Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 23, 2025, 09:45:46 PM

QuoteI think you are misreading "high level" as "high difficulty" when it's actually about overarching concepts which apply to multiple subsystems rather than troubleshooting a specific rule. I think it's better to explain this (and your friend's non-comment) with an example. Let's discuss feedback loops.

Unless you mean your palm or mind I can't misread something you didn't define or explain! another classical habit of yours it seems and frankly it borders on rhetorical strategy.

*clears throat*

QuoteI think you are misreading "high level" as "high difficulty" when it's actually about overarching concepts which apply to multiple subsystems rather than troubleshooting a specific rule.

Now, I get why you missed that definition; it's super vague and would not be an acceptable definition in most other fields. However, this is roleplaying game design. You have to pick between vague and nonfunctional. See also: Roleplaying Game and OSR.

QuoteAs for "High Level Design" in regards to the OSR I think a better way of putting it is unified vs non-unified mechanics.

OSR design rejects from the outset unified mechanics. it's literally that simple, the fact I can rip out and replace most of the individual mechanics from most OSR games and nothing consequently breaks. this is how it's possible to run flail-snail games despite all the characters being made up of different systems.

Contrast that with something like Blades In Dark where the mechanics feed into each other that removing certain ones makes the whole thing inoperable.

It's not a skill issue it's a philosophical dispute. E.g I don't judge a Windows Admin for not making their scripts posix compliant... even if that was possible outside of WSL. windows by it's natures doesn't follow the Unix philosophy and thus I wouldn't judge it on that criteria.

Also, you haven't defined "unified mechanic" either. I assume you mean intentionally creating game feel or flavor by controlling the interaction of a bunch of subsystems simultaneously, but OSR tends to do that, too.

Practically all RPGs which involve combat have a skill check, attack roll, or saving throw subsystem which passes damage on to a health subsystem, which in turn passes information on to a death spiral or death save mechanic. Even systems which nominally don't have this sort of mechanic often actually do under a different name (see Blades in the Dark: stress is basically a sign-inverted health). And this is just one very common example; I can go on if you'd like and discuss slightly less common cross-subsystem design elements like Dis/Advantage or Insanity or XP/ Advancement.

My point is not that these are bad design decisions, but that if your goal in OSR is to remove abstract design elements which create unified gameplay flavor, you have failed miserably. What OSR actually tends to do is copy a family of set solutions to them often enough that the flavor created by abstract unified elements no longer become apparent to a large proportion of the player-base and becomes a background flavor like salt. Hence my concern that the knowledge to create new abstract models is fading.

It's my general experience with OSR that removing abstract unified design is not one of the big objectives. I am not exactly an OSR gamer, but I've been in this space for a while and interacted with a number of OSR-diehards. Many do tend to dislike Forge-style gameplay, but I think that this is mostly digital tribalism talking. This is literally the first time I have heard of a self-avowed OSR player who wanted to remove abstract unified design elements. OSR is almost always sold on fast player learning curves and easy GMing from familiar design, and a large mostly-mechanically compatible library. That means "not changing much," but, "not changing," and, "not having," are two completely different things.

Quote from: Socratic-DM

Quote from: Fheredin on May 23, 2025, 04:39:54 PMI would really like to see what post of mine you showed him where I said studying video game design was "mandatory." That was the path I intentionally chose, and after going some distance down it, I recommend others do the same for reasons I will get into momentarily.

I was being somewhat hyperbolic but frankly it's a general trend with you to judge someone on every criteria except the one which qualifies them at the task they are attempting...

you'd sooner ask of an TTRPG designer to understand sudoku puzzles and magic eye images than actually understanding their own craft...

Quote from: Fheredin on May 23, 2025, 04:39:54 PMThis whole issue can often be prevented outright if I have an opportunity to explain feedback loops before someone writes that 300+ page magnum opus WIP RPG, but I digress.

If you think that's being elitist....

That is hardly the sole reason anyone would think your an elitist.

You accuse me of being "rhetorical" while--in the same post!--admitting to taking hyperbolic liberties with my words to create a straw man. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

I can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 24, 2025, 06:44:30 PMNow, I get why you missed that definition; it's super vague and would not be an acceptable definition in most other fields. However, this is roleplaying game design. You have to pick between vague and nonfunctional. See also: Roleplaying Game and OSR.

Uh one small problem, you said I misread it within the post you defined it! again further begging the question how I was meant to understand?

It was so vague that Blackstone mistook it as a qualitative rather than categorical, so who is the common denominator in this poor communication?

And to your own admission it's a not a functional definition, even worse than say OSR which at least invokes an idea even if that idea isn't uniform among those who think about it, "High Level Design" could describe anything, which is to say it doesn't describe anything.

QuoteAlso, you haven't defined "unified mechanic" either. I assume you mean intentionally creating game feel or flavor by controlling the interaction of a bunch of subsystems simultaneously, but OSR tends to do that, too.

correct, I did not define "unified mechanics" but at least I gave examples of non-unified design, you could thus infer it's opposite, had you explained what low level design was I probably wouldn't have asked the question at all. it's called a antonymic definition and it's a perfectly valid means to describe a thing.

QuotePractically all RPGs which involve combat have a skill check, attack roll, or saving throw subsystem which passes damage on to a health subsystem, which in turn passes information on to a death spiral or death save mechanic. Even systems which nominally don't have this sort of mechanic often actually do under a different name (see Blades in the Dark: stress is basically a sign-inverted health). And this is just one very common example; I can go on if you'd like and discuss slightly less common cross-subsystem design elements like Dis/Advantage or Insanity or XP/ Advancement.

My point is not that these are bad design decisions, but that if your goal in OSR is to remove abstract design elements which create unified gameplay flavor, you have failed miserably. What OSR actually tends to do is copy a family of set solutions to them often enough that the flavor created by abstract unified elements no longer become apparent to a large proportion of the player-base and becomes a background flavor like salt. Hence my concern that the knowledge to create new abstract models is fading.

It's my general experience with OSR that removing abstract unified design is not one of the big objectives. I am not exactly an OSR gamer, but I've been in this space for a while and interacted with a number of OSR-diehards. Many do tend to dislike Forge-style gameplay, but I think that this is mostly digital tribalism talking. This is literally the first time I have heard of a self-avowed OSR player who wanted to remove abstract unified design elements. OSR is almost always sold on fast player learning curves and easy GMing from familiar design, and a large mostly-mechanically compatible library. That means "not changing much," but, "not changing," and, "not having," are two completely different things.

I don't know how we got over into talking about abstractions, since this is the first time you have mentioned them.

 It's funny how you've put things in my mouth I've never said such as wanting to "remove them entirely" not sure how one does that when the entire game is an abstraction of a human's imagination.  it wasn't like you took something I said in a hyperbolic fashion either, you just made shit up. likewise how you tagged on abstract to unified design, that was pretty funny as well.

But abstractions are necessities, not goals, in the software world they are a form of technical debt you accrue. you take it on as required.

QuoteYou accuse me of being "rhetorical" while--in the same post!--admitting to taking hyperbolic liberties with my words to create a straw man. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

Hypocrisy? If you consider Hyperbole equivalent to the kind of question dodging, falsifying,  line-drawing, and quibbling you engage in on the regular you're either retarded, malicious, or quite possibly both.

QuoteI can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Well I'm just going to take that naked insult on the cheek for what it is and ignore it.

As for the claim of elitism, I didn't make a value judgement in that respect. I just pointed out there was many a reason one could view you that way.

I'm puzzled over the discussion about "high level design."  In any design process the high level design is the broad decisions one makes about the general nature of the product that guide the more specific and narrow decisions later on.  Frex, if as an engineer I make a high level design decision about a vehicle such as "this thing needs to fly," that guides my later decisions as to what material to use and the overall shape.  Similarly, high level design decisions about a game might be "this game is about pirates,"  "encourage teamwork," or "combat should be resolved in 5 minutes."  The rest of the design decisions are then made to support these guidelines.  It's not "elitist" or "undefined" or an such nonsense.  It's a well established term used by many who design things professionally across a wide variety of fields.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 25, 2025, 03:42:43 AMI'm puzzled over the discussion about "high level design."  In any design process the high level design is the broad decisions one makes about the general nature of the product that guide the more specific and narrow decisions later on.  Frex, if as an engineer I make a high level design decision about a vehicle such as "this thing needs to fly," that guides my later decisions as to what material to use and the overall shape.  Similarly, high level design decisions about a game might be "this game is about pirates,"  "encourage teamwork," or "combat should be resolved in 5 minutes."  The rest of the design decisions are then made to support these guidelines.  It's not "elitist" or "undefined" or an such nonsense.  It's a well established term used by many who design things professionally across a wide variety of fields.

Greetings!

Exactly, my friend. That is the context that I have understood "High Level Design"--important, strategic defining decisions about whatever. I'm not sure what they are actually arguing about to begin with.

Some fights around here often remind me of how dogs operate. You know how dogs can all the sudden get into it with each other--because they have decided they don't like the way the other dog looked at them, or the way that dog smells? *Laughing* Right?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mishihari on May 25, 2025, 03:42:43 AMI'm puzzled over the discussion about "high level design."  In any design process the high level design is the broad decisions one makes about the general nature of the product that guide the more specific and narrow decisions later on.  Frex, if as an engineer I make a high level design decision about a vehicle such as "this thing needs to fly," that guides my later decisions as to what material to use and the overall shape.  Similarly, high level design decisions about a game might be "this game is about pirates,"  "encourage teamwork," or "combat should be resolved in 5 minutes."  The rest of the design decisions are then made to support these guidelines.  It's not "elitist" or "undefined" or an such nonsense.  It's a well established term used by many who design things professionally across a wide variety of fields.

If this was the definition given I would have found it perfectly agreeable, and his critique would have even made more sense. "OSR designers don't have high level design goals that are concrete" is  valid. most OSR designers are just playing coattails and don't have a vision which separate their project/product.

But again read the original post and how it's invoked. it's so vague it borders on a nothing comment. and that's what I mainly gripe with and am tired of, this verbose superfluous language to describe things that aren't complicated and then acting like everyone is stupid for not understanding it.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 25, 2025, 03:42:43 AMI'm puzzled over the discussion about "high level design."  In any design process the high level design is the broad decisions one makes about the general nature of the product that guide the more specific and narrow decisions later on.  Frex, if as an engineer I make a high level design decision about a vehicle such as "this thing needs to fly," that guides my later decisions as to what material to use and the overall shape.  Similarly, high level design decisions about a game might be "this game is about pirates,"  "encourage teamwork," or "combat should be resolved in 5 minutes."  The rest of the design decisions are then made to support these guidelines.  It's not "elitist" or "undefined" or an such nonsense.  It's a well established term used by many who design things professionally across a wide variety of fields.

You both understand, and misunderstand.  I think most people would agree with your definition of "high level design."  The problem arises when one or more posters accuse OSR as not addressing the high level design principles without clearly delineating which principles are not address by the OSR.  This leads to ambiguity that needs to be addressed, either by explaining the definition that the critic is using or by describing the weaknesses of OSR design.  Neither have been presented.

As for the charge of "elitism," it is mostly not directed at the concept of "high level design," but instead at the particular poster who was imprecise in his criticism.  A better charge would be accusing the poster of falling afoul of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.  They appear to have so little idea of what "game design" actually means that they don't know how much they don't know about it.  Some evidence of this is conflating reuse of mechanics as enforcing particular design principles.  It is possible for a similar mechanic (such as a d20 roll plus bonuses vs target number) to reflect radically different high level design choices, depending on the specifics of the other elements that interface with it.  Fantasy Craft's mechanic for conferring "advantage" is wildly different than D&D 5e's or Shadow of the Demon Lord's, yet they all have a similar resolution mechanic underlying them.

In addition, the poster also privileges terminology as used in video gaming (like "feedback loops") to describe concepts that predate video gaming by decades, suggesting that he doesn't actually understand the concepts, their origins, and their actual usage in the RPG-space.  As if RPG-designers aren't familiar with "feedback loops," a problem that only exists in the poster's mind (as no examples of this from the OSR are given).  So the charge of "elitism" has more to do with the poster than the subject matter...

Quote from: "Socratic-DM"I can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Well if we're just going to insult one another nakedly... you're an aloof fop, a hacky pretend avant guard who types out total mental masturbation. you say nothing of substance and talk down to everyone you interact with like the craven sham you are.

As for the claim of elitism, I didn't make a value judgement in that respect. I just pointed out there was many a reason one could view that way. 

You aren't going to respond with Let Me Google That For You? For shame.

I might be a nincompoop blowhard, but I am an ambitious and occasionally amusing nincompoop blowhard. One day I will be heralded as the second coming of Jeremy Clarkson. Scientists will actually discover that I am so perfectly repulsive that Dark Energy is actually the space-time continuum itself recoiling from the presence of my magnificent offensiveness. Yes, indeed; I am so vile that I produce antigravity on a cosmic scale. And if you doubt any of this, you can ask The Stig. Go on; ask him.


Oh, and this entire elitism angle is you trying to astroturf some harassment out of what is effectively a dropped point. "Many a reason one could view that way" still requires you to define what you're talking about and to demonstrate me creating an example of it, so no, you don't get to skip leg day just because you are trying to weasel some plausible deniability in. Let's stick a pin in this.

I also think between the nature of the accusation and your generally sloppy décor handling it...that I would prefer that for the rest of this thread, when you are discussing elitism, you refrain from paraphrasing other users--which by your own admission you intentionally mishandled--and use the quote function like SimpleMachines intended. But if you insist on making an ass of yourself, I know a business which caters enemas.

The fewer questions you ask the better.

Quote

QuoteAlso, you haven't defined "unified mechanic" either. I assume you mean intentionally creating game feel or flavor by controlling the interaction of a bunch of subsystems simultaneously, but OSR tends to do that, too.

correct, I did not define "unified mechanics" but at least I gave examples of non-unified design, you could thus infer it's opposite, had you explained what low level design was I probably wouldn't have asked the question at all. it's called a antonymic definition and it's a perfectly valid means to describe a thing.

Problem: what if these are not perfect opposite terms. In context, when you said unified mechanic, the opposite you defined wasn't fragmented design so much as standard design. Some degree of mechanical interoperability is permitted, which means that the definition via negative you provided is incomplete. The same is also true with high level design because the opposite is not low level so much as non-high level design. They are complimentary viewpoints and skill sets, not opposites. In computer parlance, the kernel is not the opposite of the user interface.

Also, defining by negative while mysteriously disallowing definition by example? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

QuoteI don't know how we got over into talking about abstractions, since this is the first time you have mentioned them.

 It's funny how you've put things in my mouth I've never said such as wanting to "remove them entirely" not sure how one does that when the entire game is an abstraction of a human's imagination.  it wasn't like you took something I said in a hyperbolic fashion either, you just made shit up. likewise how you tagged on abstract to unified design, that was pretty funny as well.

But abstractions are necessities, not goals, in the software world they are a form of technical debt you accrue. you take it on as required.

Well, then please be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us. How would you describe your goals?

Full disclosure: I actually am a fully qualified mind-reader, but I think it's unwise to use the full magnitude of my prodigious powers at this moment for two very important reasons:

• Someone with a disagreeable personality who takes offense easily will disagree with their own thoughts, and then take offense, and
• Someone with a disagreeable personality who takes offense easily will disagree with their own thoughts, and then take offense.

Now, I realize that's technically only one reason, but it's such an important one I thought it was worth mentioning twice.

Now where was I? Ahh, yes. "Elitism."

Now, while I am not absusing my mind-reader prerogatives, it's true that I don't properly know what your motives for dropping an argument line which could theoretically be answered with a simple Google search was. However, I can tell you what's statistically true of most Gen X/ Millennials and see if this bullseyes a nerve.

Most Gen Xers and Millennials have an emotional problem where almost all of their relationships are based on mutual use or mutual value exchange. This means that their view of their friend's humanity is always constrained by the limits of their competence and hence their salary negotiation. To such a person, asserting they lack a skill is deeply unsettling because it implies they aren't valuable.

Of course, it's obvious that no one can have all of the skills. How much do you know about the meterology of hycean exoplanets? Me, neither. How reasonable is it to assume that you know everything there is to know about game design (roleplaying or otherwise)? That's exactly right; that's not a particularly reasonable assumption, either. But because this is an emotional reaction based on a perceived attack on someone's self-worth, the rational response--maybe I should look that up--is overwritten by the emotional desire to look strong and confident and be a valuable member of the community.

And lets be real; there is a significant amount of sunk cost fallacy involved, too.

This is not how I view things. I see someone's worth as derived from the image of God as part of their core created essence, and skills are useful, but superfluous to someone's value as a human being. Hence my belief that all people are equal before God, but some people have way more relevant skills than others. Elitism is bad because it denies that God's perspective of humanity is the most important viewpoint of humanity, but denying the skills gap is also bad because it petrifies your perspective.

If you don't believe in God, you will have problems accepting the paradox that all people are different in capacity, yet equal in moral value, which means you will always have problems explaining why Elitism is bad. I am willing to wager that you (Socratic-DM) sensed that I was setting up some sort of ethical conundrum, and resorted to some unfunny insults to try to evade it.

Alas, both ends of this decision were mistakes.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 25, 2025, 12:28:12 PMIn addition, the poster also privileges terminology as used in video gaming (like "feedback loops") to describe concepts that predate video gaming by decades, suggesting that he doesn't actually understand the concepts, their origins, and their actual usage in the RPG-space.  As if RPG-designers aren't familiar with "feedback loops," a problem that only exists in the poster's mind (as no examples of this from the OSR are given).  So the charge of "elitism" has more to do with the poster than the subject matter...

--*clears throat*--

QuoteYou'll note that I am using a video game design channel as a reference here. That's because while this discussion can (occasionally) be found in some roleplaying game discussion boards if you specifically search for it, it's rare compared to the equivalent communities in video game design. Although it isn't like it's a particularly common discussion topic there, either.

In your haste to pass judgement, you seem to have...neglected to read what you were judging.

QuoteI can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Well if we're just going to insult one another nakedly... you're an aloof fop, a hacky pretend avant guard who types out total mental masturbation. you say nothing of substance and talk down to everyone you interact with like the craven sham you are.

This one is actually my fault and indicative of the source of this disagreement and problem, you did in fact bruise my ego at that point which is why I wrote that specific nasty reply, I later edited realizing it was unproductive but clearly you wrote a response to the earlier version.

Upon reading some other stuff you wrote I take back that particular insult entirely, you do in fact have of insight and value.

I overall agreed with your take and reply, I griped with the wording and use of video game language over that which a TTRPG designer would use. I let prior interactions barb that reply the way I did and it tempted you to wrath, that was my mistake and I apologize.

This discourse has since been unproductive like 3 posts ago and I'm cutting my losses.

QuoteThis is not how I view things. I see someone's worth as derived from the image of God as part of their core created essence, and skills are useful, but superfluous to someone's value as a human being. Hence my belief that all people are equal before God, but some people have way more relevant skills than others. Elitism is bad because it denies that God's perspective of humanity is the most important viewpoint of humanity, but denying the skills gap is also bad because it petrifies your perspective.

No disagreement here. but I'd caveat it with this quote by C.S Lewis:

QuoteAristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

while slavery is not an institution as it use to be in the Western World, we're all well aware "Experts" abuse their positions over laymen. that was more or less what the covid lockdowns were about, or going into the middle east to stop WMDs... I don't claim to be a doctor or an intelligence agent, but I know bullshit when I see it.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 26, 2025, 12:22:10 PM

QuoteI can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Well if we're just going to insult one another nakedly... you're an aloof fop, a hacky pretend avant guard who types out total mental masturbation. you say nothing of substance and talk down to everyone you interact with like the craven sham you are.

This one is actually my fault and indicative of the source of this disagreement and problem, you did in fact bruise my ego at that point which is why I wrote that specific nasty reply, I later edited realizing it was unproductive but clearly you wrote a response to the earlier version.

Upon reading some other stuff you wrote I take back that particular insult entirely, you do in fact have of insight and value.

I overall agreed with your take and reply, I griped with the wording and use of video game language over that which a TTRPG designer would use. I let prior interactions barb that reply the way I did and it tempted you to wrath, that was my mistake and I apologize.

This discourse has since been unproductive like 3 posts ago and I'm cutting my losses.

Fair, and apology accepted (although I really would prefer you to apologize for manipulating my words; the insult is whatever-who-cares) but I want to point out the logic that got me to using an unedited post.

When someone drops a content argument in favor of insults (funny or not), they are basically conceding that they have lost the factual argument, but want to blow a stink-cloud over the whole affair to cover the defeat. Years ago I thought it best to just let this be and move on, but after some reflection I think that being too polite in these circumstances is conditioning people to associate switching to irrelevant insults with winning an argument.

This conditioning cycle is one of the key reasons the internet has gone downhill the way it has. Robots and LLMs copying these techniques is the other.

This has led me to my current conclusion; whenever someone tries to misbehave like this, you must punish the attempt to misbehave. Not only have you already effectively won the argument, but letting the other person disengage thinking they can win by creating a big enough stink is actually bad for the overall health of the internet. Put bluntly, when someone attempts to insult me, I will intentionally disregard etiquette and shoot back, aiming at the balls.

There's nothing personal about this. The internet got where it is because too many people let this kind of behavior slide, so you should put your foot down eventually. And by, "you," I of course mean, "me."


As this is probably the thread wrapping up, I'll give Eirikrautha a (presumably) closing shot across the bow.

Actually competent people don't invoke Dunning-Kruger because a competent person would rely on their in-field competence and just correct a mistake because they would be confident in their own ability to answer follow-ups. Meanwhile, someone who is not particularly competent is likely to invoke a general principle like Dunning-Kruger to shut down the conversation without actually resorting to much comprehension. While this can occasionally be defended as a time-saver, that rarely actually makes sense because the counter-arguments to obviously flawed positions are often so easy to make, and sometimes articulating them is sometimes beneficial. No, the real explanation is almost invariably that the person invoking Dunning-Kruger isn't particularly confident in their ability to handle a follow-up.

I get that you're just copying other internet braindead users (probably from Reddit where this is a very popular argument line), but that doesn't reflect any better on you. Copying the braindead makes you also braindead.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 26, 2025, 02:58:52 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 26, 2025, 12:22:10 PM

QuoteI can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Well if we're just going to insult one another nakedly... you're an aloof fop, a hacky pretend avant guard who types out total mental masturbation. you say nothing of substance and talk down to everyone you interact with like the craven sham you are.

This one is actually my fault and indicative of the source of this disagreement and problem, you did in fact bruise my ego at that point which is why I wrote that specific nasty reply, I later edited realizing it was unproductive but clearly you wrote a response to the earlier version.

Upon reading some other stuff you wrote I take back that particular insult entirely, you do in fact have of insight and value.

I overall agreed with your take and reply, I griped with the wording and use of video game language over that which a TTRPG designer would use. I let prior interactions barb that reply the way I did and it tempted you to wrath, that was my mistake and I apologize.

This discourse has since been unproductive like 3 posts ago and I'm cutting my losses.

Fair, and apology accepted (although I really would prefer you to apologize for manipulating my words; the insult is whatever-who-cares) but I want to point out the logic that got me to using an unedited post.

When someone drops a content argument in favor of insults (funny or not), they are basically conceding that they have lost the factual argument, but want to blow a stink-cloud over the whole affair to cover the defeat. Years ago I thought it best to just let this be and move on, but after some reflection I think that being too polite in these circumstances is conditioning people to associate switching to irrelevant insults with winning an argument.

This conditioning cycle is one of the key reasons the internet has gone downhill the way it has. Robots and LLMs copying these techniques is the other.

This has led me to my current conclusion; whenever someone tries to misbehave like this, you must punish the attempt to misbehave. Not only have you already effectively won the argument, but letting the other person disengage thinking they can win by creating a big enough stink is actually bad for the overall health of the internet. Put bluntly, when someone attempts to insult me, I will intentionally disregard etiquette and shoot back, aiming at the balls.

There's nothing personal about this. The internet got where it is because too many people let this kind of behavior slide, so you should put your foot down eventually. And by, "you," I of course mean, "me."


As this is probably the thread wrapping up, I'll give Eirikrautha a (presumably) closing shot across the bow.

Actually competent people don't invoke Dunning-Kruger because a competent person would rely on their in-field competence and just correct a mistake because they would be confident in their own ability to answer follow-ups. Meanwhile, someone who is not particularly competent is likely to invoke a general principle like Dunning-Kruger to shut down the conversation without actually resorting to much comprehension. While this can occasionally be defended as a time-saver, that rarely actually makes sense because the counter-arguments to obviously flawed positions are often so easy to make, and sometimes articulating them is sometimes beneficial. No, the real explanation is almost invariably that the person invoking Dunning-Kruger isn't particularly confident in their ability to handle a follow-up.

I get that you're just copying other internet braindead users (probably from Reddit where this is a very popular argument line), but that doesn't reflect any better on you. Copying the braindead makes you also braindead.

So, once again, you can't provide any direct examples of OSR games (especially the newer ones as referenced in Pundit's video) neglecting "high level design."  I'm happy with the readers deciding who here is displaying competence, and who is just bloviating...