Quote from: StormBringer;308733It really isn't.

You can assert, and even believe that if you wish, but if you think a series of rules are more concrete than people sitting around a table playing the game, you're crazy. It's like claiming that law books are more concrete applications of the law than trials are.

QuoteAh, "...the most common use..."  In other words, there are other uses?  Perhaps someone would be so kind as to "enlighten" you as to the other uses; I know, it seems redundant with your self-professed mastery of English.  "Time for the grammar Nazi!" is the usual battlecry of people well out of their depth, after all.

I notice you still haven't answered the question. If you weren't quoting someone, and you weren't indicating dialogue (the next most common use), where did the text in the quotes come from, and why was it surrounded by quotation marks? They're simple questions. Why is it you're having such trouble answering them?

Christ, you grow increasingly more dishonest every time we enter into discussion.

QuoteNot really.  You want it to be, but I have already been over this.  This banal theory of yours isn't relevant here, as we are really discussing how the rules are presented at the moment.

Sorry Stormy, but you've already failed at this gambit earlier in the thread, so trying it again isn't going to work. My play experience, and the play experience of others, is directly relevant to this discussion. I know you don't want it to be because you don't have any play experience with the game and thus don't have very good rebuttals to points or issues based on it, but that's your tough luck.

Quote from: Spike;308741I haven't seen this line of reasoning since Justin Achilli tried to claim the Vampire books couldn't POSSIBLY be Pretentious because they were inanimate objects. And he was an Editor so he would know.

God it was glorious.  Why is no one trying to pull Psuedo into a quick recreation of that?  I demand BLOOD!

Bah. This thread's gone anemic. I'm headed back to the Gay thread.

Vampire books might be written in a pretentious style (in fact, they very often are), but they are not pretentious themselves. Similarly, one might object to some way in which the 4e books are written (Werekoala is doing just that and I'm taking his arguments seriously, you'll notice) or what is prioritised in the text. But 4e doesn't have an intent itself. So saying that 4e "pushes" or "encourages" or "expects" things is bizarre. It's straight up fetishism more appropriate to a Papuan Highlander than anyone using the internet.

It's pretty simple to understand unless you believe objects

Quote from: jrients;308735This one time I read a trilogy of books and it had all sorts of dialogue in it, all of which was inside quotation marks.  Quotation marks out the yin-yang.  Then someone told me that the Cyborg Commando novels are fiction and nobody ever said any of that stuff.  What a ripoff! Who do I speak to about getting my money back?

I'd be perfectly fine with Stormy acknowledging that the text he put in his quotes is as imaginary as the dialogue in the Cyborg Commando series.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308750Vampire books might be written in a pretentious style (in fact, they very often are), but they are not pretentious themselves. Similarly, one might object to some way in which the 4e books are written (Werekoala is doing just that and I'm taking his arguments seriously, you'll notice) or what is prioritised in the text. But 4e doesn't have an intent itself. So saying that 4e "pushes" or "encourages" or "expects" things is bizarre. It's straight up fetishism more appropriate to a Papuan Highlander than anyone using the internet.

It's pretty simple to understand unless you believe objects

Now Pseudo, you're being nitpicky here you know? Even in my drugged-out state I can tell that when someone says a book is pretentious, what they're really saying is that the author of the book is being pretentious for writing what they did. You know very well none of us are actually stupid, so none of us actually believe a book can be pretentious (or whatever) in and of itself. Does everyone always have to come out and state what can easily be implied? Other than that, I have no dog in this hunt, so ya'all rock on

Quote from: Sigmund;308752Now Pseudo, you're being nitpicky here you know? Even in my drugged-out state I can tell that when someone says a book is pretentious, what they're really saying is that the author of the book is being pretentious for writing what they did. You know very well none of us are actually stupid, so none of us actually believe a book can be pretentious (or whatever) in and of itself. Does everyone always have to come out and state what can easily be implied? Other than that, I have no dog in this hunt, so ya'all rock on

The reason I'm attacking this is because what provoked this discussion is not someone saying that D&D 4e is "pretentious", but using much stronger language: The D&D 4e "expects" a certain style of play. Someone else said it "pushed" one to play it a certain way. These are actions that can be taken by people, not by books. Since this kind of way of talking about 4e (and RPGs in general) serves (at least in the case of Hairfoot and Stormbringer) as the basis for fairly wild claims, it's important to hack it out root and branch.

Quote from: Sigmund;308752Now Pseudo, you're being nitpicky here you know? Even in my drugged-out state I can tell that when someone says a book is pretentious, what they're really saying is that the author of the book is being pretentious for writing what they did. You know very well none of us are actually stupid, so none of us actually believe a book can be pretentious (or whatever) in and of itself. Does everyone always have to come out and state what can easily be implied? Other than that, I have no dog in this hunt, so ya'all rock on

Pedantics is all he has left.  In fact, all he really has to start with.  Don't take that away from him, man.

Quote from: StormBringer;308757Pedantics is all he has left.  In fact, all he really has to start with.  Don't take that away from him, man.

I'll take pedantry; you can keep lying.

Cheers!

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308751I'd be perfectly fine with Stormy acknowledging that the text he put in his quotes is as imaginary as the dialogue in the Cyborg Commando series.

You really need to take some refresher courses in language skills.  You might have yourself convinced you are a pro at it, but no one else has any problem understanding the very things you are stumbling over.  Of course, the more likely explanation is wilful ignorance coupled with pedantry to cover for an argument that is utterly devoid of substance.

I am quite certain you will continue to demand an explanation for something that everyone else has easily comprehended, however, thinking this will magically make my post look incoherent.  

Or, it looks like you will be playing the 'dishonesty' card.  That's fine, too, but you are still the only one having a problem understanding things.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308756The reason I'm attacking this is because what provoked this discussion is not someone saying that D&D 4e is "pretentious", but using much stronger language: The D&D 4e "expects" a certain style of play. Someone else said it "pushed" one to play it a certain way. These are actions that can be taken by people, not by books. Since this kind of way of talking about 4e (and RPGs in general) serves (at least in the case of Hairfoot and Stormbringer) as the basis for fairly wild claims, it's important to hack it out root and branch.

Yes, it's the people that move the rook in a straight line.  Chess certainly doesn't expect someone to play it like that.  Moving the King a single space isn't pushed by the rules, it is only an action taken by people.

This is where the 'theory of play' leads, people.  Utterly ridiculous statements that the rules have no connection to the resultant play.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308756The reason I'm attacking this is because what provoked this discussion is not someone saying that D&D 4e is "pretentious", but using much stronger language: The D&D 4e "expects" a certain style of play. Someone else said it "pushed" one to play it a certain way. These are actions that can be taken by people, not by books. Since this kind of way of talking about 4e (and RPGs in general) serves (at least in the case of Hairfoot and Stormbringer) as the basis for fairly wild claims, it's important to hack it out root and branch.

Well, I do see the point you're making, but I can still quite easily infer that when one says 4e "pushes" or "expects", what is really being said is that the 4e designers are "pushing" and "expecting". You know that too, ya'all are just in the heat of battle up in here I can relate to that. I'm too drugged out to make much more of a point about this topic... hell, I might be hallucinating about this one even Have fun fellers.

Quote from: StormBringer;308761Yes, it's the people that move the rook in a straight line.  Chess certainly doesn't expect someone to play it like that.  Moving the King a single space isn't pushed by the rules, it is only an action taken by people.

This is where the 'theory of play' leads, people.  Utterly ridiculous statements that the rules have no connection to the resultant play.

The rules are realised only through the specific actions of players. Your last statement shows that you simply don't understand the position. "No connection"?

Quote from: Sigmund;308770Well, I do see the point you're making, but I can still quite easily infer that when one says 4e "pushes" or "expects", what is really being said is that the 4e designers are "pushing" and "expecting". You know that too, ya'all are just in the heat of battle up in here I can relate to that. I'm too drugged out to make much more of a point about this topic... hell, I might be hallucinating about this one even Have fun fellers.

I agree that it might be legitimate to say that Mike Mearls expects us to play a certain way. I also think Mike Mearls' opinion of how we play is unimportant (qua designer), since he doesn't sit over our shoulders and tell us how we must use the rules of the game. I think that's more obvious when you phrase it as "Mike Mearls wants..." than "4e expects..." because one is clearly just one guy's desires and interpretation, while the other slips in the claim that the system itself has certain characteristics that make you, or "push" you or "expect" you to play it a certain way.

Quote from: StormBringer;308760You really need to take some refresher courses in language skills.  You might have yourself convinced you are a pro at it, but no one else has any problem understanding the very things you are stumbling over.  Of course, the more likely explanation is wilful ignorance coupled with pedantry to cover for an argument that is utterly devoid of substance.

I am quite certain you will continue to demand an explanation for something that everyone else has easily comprehended, however, thinking this will magically make my post look incoherent.  

Or, it looks like you will be playing the 'dishonesty' card.  That's fine, too, but you are still the only one having a problem understanding things.

I'm trying to get you to admit that you prevaricate, invent quotes, and create strawmen out of other's positions, and that you do all of these things in bad faith rather than say, because you are ignorant of the standards of reasonable discourse.

I think I've shown that several times on this thread, including when you (baselessly and without evidence) accused me of trying to get you banned, and now again, when you are making up quotes, mischaracterising my positions, refusing to answer questions put straight to you, and just generally arguing in bad faith.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308775I agree that it might be legitimate to say that Mike Mearls expects us to play a certain way. I also think Mike Mearls' opinion of how we play is unimportant (qua designer), since he doesn't sit over our shoulders and tell us how we must use the rules of the game. I think that's more obvious when you phrase it as "Mike Mearls wants..." than "4e expects..." because one is clearly just one guy's desires and interpretation, while the other slips in the claim that the system itself has certain characteristics that make you, or "push" you or "expect" you to play it a certain way.

I agree, it would be clearer to state it that way. I disagree that the designer's expectations are unimportant because the designer's opinions and expectations influence all the choices they make concerning what rules to include or discard, how the rules will accomplish their goals, and the overall feel of the game. I do agree that those choices don't force anyone to play a certain way though, and players can and do "own" games. So from where I sit designer's choices aren't unimportant, but they're not immutable laws either. They can make or break a game when it comes to an individual's needs and tastes though. 4e is right on the fence for me because of that, for example, as you know

Quote from: jgants;308726Actually, if you play the RAW and use the Reaction Rules...

...then, as you said, rolling instead of roleplaying has been around for some time. Of course, that's forgotten as those rules were apparently easily ignored...

Seanchai