Quote from: rgrove0172;938798Yes, exactly. On the scale of cold, stark reality v.s. Hollywood overdrama - my games lean more to the latter and I work to make sure they do! That's just the way we like to play.

Which we've said many many many many times - there is *nothing* wrong with that. It's the methods you use to run your games concerning this Hollywood overdrama that is the root of your problems in all these threads.

You're confusing all the tools with how those tools could be used based solely on the singular way you've used them.

The analogy is like this: We all are carpenters. The first thing we all learned is how to use a wrench, for whatever reason. You, on your island, like to use a 12-inch wrench for a hammer AND a ruler. When you could use a tape-measure and a hammer respectively. But for the things you build - it works for you and your group. Then you sail over to our island insisting that all our power-tools and shit are exactly the same expressions as your trusty 12-inch wrench and anything I could do with my /random tool - 'jackhammer' you could achieve with your 12-inch wrench. You tell us about the huts you build with your 12-inch wrench and some of us are saying "Great hut. My group like to play in a skyscraper because it gives them a lot more options." Conversely - it takes more skill to make a skyscraper and are more prone to come crashing down with tremendous force. Huts don't typically do that, but that's because they're more basic to create and maintain. But you're insisting your hut and my skyscraper are the same thing. They are insofar as they keep rain off our heads. (i.e. they're games) but they aren't the same thing. You can put all the work you want on your hut - paint it, add a second story, put in a fireplace etc - but you're using the same method of your 12-inch wrench to do it. You could make a skyscraper sized hut and it would be as flimsy as fuck and wouldn't withstand the stresses required of a structure that size because ultimately your method only allows for certain narrow options of play.

You couldn't have the scale of campaigns I have doing things your way based on what you've told us. All of these threads are you trying to convince us of that. You seem to take offense that we don't agree. There's a fix to that.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938725This explains a lot, for there is men's fiction, there is bad men's fiction, then there is Jerry Ahern.

Actually Jerry's combat descriptors were pretty good (nod necessarily 100% accurate. But at least entertaining) and he didnt really overuse the technique as I recall. This guy was very savvy on guns so its no surprise his prose follows suit. I knew him back in the 90s but didnt connect him to the novels till later. He passed away in 2012.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938805Well Ill be fucked, the first bit of honesty Ive heard from you or several of your cronies yet. Im not likely to get much support around here, we don't like your kind in these parts, best you light a shuck!  I think I got it.

This will be my last thread, you can fucking bank on it.

Oh for the love of Pete this again?

So you are totally ignoring the people here who agree on one or several points in any given thread or who just happen to also be diametrically opposed to Gronan or mine or your styles of play?

We open threads for discussion. We get discussion. Theres never a guarantee anyone will agree with us. Not here, not anywhere.

Personally I find it a little annoying that you rarely ever engage with the ones that agree with you. Its nigh invariably responses to the ones that dont.

Quote from: Omega;938853Actually Jerry's combat descriptors were pretty good and he didnt really overuse the technique as I recall. This guy was very savvy on guns so its no surprise his prose follows suit. I knew him back in the 90s but didnt connect him to the novels till later. He passed away in 2012.

Generally I find his descriptors are like you're in bullet-time with a narrator explaining every bit of minutiae in the nano-second that  happening. He was Matrix-fu before there was a Matrix. He was good with the *specifics* of guns and weaponry but not realistic on their actual effects in combat. You're not going to notice how your .45 round shattered someone's sternum and mushroomed out doing whatever-damage to your opponents body in the midst of combat. But it's not *supposed* to, it never was, it's gonzo over-the-top and very much a product of its time. He's great like "Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared Synn" was great. But I wouldn't call those Corman movies great movies.

He's fun like Cussler, Marcinko, and Poyer etc. To be honest - I should add Cussler has *really* fun stories that work amazingly well for adventures. But his writing is still shite.

Quote from: Omega;938853Actually Jerry's combat descriptors were pretty good . . .

. . . if you enjoy gun-bunny-porn, perhaps.

Me? Not a fan.

Quote from: tenbones;938857He's great like "Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared Synn" was great. But I wouldn't call those Corman movies great movies.

He's fun like Cussler, Marcinko, and Poyer etc. To be honest - I should add Cussler has *really* fun stories that work amazingly well for adventures. But his writing is still shite.

1: Saw that in the theaters.

2: Hence why I noted he was not allways accurate but at least he was entertaining even when not. Which is more than some others can claim. Others Im familliar with to one degree or another are Death Merchant, The Destroyer, and Mat Bolan since the local book store stocked those. All at once.

Back on topic, assuming Grove hasnt actually left...

Perhaps the better question would have been... How much detail is too much and how much is too little at YOUR table? Because what fits for one sure as hell isnt going to fit at some other table. Probably sooner than later.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938803I have taken great strides to assert my opinion as just that, one opinion among many with no claim to superiority in any way.

Other than the incessant passive-aggressive swipes at other gamers, you mean?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938784. . . [Y]ou said yourself that you want me to say "he's riding an Andalusian," even though you don't know what an Andalusian looks like.  So if you tell your players "He's riding an Andalusian" and none of your six players know what an Andalusian looks like either... THEY WILL ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT PICTURE IN THEIR HEADS.  You yourself have said you use words without knowing or caring exactly what they mean, and now you're saying you want your players to have exactly the correct picture in their heads.

These statements are literally antithetical; if you cannot see that then further discussion is literally impossible.  You cannot "use words without worrying about their precise meaning" AND  have them "experience the setting the way I intend."

The thing that's kinda funny for me in all this, is that I'm exactly the sort of gamer who will go to the effort of knowing what kind of horse a character is riding, or what kind of sword swings at his side, or what kind of hogleg rests in her holster, or the titles of books on a library shelf, because I enjoy the shit out of that stuff.

One of my characters in our BH campaign is the youngest son of a prosperous Nebraska rancher - he attended secondary school and college at the St Louis Academy and University, until he was kicked out by the Jesuits for gambling, and then completed a baccalaureate at the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy. Among his personal effects are copies of Rossiter W. Raymond's Silver and gold: an account of the mining and metallurgical industry of the United States, with reference chiefly to the precious metals and volume fifteen of the Engineering and Mining Journal. I wanted to know what a budding mining engineer might have on his bookshelf in 1874, so I researched the subject and came away with those two titles as likely candidates.

But while I want to know those kinds of details for myself, and I will take the time to get them right, I don't for a moment pretend they are of any interest to anyone else until or unless they ask, and perhaps not even then. It's enough for me to describe a character as reading a book of poetry, and if an adventurer inquires, then I can say it's Whitman's Leaves of Grass or Quevedo's "Afectos varios de su corazón, fluctuando en las ondas de los cabellos de Lisi" because the player wants to know, not because I want to show off the depth of my research or add a layer of faux-verisimilitude.

What I don't do is turn every description at the table into an expository lump big enough and cheesy enough to choke gawdamn Galactus. My descriptions are in layers, adding details where needed but trusting that the scene the players envision in their heads is close enough to mine that I don't need to wrestle their imaginations to the floor and beat them into submission, until proven otherwise.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938859. . . if you enjoy gun-bunny-porn, perhaps.

Me? Not a fan.

I appreciate the descriptors and effort even if I dont understand 75% of whats being described.

I know at least three professional artists who are gun experts and one who gave demonstrations for the military. So Im used to not knowing what the heck they are talking about half the time. Much like when my security tech explains some program or function.

Remember me lamenting about gun jargon fapping? Yeah, that, for the past few pages. I could definitely do with much less of that at the game table.

(Which now gives me a great idea for my future RPG gaming as a player: when gun bunnies start copulating at the table, arguing gun minutiae, I will bust out Jerry Ahern and lustily read his tumescent descriptions as background narration.)

Quote from: tenbones;938847Which we've said many many many many times - there is *nothing* wrong with that. It's the methods you use to run your games concerning this Hollywood overdrama that is the root of your problems in all these threads.

You're confusing all the tools with how those tools could be used based solely on the singular way you've used them.

The analogy is like this: We all are carpenters. The first thing we all learned is how to use a wrench, for whatever reason. You, on your island, like to use a 12-inch wrench for a hammer AND a ruler. When you could use a tape-measure and a hammer respectively. But for the things you build - it works for you and your group. Then you sail over to our island insisting that all our power-tools and shit are exactly the same expressions as your trusty 12-inch wrench and anything I could do with my /random tool - 'jackhammer' you could achieve with your 12-inch wrench. You tell us about the huts you build with your 12-inch wrench and some of us are saying "Great hut. My group like to play in a skyscraper because it gives them a lot more options." Conversely - it takes more skill to make a skyscraper and are more prone to come crashing down with tremendous force. Huts don't typically do that, but that's because they're more basic to create and maintain. But you're insisting your hut and my skyscraper are the same thing. They are insofar as they keep rain off our heads. (i.e. they're games) but they aren't the same thing. You can put all the work you want on your hut - paint it, add a second story, put in a fireplace etc - but you're using the same method of your 12-inch wrench to do it. You could make a skyscraper sized hut and it would be as flimsy as fuck and wouldn't withstand the stresses required of a structure that size because ultimately your method only allows for certain narrow options of play.

You couldn't have the scale of campaigns I have doing things your way based on what you've told us. All of these threads are you trying to convince us of that. You seem to take offense that we don't agree. There's a fix to that.

I will resist the temptation to start any more threads on GM theory as promised but I intend to post when I think I have something to offer.

What you seem to be missing through all that explanation above is that while you are describing your skyscraper, in all its glory, all I and probably a few others see is another hut. It doesn't look so grandiose or even worth the effort of all those fancy tools you are flashing around. Its a habitat to me, people live in it, just like over on my island. Its different but not any better. The evolution of construction on your island went one way, ours went another - that's nature! Your declarations on the primitiveness of my tools, the simplicity of my design and the lack of progress my little island has shown over the years are just opinions, you have a lot of those. I respect them but it doesn't make me an ass if I fail to accept them as fact.

You assume my games must be inferior (You couldn't have the scale of campaigns I have) and then berate me for imagined similar slights. If I have in any way suggested my opinions are superior let me once and for all scream at the top of my lungs for all to hear that I DID NOT INTEND TO AND I APOLOGIZE. The very fact that I bring up these subjects to me proves I am eager to hear alternatives and discuss other methods. The fact that I don't grovel to someone's description of their vastly superior methodology puts me right there in league with most of the members posting on these threads. Singling me out as some sort of egotist is just bull. I am entitled to my opinion, to hold it against all contests if I so desire and have the right to be just as stubborn as those accosting me. In fact however, I am not. I have learned a great deal from these discussions and even put some of what I have learned into play in recent game sessions. I believe Ive made that very clear numerous times but as said, apparently I am just too inviting a target.

Quote from: Omega;938856Oh for the love of Pete this again?

So you are totally ignoring the people here who agree on one or several points in any given thread or who just happen to also be diametrically opposed to Gronan or mine or your styles of play?

We open threads for discussion. We get discussion. Theres never a guarantee anyone will agree with us. Not here, not anywhere.

Personally I find it a little annoying that you rarely ever engage with the ones that agree with you. Its nigh invariably responses to the ones that dont.

I believe I have responded in support of those who agreed or at least seemed to understand my perspective. I don't go overboard responding however as typically it invites a slanderous response from someone accusing me of sucking up.

Quote from: Omega;9388601: Saw that in the theaters.

2: Hence why I noted he was not allways accurate but at least he was entertaining even when not. Which is more than some others can claim. Others Im familliar with to one degree or another are Death Merchant, The Destroyer, and Mat Bolan since the local book store stocked those. All at once.

Back on topic, assuming Grove hasnt actually left...

Perhaps the better question would have been... How much detail is too much and how much is too little at YOUR table? Because what fits for one sure as hell isnt going to fit at some other table. Probably sooner than later.

Ill admit to leaving too much to the imagination in my thread titles I suppose. Not a mistake I will make again. Im flat sick of my threads turning into shit storms like this one.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938874Ill admit to leaving too much to the imagination in my thread titles I suppose. Not a mistake I will make again. Im flat sick of my threads turning into shit storms like this one.

A lot of them do because of the general tenor of approach here. And some folks believe being an over the top dickwad somehow makes them more honest. But you WILL get exactly what people think. It comes unvarnished because you're not expected to buy it, if you don't want.

So let's say I think you're overly dramatic in your description. That you railroad your way through perils and princesses. Well, so what?  In all honesty, I find the other extreme unfathomable, as well --fiddling with tappy-tap 10' poles, fucking around with door hinges, worrying about ranks of archers and pikemen. Fuck THAT. I'm not sure how the fuck anybody finds THAT shit fun, either. But that's okay. I'm not required to okay the way you play, or gronan plays. But I still might find something in your styles I can use. I can say truthfully that, while I'll never wax poetic, grove-style, reading about your style leads me to think I can (and maybe should) bring a wee bit more effort in that venue, just to see if improves our experience at our table.

So, even though I personally don't cotton to your style, it doesn't mean there isn't something I can't use. The key to survival among the fascists here is to just stop worrying and love the bomb. We're only talking about games. And in a way in which I might argue Mantle vs. Mays vs. DiMaggio vs. Griffey. There really won't be an answer that isn't personal, comtextualized, and maybe even heated (it's Mays, by the way--discussion over).:-)

Quote from: rgrove0172;938872What you seem to be missing through all that explanation above is that while you are describing your skyscraper, in all its glory, all I and probably a few others see is another hut.

Probably? How would you know? I actually understand the use of a railroad in a game - and I know how to use it (which is fairly rarely). By your own multitude of threads and examples and fiction-inspirations you've painted a fairly clear picture that by my standards - you don't.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938872It doesn't look so grandiose or even worth the effort of all those fancy tools you are flashing around. Its a habitat to me, people live in it, just like over on my island. Its different but not any better. The evolution of construction on your island went one way, ours went another - that's nature! Your declarations on the primitiveness of my tools, the simplicity of my design and the lack of progress my little island has shown over the years are just opinions, you have a lot of those. I respect them but it doesn't make me an ass if I fail to accept them as fact.

I see the carpentry metaphor is lost on you. You're literally saying there is no difference between a hut and a skyscraper. By your OWN words you've said you've been running games for the same group for three-decades. Whereas I have run games for hundreds of people for over three-decades. All things being equal - the safe money is that you are the one gaming in relative isolation. Yes, yes it's all just opinions. Well so it seems that evolution itself is just an opinion. Tic-tac-toe is just as complex as Chess. Putting your chip on the Black is the same as putting it on the OO - you either win or lose! it's all 50/50 and equal. /eyeroll.

You could not run a campaign that I do using your method with my players on either side of this continent. It would collapse under the weight of your attempts at controlling everything - which you couldn't do, and it would be glaringly obvious and implode. None of which means anything if you have no concept of scale. So.../shrug.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938872You assume my games must be inferior (You couldn't have the scale of campaigns I have) and then berate me for imagined similar slights.

Any assumptions I'm making is based on your multitude of examples and your self-afflicted sense of ego. You're excluding yourself from the participation-aspect of having a discussion simply because you don't like the responses. The *assumptions* of inferiority are *yours* - because I've said many times that if what you do works for your group GREAT!<--- how many times do I have to say that? Care to answer that? I think your games are basic compared to mine. I suspect others here have far more complex games than mine. Do I care? Nope. But having said that - I'd love to know what they're doing and why, and how, and what amounts, and which systems they're using, and why those systems, and I'm open to listening to their advice if I have questions because I'm always looking at learning something new I could implement in my games which is why I have discussions on forums. Why do you?

See the difference in approach? You are overly sensitive to a lot of stuff said and dodge the substance of most of these posts in order to get validation for the style of game you run.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938872If I have in any way suggested my opinions are superior let me once and for all scream at the top of my lungs for all to hear that I DID NOT INTEND TO AND I APOLOGIZE.

No need to apologize because I don't care about your feelings about my feelings - which are not in any way affected by you.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938872The very fact that I bring up these subjects to me proves I am eager to hear alternatives and discuss other methods. The fact that I don't grovel to someone's description of their vastly superior methodology puts me right there in league with most of the members posting on these threads. Singling me out as some sort of egotist is just bull. I am entitled to my opinion, to hold it against all contests if I so desire and have the right to be just as stubborn as those accosting me. In fact however, I am not. I have learned a great deal from these discussions and even put some of what I have learned into play in recent game sessions. I believe Ive made that very clear numerous times but as said, apparently I am just too inviting a target.

So here's where I call bullshit. You're not eager to hear or discuss any methods. I have not seen you engage on these things beyond defending the shitty examples you've volunteered after others including myself, have given you many responses in good faith but you dismiss out of hand. How do I know? Because you've not once mentioned any attempts at doing anything different after all this time asking the SAME QUESTIONS. Likewise who in the fuck is asking you to grovel about anything?!?!?

And you keep tossing out this value-claim about opinions like they're sacrosanct. No one said you can't have an opinion. No one claimed your opinion was invalid. No one said you're not allowed to defend your opinion (what's funny is you don't even do that - you cut and run the moment someone calls you out). What I *will* call bullshit on is that you're under this dumb impression that all opinions are equal in value. Opinions can be weighed and measured. They most certainly are not the same. They most certainly do not have the same value. So why in the fuck, at this point, after all these threads, should we *value* your opinion? What have you said that I haven't already agreed with you on that I should be valuing?

Care to take a shot at that?

As an equal member of this forum my opinion has value regardless. Basic decency between civilized participants require we value even the worst, most rediculous or seemingly errant opinions. We can say what we may about them but should not dismiss them.

Oh and I have gamed with various groups and individuals over the years. Perhaps not the multitudes you have but certainly not the same group for 30 years. I wish!