A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

Yeah, that you see yourself in the references isn't hostility. That would be akin to someone saying, "You know what is terrible, bullies that suck, and the people that support them."

And someone replying, "Hey, stop being mean to me. That's uncalled-for hostility."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Take care!

Click to expand...

Except no one is bullying Max while you are insulting people.

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

Dude, it's just an analogy.

Right?

If you keep seeing yourself, that's on you.

Click to expand...

An analogy where you compare us to bullies. So save your "dude" for someone else. There is no "keep seeing yourself" here, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]. You insinuate that the people who liked Ovinomancer's post (i.e., me included) are living in bubbles and then accusing everyone in this thread of lining up to dunk on Max which is not necessarily true for those involved.

lowkey13 said:

Ahem.

First, your one-sentence snark about my lengthy post stated the following-

"That's a lot of words without an actual definition of realism[.]"

I appreciate that you now realize that I provided a definition, you just don't like it. In the future, please do that instead of providing an obnoxious and incorrect response.

Click to expand...

Being charitable about both your eliding my full sentence and the urinic complaint of snark...

You didn't actually offer a definition, though, you just moved the pea. The complaint was that "realism" was too vague to be useful; it was ambiguous. You're responded by defining realism in ambiguous terms and then declaring the problem solved because "realism" was now defined. You just moved the pea: your definition does nothing for the duscussion but provide a cover for dismissing it.

Second, the main point of the post is that you (and certain others) are so busy arguing and complaining about definitions (HOW CAN WE EVER KNOW WHAT RED MEANS)

Click to expand...

Strawmen aren't useful. There's no argument on that front, but instead that "realism" is too subjective a term to discuss in objective ways. Multiple refinements have been offered and rejected in favor of retaining the "realism" term. At this point, saying that we're arguing semantics just underlines that your grasp of our argument is shallow, not tgat our argument is shallow.

that you fail to engage on the substantive point; you may think you are making a brilliant point, but this was already tired when EGG wrote about it in 1979. Yes, language can be imprecise, but it's very easy to say that you don't like increased realism in your TTRPGs for multiple reasons without engaging in a pointless argument about semantics that makes you look foolish.*

Click to expand...

I don't think my point is either brilliant or inventive -- this is well trod ground which is why it's so confusing that your still fighting over it. Again, the argument isn't a semantic one. "Realism," as defined by you, is entirely subjective, meaning that what's "realistic" to one is not to another. And we've seen this exact thing multiple times in this thread. Yet, here you are declaring it's an obvious thing and that those that disagree are full of themselves and just engaging in semantics. I submit you have the wrong target.

Other than than, batting 1.000. IOW, while you all might think you are lined up to dunk on Max, and while I personally agree that realism, as a goal, is not a good one for TTRPGs, the majority of people looking at this thread will just see a circular firing squad of people high-fiving each other without cause.

Click to expand...

There's actually been some quite goid things in this thread. Your occasional jump and yell posts notwithstanding.

And, I'm not here to dunk on Max at all. I find his unwillingness to peel back the layers and engage in actual discussion of game goals and methods, rather than reflexive defense, to be disappointing. It seems like there's a feeling that admitting that you do something just because you prefer it is bad, which I do not understand. All of my gaming is because I prefer it, but I'm willing to examine those preferences separately from the mechanics to see if they align. Max seems to have welded these things together so a discussion on what a mechanic does is inseparable from an attack on his preferences. This is his hangup, though.

*It's one thing to quote Justice Stewart. It's another thing to say that there is not, and can never be, p**nagraphy on the internet because of that. Understood? One thing makes you look well-read, the other makes you look like an argumentative putz.

Click to expand...

Weird, as I haven't quoted Stewart nor do I have this misconception. However, knowing the quote and accepting its broad point as being as good as we can do is utterly useless in a duscussion of whether this soecific thing is or is not pornography. I am being needlessly obvious here, because one as well-read and non-argumentative as you would immediately grasp this point.


All of this being said, you did make the claim that item destruction is "more realistic" even as applied to 1e item saving throws. To that, I present the following scenarios for your opinion:

Case 1:

A PC is caught in a fireball that does not kill him. His cloak burns up.

Case 2:

A PC is caught in a fireball that does not kill him. No items are damaged.

Case 3:

A PC is caught in a fireball that does not kill him. All of his items are destroyed: his armor, weapons, clothing, and other gear.

Which of these cases are more or less realistic? They are all using the 2e rules because the 1e rules are ambiguous on when to use item saving throws and 2e us mot.

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

Here is the exact and full history, from my point of view-

1. I write a very lengthy post in response to what can best be described as the not-nicest post in the world.

2. Instead of engaging with anything I wrote, you write a one-sentence response that says I didn't provide a definition of realism. This is not only incorrect, but ignored the entirety of what I was discussing. Kind of annoying, from my POV.

3. I state that you missed it, along with the entire point of my post.

4. You then chose to say, oh, that definition? Well, whatever. It's bad. Here- let me quote this, because I think it's pretty funny:



Woah!

So at this point, I have to go a little meta, since it has become increasingly clear that you're not actually reading what I write, but just trying to find things to argue with. How do I know this? Because I already addressed it in my very long post. Wait, what?



So it's almost as if I had already addressed this before you wrote about it! But that wasn't even the main thrust of my post. I mean, you're welcome to disagree with what I write (many people do), but at least pretend to read it first.

Anyway, that's my POV, and I am done with this conversation. Because I do not enjoy arguing about arguing, and, as I have often stated, the best thing about banging your head against a wall is when you stop. To the extent you want to declare yourself a winner, you're a winner. If you want my opinion, read my original post.

Take care!

Click to expand...

Is meta-posting permitted, or is it considered like cheating?

It's ALWAYS cheating!!!

lowkey13 said:

Other than than, batting 1.000. IOW, while you all might think you are lined up to dunk on Max, and while I personally agree that realism, as a goal, is not a good one for TTRPGs, the majority of people looking at this thread will just see a circular firing squad of people high-fiving each other without cause.

Click to expand...

Danggit! I'm in the majority.

This feels so wrong; my whole schtick involves being apart from the crowd.

*Deleted by user*