universal disagreement, I've have a good number of people agree with me on the importance of following the rules. Nearly as many as disagree.

Rather what you have are a really loud group of people who would rather drown out opposing ideas than admit their own failures. A comman feature online.

Rincewind1 · April 25, 2012, 09:01:35 PM

Quote from: One Horse Town;533869IME, trolls tend to stand back and admire their work. That isn't happening here.

It's quite easy to mistake bloody-mindessness and cleaving to ones beliefs in spite of almost universal disagreement, to trolling, but i don't think they are the same thing.

Logic is your liberator in this case.

There is actually a species of troll called "Target", back in the days when Flamewarriors.com still existed. Basically it was for those going to feminist's forum and saying "I sure love women in the kitchen", then fanning the flames.

The Good Assyrian · April 25, 2012, 09:54:30 PM

Quote from: gleichman;533876It's easy to call troll when logic fails, and logic has certainly failed those calling troll here.

I should note that it's nowhere near universal disagreement, I've have a good number of people agree with me on the importance of following the rules. Nearly as many as disagree.

Rather what you have are a really loud group of people who would rather drown out opposing ideas than admit their own failures. A comman feature online.

For the record, I agree with OHT that you are not a troll. I also think that calling people that reflexively diminishes the meaning of the word for the very real trolls we do have around here.

But I do believe that your pathological limitations make meaningful communication and discussion with you largely impossible. And since that is my reason for my being here (I can't speak to why you are here), that limits my interest in what you say greatly. I am sure you can live with that, as can I.

-TGA