Quote from: LancerUmm.... too bad?:shrug:

Too bad? You're the one who responded to me, concerned that I might addressing my statements to you ("I hope you are not directing this at me personally, but in a general sense."). What's this "too bad" crap?

Quote from: LancerWhen will some people learn that a critique on their favorite game/song/movie/DVD/food (whatever) does not constitute a personal attack on their own person?

If you keep your criticisms directly at the object and not the person, they aren't. When you start saying things along the lines of, "What kind of person enjoys [blank]?" you start getting into muddier water.

Quote from: LancerYou have said I have "insulted" people. This is curious to me unless you interpret expressed dislike of one of your favorite games to be a personal slight. I challenge you to find a post where I resorted to name-calling, cussed people out, or ad hominem.

"I don't understand how veterans would get so much out of 3e."

"And why would anyone go to 3e, after they have tweaked an older iteration enough to their tastes?"

"I just don't like to compromise my standards for a game system I am not completely happy with, just because it so happens to be the most popular one."

"I can understand why newbies to the hobby would like 3e.. Among other things, name recognition. I admit to not understanding specifically why VETS would not think 3e is anything but craptastic. Unless they haven't found other better fantasy games (which is hard to believe), don't like tweaking rules, or have failed to do so in a satisfactory manner to them-- which also explains the following point."

"As you have said in another thread, gamers are a "lazy" folk and want something more "complete.""

"And I daresay, many of them just don't know any better. I certainly didn't when I used to be ignorant about skill-based systems and defended AD&D against them."

"Many (notice I don't say ALL) players just don't know any better or are unwilling to try out new things...But I was specifically referring to those players that DON'T know any better and have just given in to the hype."

"I can say for certain that many players truly just don't know any better."

"I just try to get better players..."

"I don't think everybody plays 3e because they don't know any better, but I think many people do. And then many of those will eventually evolve from 3e and try other games, maybe ditching 3e forever or some may even stick with it (barring leaving the hobby)."

But, hey, I'm sure you didn't mean that folks who play D&D are ignorant sell outs in a bad way. Maybe, if they're lucky, they'll discover Rifts and "evolve," however.

Quote from: LancerWhen have I ever called you a "dick" like you called me?

Oh, but I wasn't calling you a dick. I was saying people who behave like you're behaving are dicks. I don't why you're getting so touchy - I'm just critiquing the behavior, not the person.

Anyway, stop whining about being called a dick, Richard.

Seanchai

I still don't see any name-calling, ad hominem, or cussing people out. I see someone expressing dislike for a game, that's it.
Although a couple of those posts can be taken out of their intended context to mean something else (i.e. "I don't understand how veterans would get so much out of 3e").

QuoteIf you keep your criticisms directly at the object and not the person, they aren't. When you start saying things along the lines of, "What kind of person enjoys [blank]?" you start getting into muddier water.

This is where we are in disagreement. So now I can't make my own deductions as to what I percieve are some of the types of people that may be playing a certain game? Notice when I say things like -- "many gamers play 3e because they don't know better" --  I use the qualifying term "many", not "all". I could have just as easily said "some" instead. Either one is a big difference in tone from "everybody".

Not only that, but I even went as far as admitting to being among those that didn't know any better!- Effectively, insulting myself! THINK THIS CAREFULLY: Does that make any sense to you that I would insult myself along with the 3e/d20 gamers I supposedly "insulted" as a whole?

You are still confusing dislike of a game with dislike of the gamer.

Let me give you some examples...It would be totally different if I said now:

"People that play 3e are idiots."

"I can't believe that vets are so stupid as to play 3e!"

"Anybody that plays 3e or d20 is a LOOOSER!!!"

"You gotta be pretty stupid to  play 3e instead of (insert favorite system here)"

"EVERYBODY that plays 3e just doesn't know any better. They are all a  bunch of hack and slash powergamers that haven't got a clue.."

"3e gamers don't know how to roleplay. All they are , are a bunch of munchkins"

This is a big difference from the comments I actually wrote. Incidentally, I don't believe in any of the above crap. For some reason you think I am actually saying the above , instead of what I actually wrote.

QuoteAnyway, stop whining about being called a dick, Richard.

I'm whining? So says the guy that has a beef with me.

Quote from: LancerI still don't see any name-calling, ad hominem, or cussing people out.

Saying people are ignorant isn't name calling or an ad hominem?

Quote from: LancerI see someone expressing dislike for a game, that's it.

No. The quotes I posted are instances where you address people, not the game.

Quote from: LancerSo now I can't make my own deductions as to what I percieve are some of the types of people that may be playing a certain game?

"I see someone expressing dislike for a game, that's it." Which is it, you're expressing dislike for a game or you're talking about the people who play that game? Because it seems like you're admitting to addressing D&D players, not just D&D, with the statement above.

Quote from: LancerNotice when I say things like -- "many gamers play 3e because they don't know better" --  I use the qualifying term "many", not all. I could have just as easily said "some" instead. Either one is a big difference in tone from "everybody".

Ah. Well then. Many of the folks who continue to try to force people to try new things after said folks have expressed a desire to continue playing what they're playing are complete dicks. Better?

Quote from: LancerYou are still confusing dislike of a game with dislike of the gamer.

No. You clearly think poorly of both D&D and D&D players.

Quote from: LancerI'm whining? So says the guy that has a beef with me.

Dude, I'm not sure who you're trying to win over with your self-declared martyrdom, but this is the wild west. There are no moderators here who are going to protect you from the results of your stupidity. If you're panties are in twist over someone suggesting you're a dick, best to leave. Being called a dick ain't nothing.

Seanchai

Never mind.:rolleyes: So much for civility. Still trying to tell me what I think?

This is just not getting anywhere. You have your mind made up and are closed to reason..
I am not even going to go into all your inaccuracies and just plain falsehoods.
Seanchai, you believe what you want to believe. True or not.

Quote from: LancerBut that's the point, Sigmund. I never said ever in any of my posts that ALL or EVERY group should ditch D&D for other games. I am not sending mixed messages. People are just taking things out of context and reading into things that aren't there. In this thread and the other 3e thread, I specifically use qualifying terms like "many" or "some" people, or leave it at "people." That some posters add extra flavor to my posts, and pass it off as statements I have made, is unfortunate and unfair.

Well, I might consider that it's me, but I'm not the only one making these observations, so I'd still take a look at how you're presenting your thoughts if I were you.

QuoteIt's a bit experimental. But I think it has the right idea in getting rid of AoO and simplifying much of the chaff. I am not particularly crazy about the wealth mechanic though.

I agree for the most part. I don't mind AoO, but for some genres and/or groups it does slow things down too much. I also don't like the wealth system, although I understand why they are using it since the game is meant to be multi-genre. For fantasy I'd change it to coinage, but for modern and future I think I might keep it for some types of games where wealth and treasure are not much of an issue. Sorry, for the minor digression everyone.

Quote from: SeanchaiDude, I'm not sure who you're trying to win over with your self-declared martyrdom, but this is the wild west. There are no moderators here who are going to protect you from the results of your stupidity. If you're panties are in twist over someone suggesting you're a dick, best to leave. Being called a dick ain't nothing.

Seanchai

It's obvious who wasn't around for the old Nutkinland days ain't it? I'll tell ya, if they think the little bit of directness some of us use around here nowadays is bad it's really good they weren't around then. Leopold would have raised some hell.

Since it seems this thread has just about run its course-- So what WERE the olden days like, Nutkinland? Leopold (who is he?)?

Why do us newbies have it so easy now?:raise:

Quote from: LancerThis is where we are in disagreement. So now I can't make my own deductions as to what I percieve are some of the types of people that may be playing a certain game? Notice when I say things like -- "many gamers play 3e because they don't know better" --  I use the qualifying term "many", not "all". I could have just as easily said "some" instead. Either one is a big difference in tone from "everybody".

Not offensive. Just wrong. No one plays a game they don't enjoy "because they don't know any better." If they don't enjoy it, they learn better or quit playing. If they're playing it, it's because they enjoy it. There isn't some "many" in denial. Only you.

Quote from: LancerSince it seems this thread has just about run its course-- So what WERE the olden days like, Nutkinland? Leopold (who is he?)?

I don't know who the fuck Leopold is, but I do know Randolpho legally changed his RL name to that of his character.

Or so he claimed.

I actually rather enjoy the naive abrasiveness of a walkerp or a Lancer post.  It's a hell of a lot more genuine than the fake politically correct or false robustness of some other people's posts.  Much more representative of what you would deal with in meat space while TRYING to comprehend their intent instead of dissecting it.  A number of 1st edition assassins on this site, isn't there?  The home of the rhetorical brave.

Leo was just one of many dudes around the old Nutkinland that used to be kinda abrasive at times It was kinda funny really, as long as ya knew not to take the shit seriously. It's been awhile though, I think lots of folks went to Circus Maximus after the original Nutkinland closed up, but eventually it was revived, then morphed into this site.

Quote from: GunslingerI actually rather enjoy the naive abrasiveness of a walkerp or a Lancer post.  It's a hell of a lot more genuine than the fake politically correct or false robustness of some other people's posts.  Much more representative of what you would deal with in meat space while TRYING to comprehend their intent instead of dissecting it.  A number of 1st edition assassins on this site, isn't there?  The home of the rhetorical brave.

I don't mind anyone being abrasive as long as they can take as good as they give.

Quote from: David RAnd what we would call behaviour such as this?

RPG Theory?

Someone probably already said it; I came to the thread late... sorry.
-E.

Quote from: beejazzNot offensive. Just wrong. No one plays a game they don't enjoy "because they don't know any better." If they don't enjoy it, they learn better or quit playing. If they're playing it, it's because they enjoy it. There isn't some "many" in denial. Only you.

You really have to miss about half of my posts to arrive at that conclusion about me, beejazz..

Let me quote myself again.. Coming from post #40 of this thread.

Quote from: LancerPeople are happy with the games they play, or else they wouldn't be playing them. Whether or not there are other games they would like even more, if made aware of them, is a different story.

So what is this about me saying that people play games they don't enjoy?
When people actually take the time to read my posts, instead of mis-quoting me, this thread would be a more pleasant place.

Quote from: SigmundWell, I might consider that it's me, but I'm not the only one making these observations, so I'd still take a look at how you're presenting your thoughts if I were you.

Except, when I can point out the exact instances where people have mis-quoted me at every turn, and show that what I actually stated is at odds to what they claim I stated, then the problem is not with how I have presented my arguments, it is with how others have presented theirs (i.e logic leaps).
Let me make a case:

Why do several posters have the same problem with my posts?- I imagine that there must be a domino effect involved. One person in disagreement with me twists what I say-- Someone else comes along and reads that person's mis-characterization of my arguments (thinking that is what I believe) and then posts something based on that misunderstanding..Then another comes along..etc.

I see it over and over again on this thread.

EDIT: I have to say though, that I see a lot of similarity between people's mis-characterizations of my posts and Ron Edwardesque opinions. As if people are wanting to see "Ron Edwards" in my posts when none of that is there. Maybe some are influenced by a hatred of the man? I dunno.

Following Gunslinger's correct observation:
I admit that the "abrasiveness/directness" of my opinions (and they would be to 3.x/d20 fans) may have something to do with why some folks claim things I didn't state. I'll be civil in all my posts but what I am not going to do is mollify them by sugar-coating things up either. If I am going to soften things in that manner, best not post anything at all. At least, that's what I believe.