Quote from: rgrove0172;939012Spot on. Understanding where the other guy is coming from is crucial when attempting to get his full meaning in a post and something rarely in evidence here. Assumptions are made continually and misunderstandings proliferate. Once I got the idea that tenbones was a heavy gamer, lots of different projects, many different groups, cons etc. it changed how I perceived his posts. Im at the other far end of the spectrum. I did my mass gaming, convention stuff with military miniatures. To me RPGs are more personal, I pick and choose my players, the games I want to GM and how I want to GM them. I less likely to adjust how I want to enjoy the game than I would be if GMing on demand for example or for a new group I was trying to lure into gaming. I can afford to be selfish.

I think some of the contention in these threads might be coming from that you seem to be asking for advice on how to get a broader appeal then rejecting or arguing with the advice given based on personal preferences. And that's being taken as arrogance or possibly trying to troll and pick fights. There appears to have be misunderstanding regarding the purpose of your threads and its ballooned in a general hostility.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939014Players that don't share your vision for how the game is supposed to flow. Don't appreciate detail, concentrate only on combat, aren't self motivated or whatever.

None of that was from my post. I assumed because you were quoting me you were responding to what I said.

QuoteYou spend time and effort on elements they don't care about etc.

Yeah, I do. Because thats the part of gaming I do for myself. When I GM, I'm primarily concerned with my players enjoyment. When I do prep for a game, I'm mostly engaged in creative masturbation. I think you took my words for resentment; its not. Its merely a recognition that what I do for myself is not an obligation I expect from players.

Quote from: Nexus;939005I think some of the difference is perspective stems from a difference in approach and goals. I'm not really trying to appeal to a vast number of people. If people like my style and want to play in my games, that's great. If they don't that's cool too. Same goes for when I play. I'll stay or leave based on how much I like the game.

Yeah, thats always been my approach. To the point I still think the concept of playing games with strangers at stores or conventions is somewhat bizarre. For me, its always just been something I get together and do with friends.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939012Spot on. Understanding where the other guy is coming from is crucial when attempting to get his full meaning in a post and something rarely in evidence here. Assumptions are made continually and misunderstandings proliferate. Once I got the idea that tenbones was a heavy gamer, lots of different projects, many different groups, cons etc. it changed how I perceived his posts. Im at the other far end of the spectrum. I did my mass gaming, convention stuff with military miniatures. To me RPGs are more personal, I pick and choose my players, the games I want to GM and how I want to GM them. I less likely to adjust how I want to enjoy the game than I would be if GMing on demand for example or for a new group I was trying to lure into gaming. I can afford to be selfish.

Well, if you pick and choose your players, then any discussion of style management is moot, because you're picking folks who will easily adapt to you, and not the other way 'round. This also absolves you from having to adjust in any way, and so therefore makes me wonder what value you get in exploring other styles, unless you're just curious about them?

Quote from: Nexus;939018I think some of the contention in these threads might be coming from that you seem to be asking for advice on how to get a broader appeal then rejecting or arguing with the advice given based on personal preferences. And that's being taken as arrogance or possibly trying to troll and pick fights. There appears to have be misunderstanding regarding the purpose of your threads and its ballooned in a general hostility.

This.

Quote from: Nexus;939018I think some of the contention in these threads might be coming from that you seem to be asking for advice on how to get a broader appeal then rejecting or arguing with the advice given based on personal preferences. And that's being taken as arrogance or possibly trying to troll and pick fights. There appears to have be misunderstanding regarding the purpose of your threads and its ballooned in a general hostility.

Funny thing that.  
When others here get belittled, ridiculed, poke at they respond with arrogance, possible trying to troll and/or picking a fight.
Why is it wrong for grove to respond with arrogance, possible trying to troll and/or picking a fight, when others here are belittling, ridiculing, and/or poking at him?

Quote from: Sommerjon;939031Funny thing that.  
When others here get belittled, ridiculed, poke at they respond with arrogance, possible trying to troll and/or picking a fight.
Why is it wrong for grove to respond with arrogance, possible trying to troll and/or picking a fight, when others here are belittling, ridiculing, and/or poking at him?

You'll notice that I didn't say Grove was wrong or even doing that. I said its' been taken that why. Now everyone is a little pissed heated, defensive and not really listening.  The whole thing is a clusterfuck of misunderstanding classic to online communication with a few folks deliberately trying to stir the pot.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938992And shit is absolutely in the eye of the beholder so your detector is tuned to its operator and essentially useless.

Actually you realize you're a victim of your own definition, which explains your issue. Because you have reduced *everything* down to the lowest common-denominator which is by your own standards: shit. And you can't tell the difference because you don't actually *have* a shit-detector.

See how this works? If your opinion is worth shit and you think all opinions are equal - and you're incapable of understanding anything beyond shit, as your multitude of examples show, so everything is equal to shit.

Edit: I happen to believe there is objectively more than just shit, and I'm happy to discuss the values of those things, including those of the fecal variety.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938991Bleh, semantics.

"Bleh, semantics", "That's your opinion" In context of your posts, Grove, you're proving my larger point about your cognitive dissonance (which I enjoy - but that's my own perverted fetish). At this point you're just trolling.

Quote from: tenbones;939048Actually you realize you're a victim of your own definition, which explains your issue. Because you have reduced *everything* down to the lowest common-denominator which is by your own standards: shit. And you can't tell the difference because you don't actually *have* a shit-detector.

See how this works? If your opinion is worth shit and you think all opinions are equal - and you're incapable of understanding anything beyond shit, as your multitude of examples show, so everything is equal to shit.

That logic is actually pretty funny and not entirely inaccurate. it would be perfect if everyone had the same definition of shit, which we dont.

Oh please, let's not pretend Grove isn't attacking back...

Quote from: rgrove0172;939012Spot on. Understanding where the other guy is coming from is crucial when attempting to get his full meaning in a post and something rarely in evidence here. Assumptions are made continually and misunderstandings proliferate. Once I got the idea that tenbones was a heavy gamer, lots of different projects, many different groups, cons etc. it changed how I perceived his posts. Im at the other far end of the spectrum. I did my mass gaming, convention stuff with military miniatures. To me RPGs are more personal, I pick and choose my players, the games I want to GM and how I want to GM them. I less likely to adjust how I want to enjoy the game than I would be if GMing on demand for example or for a new group I was trying to lure into gaming. I can afford to be selfish.

So in other words...Grove understands the shallow "convention stuff" games Tenbones refers to(which are really more like military miniatures, doncha know ), he just likes something with more depth.

Except that's not what Tenbones was saying, was it?  Did he say that's the only type of GMing he did?  No, in fact he said the exact opposite, that he purposely expanded his GMing into conventions to try and gain other experiences.

So deliberately misinterpret what was being said (because you don't want to engage that point), and give it a nice passive-aggressive twist into an attack.  "Oh I just needed to see where he was coming from...now it all makes sense..."  fuck's sake.

Granted, Grove has every right to be on the attack, but that's no excuse for being a little bitch about it while simultaneously claiming that you're taking the High Road.

Yes, I know, Grove will marvel at how off the interpretation is, and we'll probably get a "laugh" to boot.

You're not fooling anyone, not even Nexus, he's just playing pretend because he likes narrative stuff too.

Quote from: Nexus;939009I imagine allot of popular authors that get frequently trashed online cry themselves to sleep at night on their mattresses stuffed with money.

But more seriously these people have found their audience; if people like their work they like it. Same with descriptive and play styles.

I totally support those writers and their success (they have a direct impact on my livelihood). But can we agree that being monetarily successful is not the sole arbiter of what is "good" in a craft. or No?

Michael Bay makes generally bad movies. Some of them are awesomely fun, others are pure shit. But he's fantastically successful. None of which makes him a great film-maker. Same goes for whatever passes for over-produced top-40 music. Fun, financially successful, sure. But is it "good" by whatever standards one wishes to use? See this is where discerning folks put their chips on the table of examining opinions in light of whatever facts they want to back up their claims. This is where the discussion happens. People not capable of having those discussions just fall back on their "feelings", which really means any form of honest discussion is not really on the agenda.

I think it's a mistake to equate the quality of ones work with their identity as a person. I don't dislike *anyone* because they're successful at finding an audience for their wares. I do think that when third-parties start taking offense that someone doesn't like what they like and don't have the ability to actually have that discussion as to "why" it speaks more of their immaturity than anything else. Same goes for that person who hinges their self-worth on an activity they pursue that they might not be as good at as they actually are (Uwe Boll - are you reading this?) and of course other obvious parties. Because they're intellectually dishonest with themselves on many levels, they will be intellectually dishonest to everyone else too.

Edit: the same principle applies to people that use "storytime" as a their means of expressing how they GM. If it works for them and their group - great. But that's analogous to saying "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" which grossed $241-million dollars is a better movie than "Goodfellas" $46-million dollars. There is definitely a discussion worth having there if this is to be believed.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938992And shit is absolutely in the eye of the beholder so your detector is tuned to its operator and essentially useless.

Quote from: Nexus;939068AFIAC, the measure of "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

'I like it' != 'it is good.'

It's okay to like bad books, bad movies, bad games. My love for Road House is well-established, but that doesn't for a millisecond make it The Godfather.

Quote from: tenbones;939065I totally support those writers and their success (they have a direct impact on my livelihood). But can we agree that being monetarily successful is not the sole arbiter of what is "good" in a craft. or No?

AFIAC, the measure of "good" is in the eye of the beholder. I can't stand Meyer's writing myself.  It just amuses me when popular writers, film makers, etc get trashed as objectively horrible online. Some like them, some don't. The mattress might be stuffed with money but the pillow is stuffed with fan mail. Though there's probably allot of hate mail in the trash.

As Spinchcat said, I could only hope to "fail" like that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939053That logic is actually pretty funny and not entirely inaccurate. it would be perfect if everyone had the same definition of shit, which we dont.

Are you actually talking to me or to yourself? I'm not sure what this response substantially means. Please elaborate.