Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Caliburn101" data-source="post: 7741519" data-attributes="member: 6802178">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6801328" target="_blank">Elfcrusher</a>I don't have any financial stake, and you are confusing your right to have your own opinions with the non-existent right to have them regarded as facts by other people.All I have done is called out the fact that your opinions do not in fact, reflect the facts.If you are taking my critique of your opinions as a personal attack, then rest assured you are mistaken. I shouldn't have to explain the difference to someone who engages in debate, but there you go. Respect for the person is a given. Respecting their right to have an opinion and express it is a given. Regarding your own opinions as facts and expecting others to respect them as facts is not a given - your argument has to earn that...In the end, and as you put it, "I expressed what I was hoping for that I didn't find in the rules.".I then told you what you were telling everyone wasn't in the rules in fact was in them. You then told me I didn't understand your argument and you laboured that same point when I told you that I did in fact understand what you were saying.I didn't agree with your argument... and you conflated that with me getting 'personal' and 'lacking understanding'.Fundamentally, everything you are talking about in the Conan stories (I have read them all many times) can be simulated by the very rules you stated don't have that capability. There are passages in the core rules about the trope of S&S as Howard wrote it and the rise and fall of civilisation - the inevitability of the return to barbarism. There is also text on how to deal with wealth and possessions, armour damage and loss and the fact that weapons and equipment isn't dealt with the same in Conan as in a typical fantasy rpg.It would seem you missed all of that. It is there - I know for a fact, and I don't need to prove it to you - you actually need to find out for yourself by actually reading the whole book before passing judgement and expecting your opinion to be given due weight. It is your errant opinion that it isn't there. It is my clear observation that it is as I have read it and played with the game enough to know for a fact.What you seemed to be saying was that you didn't like HOW they dealt with those tropes (and the others you never mentioned). That's a personal opinion not backed up by facts, it's a statement. It shouldn't be passed off as a truism.Now stop assigning relationships or motives to my actions which don't exist to support your argument or attacking ME personally (see quotes below) and either disengage or stick to the argument. In fact, you did exactly the same for the R.E.Howard Foundation people! Is everyone who doesn't think you are right 'on the take' or 'bias', or are you just fond of conspiracy theories?"Well...not to be TOTALLY cynical here, but aren't they getting paid royalties?"Tell me now - do you REALLY think the experts who love Howards work so much are selling it's authenticity down the river for money? You just said they are!? I'd retract this ill-considered argument if I were you. But then, I wouldn't have made such an accusation in the first place. I don't sully the integrity of people I have never met and know little about to suit my arguments."I seem to have pressed some kind of button for you, unless you respond with such hostility and aggression to everyone on the Internet. I don't know if you've got some kind of financial stake in the game, or you are friends with the publishers, or what, but clearly for you this isn't just a philosophical debate about game design."You defined flaws that don't exist and said one thing is another when it demonstrably isn't. That's well within the realm of philosophy. As for the rest of your 'reasoning' - assigning motives or relationships like you know what you are talking about makes your argument look groundless, and petty for that matter. I am sure that isn't the case though and I am equally sure you'll make it clear that you just typed that in haste."...or perhaps one you don't seem to understand. Yet. (Growth mindset!)"I have a more than robust IQ and my English is excellent thanks. As for the lifecoach stuff - if I need that I'd go to a professional who knows what they are talking about... but then, thinking about it, how could I trust them to help me - they'd be getting paid wouldn't they!!?? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />"Uhh...isn't that what I did? I expressed what I was hoping for that I didn't find in the rules."No you didn't. Your message changed from post to post. You made accusations of something being missing without defining it in any meaningful way, you redefined it once your opinion was engaged with and then you made the argument personal. It is actually just easier to admit that your point was subjective and there was something missing for you, rather than passing it off as objective and trying to make the system the cause of the problem. You also don't bother to define what you didn't find - because everything you said you didn't find is right there in the only meaningful way it can be. What you did do was change what you meant when your claims of things being missing were shown to be incorrect. In short, there was 'something missing' and you can't really define it as it is logical to assume you would have done so already were this true."Yay! The badwrongfun argument!In any event, those aren't "the two specific tropes I find essential". Again, I was trying to offer illustrative examples of how the unique aspects of a fiction can be incorporated into the fabric of rules."Mislabelling an opposing position to try to undermine it - another 'sully the opposition' move. The very lamest and least intellectually rigorous of approaches to debate which claims that the person that thinks your argument is full of holes is criticising how you have fun. What rubbish - I am telling you that your claims don't reflect the facts. There is a difference, albeit you can't slap a fake negative label on my actual position with any credibility.You specifically mentioned weapon changes and the barbarian/civilised trope, and that's two points, and I can count. You still won't rise to my challenge and state how YOU would incorporate these into the rules. They are subgenre specific narrative tropes, not something that can be codified further into a set of rules in any meaningful, workable or interesting way more than they already have been. If you disagree, let's see you attempt to house-rule on these, and then explain to me how you would introduce them into a game without taking significant agency away from your players?If you can't do that, then say so. If you want to duck the challenge because it's too much effort for an argument online then consider that conceding the point only takes seconds."Yup. You don't get it. Not surprising. Few do.Game on."No. You can't explain it. Not surprising. No objective facts.Now, as I said, why don't you come up with some objective facts, and perhaps a set of rules that does what you say you want and allow me to point out the flaws? You claim that important rules are somehow missing in this game - put your money where your keyboard is and prove it!Game enough for that?</blockquote>

Verification