Harniacs vs. d20/D&D players

[SableWyvern]

And what's all this other stuff? SHARK get's all kinds of respect (not that he doesn't deserve it) for saying essentially the same thing as KK, while KK is blasted by a bunch of reactionaries? Perhaps SHARK's tone was better (OK, it definitely was) but he said the same thing that pissed everyone off when KK said it.

Well, as the person who complimented Shark, I'd like to point out that I haven't blasted anyone. In fact, I saw where KK was coming from. I also understood why some people were taking offence (and yes, there are a lot of thin skins).

The simple fact of the matter is that Shark took arguments that were pissing people off, and phrased them in a much clearer, and importantly, much more palatable manner.

Dare I say it, but that required an excellent grasp of English language and comprehension skills.

On the cigar issue: Thanks, I'll go one of those. Also, next time you're in Australia, Shark, feel free to stop by and I'll GM some RM for you.

EDIT: Seeing all the people who can't find RM games, I extend my invitation to you all. All my players love the game, I could get a group together any time. Admitedly, none of them will GM it, but then, none of them will GM any game. So, anyway, come on down to Australia, land of the RM fan.

 

[Psion]

The simple fact of the matter is that Shark took arguments that were pissing people off, and phrased them in a much clearer, and importantly, much more palatable manner.

No, not really. The opinion he offered had one fundamental difference from KK's. Shark offered words to the effect of "Yes D&D is different from Harn, but there's nuthin' wrong with D&D" whereas KK continually repeated sentiments to the effect that D&D players and indeed, the entire intent of the game, was wrapped up in a "video game mentality" or some similarly denigrating and absurd statement.

There is a fundamental difference. It's not just phraseology.

 

[Psion]

Almost every gamer I've met in real life has been reasonable, friendly, and willing to give new and different games a try. I've never run across, in real life, the sheer vitriol and venom found online when it comes to the relative merits of one game against another. Is it because people who hold such hateful opinions have no other outlet for their venting? Or is it simply people being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative? I don't know.

Well, there are certainly games I won't play, at least not any more. My gaming pals know I won't touch WoD or Shadowrun anymore. But nobody tries to argue my out of my stance.

I suspect it's that on the internet, we lack the social cues that trigger the instincts and ingrained social training that tells us its time to back off.

It's a bit like road rage. Two people walking down the hall that bump into each other don't yell and scream at each other. But once you are in a car where people can't exchange the subtle social cues of apology and respect, people will swear and become enraged if (for example) someone cuts them off.

Incidentally, there was a person who I felt was a little stunted in the "self-restraint" department in real life, and constantly tended to bring up the sorts of arguments at the table that you would have seen here about a year ago (you know the type - sneak attack is too powerful! monks are too powerful! Yada yada yada.) Right or wrong, he was being rude, and turned a fairly pleasant gaming night to an agonizing experience. I was forced to boot him from the group.

 

[SableWyvern]

No, not really. The opinion he offered had one fundamental difference from KK's. Shark offered words to the effect of "Yes D&D is different from Harn, but there's nuthin' wrong with D&D" whereas KK continually repeated sentiments to the effect that D&D players and indeed, the entire intent of the game, was wrapped up in a "video game mentality" or some similarly denigrating and absurd statement.

There is a fundamental difference. It's not just phraseology.

IIRC, most, if not all of the comments Shark made were similar in concept to one's that KK had expressed. He added a few other thoughts of his own, and chose not to use/agree with/expand upon/iterate some of KKs points at all.

 

[Numion]

I think KK is getting jumped on a bit unfairly. A little bit, anyway. I've seen many of his posts. Though he is quite outspoken and ocassionally...boisterous in stating his views, i don't think i've read any real malice or anger in his posts. Just vigor.

Well, since even KK has forgotten what he said previously, let me refresh your memory:

Originally posted by Kaptain_Kantrip
Harn is undoubtedly the most painstakingly realistic fantasy world ever created and is not for those looking for cheap thrills and high magic (*cough* FR *cough*). It's not for everyone. It requires, nay demands, a higher degree of intelligence and dedication than other settings.

Isn't that slandering the D&D (and specifically FR) experience? IMHO he's being an ass, and as such doesn't deserve polite comments from me at least.

Cheap thrills... yeah, that's D&D

 

[Psion]

IIRC, most, if not all of the comments Shark made were similar in concept to one's that KK had expressed.

Look, here:

Still, Harn is detailed, and interesting. Even if it is low-magic and gritty, isn't that ok?
(...)
Then again, what's so wrong about D&D? Grittiness and low-fantasy can be great--I happen to mix a lot of grittiness into my own campaigns--but, like "High-Fantasy", it too, can get boring and dull. Then, you need lots of dragons, powerful magic, and crazy monsters running around! Isn't that ok, too?

Note, the explicit tolerance to both camps. Note that shark never implies that
a) There is anything wrong with the tone of D&D, nor does he imply "hack-n-slash" mentality or "video game" mentality. (Note here that there is a difference between video-game and high fantasy. If you need clarification, I can provide you with a reading list.)
b) Never implies that he has to go against the grain to run low fantasy in D&D.

Now, compare that to KK who made some assertions that Shark CLEARLY never made, namely that "video game" or "hack-n-slash" mentality is implicit in the game and/or the players. Those are assertions Shark never made.

KK's message was one of intolerance and pidgeonholing. Sharks was not.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, but the real kicker is that KK's opinion of D&D is (presumably) based on his experience, and given the mechanical nature of the game, is a valid opinion, even for those of us who don't share it.

It's not really any skin off my back if KK thinks my game system of choice is "video gamish" and I have to work twice as hard to make it do anything else.

Even if he is insulting, it's the system he's insulting, not the people who play it. Big deal!

 

[Wicht]

Almost every gamer I've met in real life has been reasonable, friendly, and willing to give new and different games a try.

That has been my experience as well.

 

[Psion]

Even if he is insulting, it's the system he's insulting, not the people who play it. Big deal!

Actually, if you look back, he did that too. He pretty much pidgeonholed players of the game into this "video game" mentality that he speaks of.

 

[BButler]

Actually, if you look back, he did that too. He pretty much pidgeonholed players of the game into this "video game" mentality that he speaks of.

I think the word he used was "vidiot."


Back to lurking . . .