Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8673575" data-attributes="member: 16814">It's not at all aggressive.&nbsp; This is effectively trying to impute a negative mental state on me so that my points are more easily dismissed because I'm posting in a negative mental state.I'm merely pointing out that there are serious discontinuities. Of course not.&nbsp; I'm not the game police.&nbsp; This victimhood game doesn't play.&nbsp; I'm not telling you how to play, or what to do. We're talking about how games work here, and how we do the game things, and that's not at all telling you how you play at home.&nbsp; You're presenting an argument that it's perfectly doable to model the real world in the game.&nbsp; I'm pointing out where that actually doesn't happen.&nbsp; You're dismissing those as irrelevant because you do some modelling in other places and that's good enough.&nbsp; But, at the same time you're explicitly agreeing with what I'm saying, you're trying to say that I'm incorrect!&nbsp; It's a bit weird.&nbsp; Like, you completely acknowledge that you have these discontinuities but then tell me I'm being hostile for pointing out that they exist!As, the victimhood game comes full circle!&nbsp; You can completely dismiss my statements as relevant by saying I'm a bad person doing a bad thing, despite me not actually doing any such thing!&nbsp; I haven't told you once you can't model some things as real world and others as not, or said you shouldn't strive for it.&nbsp; I've merely pointed out that D&amp;D requires hard discontinuities at specific places.&nbsp; You seem to fully agree with this, but then accuse me of being a bad person for pointing it out.&nbsp; So very odd.The best you might have here is your discussion of worldbuilding being where you value simulation, which, again, you seem to agree with my points made that there's still discontinuities there, so this doesn't even get to your claimed victimhood.No, if I wanted to actually point out a problem, it would be entirely along the lines of my discussion with [USER=7026594]@Mannahnin[/USER] -- that it needs to be clear where you're ruling on your simulation and where you're ruling on your near-sim, and where you're ruling on the game rules.&nbsp; If this isn't clear, then you will have problems.&nbsp; If you make it clear, you won't.&nbsp; Because everyone will be on the same page. That's the actual closest I've gotten to badwrongfunning anyone's game.&nbsp; And I do think it's badwrongfun to gotcha players by switching assumptions of what's controlling a ruling.&nbsp; Totally guilty of this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8673575, member: 16814"] It's not at all aggressive. This is effectively trying to impute a negative mental state on me so that my points are more easily dismissed because I'm posting in a negative mental state. I'm merely pointing out that there are serious discontinuities. Of course not. I'm not the game police. This victimhood game doesn't play. I'm not telling you how to play, or what to do. We're talking about how games work here, and how we do the game things, and that's not at all telling you how you play at home. You're presenting an argument that it's perfectly doable to model the real world in the game. I'm pointing out where that actually doesn't happen. You're dismissing those as irrelevant because you do some modelling in other places and that's good enough. But, at the same time you're explicitly agreeing with what I'm saying, you're trying to say that I'm incorrect! It's a bit weird. Like, you completely acknowledge that you have these discontinuities but then tell me I'm being hostile for pointing out that they exist! As, the victimhood game comes full circle! You can completely dismiss my statements as relevant by saying I'm a bad person doing a bad thing, despite me not actually doing any such thing! I haven't told you once you can't model some things as real world and others as not, or said you shouldn't strive for it. I've merely pointed out that D&D requires hard discontinuities at specific places. You seem to fully agree with this, but then accuse me of being a bad person for pointing it out. So very odd. The best you might have here is your discussion of worldbuilding being where you value simulation, which, again, you seem to agree with my points made that there's still discontinuities there, so this doesn't even get to your claimed victimhood. No, if I wanted to actually point out a problem, it would be entirely along the lines of my discussion with [USER=7026594]@Mannahnin[/USER] -- that it needs to be clear where you're ruling on your simulation and where you're ruling on your near-sim, and where you're ruling on the game rules. If this isn't clear, then you will have problems. If you make it clear, you won't. Because everyone will be on the same page. That's the actual closest I've gotten to badwrongfunning anyone's game. And I do think it's badwrongfun to gotcha players by switching assumptions of what's controlling a ruling. Totally guilty of this. [/QUOTE]

Verification