Quote from: Melan;245982For the record, in the meantime, I have read through the "primary documents". I stand by each and every one of my statements, which, while originally made on the basis of secondary sources, are confirmed by textual evidence, actual play reports and the general tenor of discussion on ENWorld, RPGNet and elsewhere.

So wait, you were predetermined to hate something before you saw it, and then hated it once you saw it. That is shocking.

Quote from: Aos;246030So wait, you were predetermined to hate something before you saw it, and then hated it once you saw it. That is shocking.

There is something to say for consistency... not sure what it is but it's there.

Quote from: Aos;246030So wait, you were predetermined to hate something before you saw it, and then hated it once you saw it. That is shocking.

I hated something based on secondary sources (which, this being a high profile RPG release, were plentiful and informative), and then still hated it when I read the primary sources, only with more proof.

Whoop-te-doo, like that's so special.

Quote from: Melan;246043I hated something based on secondary sources (which, this being a high profile RPG release, were plentiful and informative), and then still hated it when I read the primary sources, only with more proof.

Whoop-te-doo, like that's so special.

I noticed an escalating standard of proof when the books first came out.

"You have to read them to have an opinion"
"You have to play it, it doesn't read as well"
"You have to play through several adventures to get the feel"

I stopped following it before it got to:
"You have to complete a campaign"
"You have to complete several campaigns with different class/race mixes"

And so forth.

When you have people doing mathematical analyses on the skill challenge system to show exactly how and why is doesn't work, and other people getting a 3000 damage exploit three days before the books were released, I really don't need to grind through ten or fifteen levels to know this isn't where I want to be.

Pun-pun required all manner of supplements, rules bending, exploits and a DM that was utterly asleep at the switch.  The Kwisenart Hadderach only needs the PHB and a few carefully planned feats and race choices.  Pun-pun was more of a testament to supplement bloat and the need to be careful running a game with a bunch of different supplements at once.

How many exploits were there for the 1st edition magic user?  You could line up a pretty careful selection of spells, but it was hardly exploitative.  In the end, you had to keep your spell list pretty flexible anyway, or you were screwed.  Fighters, thieves, clerics...  No exploits for them, either.  We just sat back, rolled the dice, and had great fun.

Even when my 16th level MU failed the system shock roll.  

Quote from: walkerp;246027That's an interesting and helpful list, Kellri and mostly accurate.

I'd make two comments/corrections.

First, is that I'd say we have the danger of bordering on #4 here, where we restrict discussion through a certain framed ideology.  Fortunately, the shouters are in the minority and only unite once every 6 months or so, so I think we do have a chance of breaking free from that.

Second, don't ignore the blogosphere.  That is growing fast and starting to coalesce into a real community.  There is even a "bloggers vs. forums" attitude that can be found there.  A lot of bloggers and blog-commenters feel that that structure allows for a more productive form of communication, whereas forums always devolve into pissing matches.  Keep an eye on the rpgbloggers network and check out the ChattyDM for an example of one of the more successful blogs out there.

Thanks, Walker, but I'll continue to (mostly) ignore the blogosphere. I'll deal with the consequences as they come, thank you, and remain happily ignorant. Generally speaking, blogs are a disease, IMO, and the people who write them are worse.

-clash

Quote from: Melan;246043I hated something based on secondary sources (which, this being a high profile RPG release, were plentiful and informative), and then still hated it when I read the primary sources, only with more proof.

Whoop-te-doo, like that's so special.

There was a time when I enjoyed reading your posts. That was rather special.

Quote from: flyingmice;246082Thanks, Walker, but I'll continue to (mostly) ignore the blogosphere. I'll deal with the consequences as they come, thank you, and remain happily ignorant. Generally speaking, blogs are a disease, IMO, and the people who write them are worse.

Understood.  I'll let you know if anything crucial ever comes up out there.

Quote from: StormbringerI noticed an escalating standard of proof when the books first came out.

"You have to read them to have an opinion"
"You have to play it, it doesn't read as well"
"You have to play through several adventures to get the feel"

I stopped following it before it got to:
"You have to complete a campaign"
"You have to complete several campaigns with different class/race mixes"

And so forth.

On top of which, let's say we carry it out to the fullest extent of the fanboy argument.  Think about it, if you can't make a decision regarding a game without purchasing it, if you have to take everything as a blank slate about every game everywhere, well, I don't know about you but I don't have that kind of money.  

I mean, do I have to purchase a copy of FATAL too before I can be allowed to comment on it's distastefulness?  Must I sit in with a game with Vince Maker himself before I'm allowed to comment that his games have a very "lets see how awful we can be" theme throughout?  

and how the hell am I even supposed to make any kind of decision about what games to buy in general if I'm not allowed to make any kind of judgement on it without plunking down 50+ dollars on a copy first?  Does no one ever stop and see the chicken-or-the-egg problem with that attitude?  

And then of course there's the fact that more often than not the "you haven't read it so you can't know" argument is usually constructed as such to unwittingly refer to a game's own fans and creators as basically liars.  I'm not allowed to comment if I haven't read it, but apparently I'm required to completely disregard the words of those who've not only read it, but in some cases wrote the game.

And of course, as Aos so proudly demonstrates in this thread, even if you do fulfill every requirement of their shifting benchmarks, unless it's glowingly positive, they disregard it as "prejudice" or some bullshit excuse regardless.

Yeah but j, whose even making that argument in this thread? Not I. My statement was simple- If someone is predetermined to hate something before they see it; it's likely they'll hate it when they see it.  I'm pretty sure we have a couple of people around here that reacted to 40k that way. Most games have a few. It's nothing new. Occasionally people surprise themselves and go the other way, but it isn't a surprise when they don't.

Frankly, though, J, I like you too much to bother arguing with you, so I'm all done here.

Quote from: Aos;246347Yeah but j, whose even making that argument in this thread? Not I. My statement was simple- If someone is predetermined to hate something before they see it; it's likely they'll hate it when they see it.  I'm pretty sure we have a couple of people around here that reacted to 40k that way. Most games have a few. It's nothing new. Occasionally people surprise themselves and go the other way, but it isn't a surprise when they don't.

Frankly, though, J, I like you too much to bother arguing with you, so I'm all done here.

But you see, you're just feeding the constructed catch-22 of the fanboy attitude.  If you haven't read it, you're ignorant and should read it, and if you have read it, you were prejudiced and shouldn't have bought it?  Honestly even you should be above such cheap tactics.  

At what point does it actually become acceptable to *GASP* have a negative opinion about a game?  

Or all we all supposed to just be shiny happy positive all the time and like everything ever like some limpwristed RPGnet reviewer?

Even me?
OW.
I think you're misunderstanding my point of view. And I'm not trying to use cheap tactics. I'm also not trying to convert anyone, or invalidate their opinion- although in rereading what I wrote, I can see how it came off that way.
I cede the field to you.
Mia culpa.