TheRPGSite

Some idiots are saying that "the OSR are not game designers". They're actually the best collection of RPG game designers of all time.

Some are. Others are just short of copying stuff from the books whole cloth. Labyrinth Lord was an early offender.

Others use the core as a basis and then innovate from there. Scarlet Heroes comes to mind.

It has honestly been all over the place over the course and I've seen some pretty low attempts. And its those sorts that are doing nothing to improve the OSR's already tarnished image.

Quote from: Omega on May 21, 2025, 10:51:21 PMSome are. Others are just short of copying stuff from the books whole cloth. Labyrinth Lord was an early offender.

Others use the core as a basis and then innovate from there. Scarlet Heroes comes to mind.

It has honestly been all over the place over the course and I've seen some pretty low attempts. And its those sorts that are doing nothing to improve the OSR's already tarnished image.

That's not an offense. It's called a retroclone. What we think of as OSR started as all retroclones. You had Labyrinth Lord because Basic wasn't in print anymore, and you had OSRIC because AD&D wasn't in print anymore.

Quote from: Spobo on May 22, 2025, 07:14:46 AM

Quote from: Omega on May 21, 2025, 10:51:21 PMSome are. Others are just short of copying stuff from the books whole cloth. Labyrinth Lord was an early offender.

Others use the core as a basis and then innovate from there. Scarlet Heroes comes to mind.

It has honestly been all over the place over the course and I've seen some pretty low attempts. And its those sorts that are doing nothing to improve the OSR's already tarnished image.

That's not an offense. It's called a retroclone. What we think of as OSR started as all retroclones. You had Labyrinth Lord because Basic wasn't in print anymore, and you had OSRIC because AD&D wasn't in print anymore.

Quite correct. Those who don't know that much about the dawn of the OSR just assume that retro clones were system rip-offs. If you take the time to look into what was unavailable or out of print at that time it becomes clear that retro-clones were produced simply to have an in print version of a beloved game so that designers could produce adventures and other expansion products for popular old school rule sets that would have otherwise been hard to obtain. Who wants to write a B/X adventure when the only way to get the rules is through a secondhand market?

The straight retro clones paved the way for fresh presentations of old school style rules with tweaks and modifications. Swords & Wizardry was great example of this. It has the feel of OD&D, AD&D, and B/X play but isn't an exact copy of of any of them.

Of course, now these classic original rulesets are available to purchase, and some can even be printed via POD. Of course the availability of these products can be yanked at any time if Hasbro decides they no longer want to sell them. That is why the retro clones still have value.

I think most GMs out there are game designers. House Rules are game design. They just don't get paid for it or get acknowledged beyond their table.

The real distinction to me would be Professional Game Designer. If you had one product you were a Professional Game Designer. If you keep producing content for sale you are a Professional Game Designer. If you just House Rule your own game you are an Amateur Game Designer.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 22, 2025, 08:37:32 AM

Quote from: Spobo on May 22, 2025, 07:14:46 AM

Quote from: Omega on May 21, 2025, 10:51:21 PMSome are. Others are just short of copying stuff from the books whole cloth. Labyrinth Lord was an early offender.

Others use the core as a basis and then innovate from there. Scarlet Heroes comes to mind.

It has honestly been all over the place over the course and I've seen some pretty low attempts. And its those sorts that are doing nothing to improve the OSR's already tarnished image.

That's not an offense. It's called a retroclone. What we think of as OSR started as all retroclones. You had Labyrinth Lord because Basic wasn't in print anymore, and you had OSRIC because AD&D wasn't in print anymore.

Quite correct. Those who don't know that much about the dawn of the OSR just assume that retro clones were system rip-offs. If you take the time to look into what was unavailable or out of print at that time it becomes clear that retro-clones were produced simply to have an in print version of a beloved game so that designers could produce adventures and other expansion products for popular old school rule sets that would have otherwise been hard to obtain. Who wants to write a B/X adventure when the only way to get the rules is through a secondhand market?

The straight retro clones paved the way for fresh presentations of old school style rules with tweaks and modifications. Swords & Wizardry was great example of this. It has the feel of OD&D, AD&D, and B/X play but isn't an exact copy of of any of them.

Of course, now these classic original rulesets are available to purchase, and some can even be printed via POD. Of course the availability of these products can be yanked at any time if Hasbro decides they no longer want to sell them. That is why the retro clones still have value.

In other words, they guy who make the accusation that OSR game designers are not designers is an idiot.

I 100% agree with the assessment the guy is an idiot.

Quote from: Ruprecht on May 22, 2025, 08:46:40 AMIf you had one product you were a Professional Game Designer.

Despite having a published title under my belt, I really don't feel comfortable calling myself a professional in this space.

On the other flipper, seeing the kind of crap WotC is putting out these days -- supposedly produced by professionals -- I'm not sure that the moniker is a useful indicator.

Since the OSR took a mostly DIY approach since before OSR was even a term, I would say that it is full of game designers, overflowing, or was. And clever takes, like Knave or Barbarians of Lemuria, while not technically old, utilize old approach and are a simpler way to play, which was one of the ideas from the start; getting people into a simpler way to play. And now we know that this is not just nostalgia as younger generations see the simplicity and join in.

Most detractors, especially on the internet, you will find cannot or simply do not create, they only put others down.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on May 22, 2025, 11:15:08 AMDespite having a published title under my belt, I really don't feel comfortable calling myself a professional in this space.

On the other flipper, seeing the kind of crap WotC is putting out these days -- supposedly produced by professionals -- I'm not sure that the moniker is a useful indicator.

You're a professional in any industry if you made at least $1 from your work; as much as I don't want to call myself a "professional musician", I did make a lot of money playing weekends. It might not be your ONLY profession, but it still counts.

That said, OSR games are inherently designed because they are usually the result of ACTUAL FUCKING PLAY, totally unlike anything WotC seems to be putting out. Endless playtesting, tweaking, then publication, updated when new ideas are formed and tried out...that's legitimate design. Writing two pages about combat wheelchairs is just jackass trolling.

Pundit made some very good points in the vid. And the toothless simpleton, that is Condor DM, is simply very jealous of the fact that the OSR is motoring along while his piece of shit game is rotting away on a virtual shelf.

Even slashing the price twice already still hasn't helped it budge (originally it was 44e!). lol

Regardless... Back to the topic.
Did that OSR game, that someone created, exist before it was made? No. So you've brought a game into existence which makes you a game designer.

Fat Steven's (condor DM) game uses levels and the D100 system. Did he innovate those concepts? I think not. LOL

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on May 22, 2025, 12:45:35 PMPundit made some very good points in the vid. And the toothless simpleton, that is Condor DM, is simply very jealous of the fact that the OSR is motoring along while his piece of shit game is rotting away on a virtual shelf.

Even slashing the price twice already still hasn't helped it budge (originally it was 44e!). lol

Regardless... Back to the topic.
Did that OSR game, that someone created, exist before it was made? No. So you've brought a game into existence which makes you a game designer.

Fat Steven's (condor DM) game uses levels and the D100 system. Did he innovate those concepts? I think not. LOL

So...he's just butthurt that he can't sell his RPG? The ass-clown recording content WHILE DRIVING, and not paying attention to the road? That poor excuse for a man and a human being?

Ok...I've said it many times before: He's what we called back in the day "mentally retarded".

Quote from: blackstone on May 22, 2025, 01:23:49 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on May 22, 2025, 12:45:35 PMPundit made some very good points in the vid. And the toothless simpleton, that is Condor DM, is simply very jealous of the fact that the OSR is motoring along while his piece of shit game is rotting away on a virtual shelf.

Even slashing the price twice already still hasn't helped it budge (originally it was 44e!). lol

Regardless... Back to the topic.
Did that OSR game, that someone created, exist before it was made? No. So you've brought a game into existence which makes you a game designer.

Fat Steven's (condor DM) game uses levels and the D100 system. Did he innovate those concepts? I think not. LOL

So...he's just butthurt that he can't sell his RPG? The ass-clown recording content WHILE DRIVING, and not paying attention to the road? That poor excuse for a man and a human being?

Ok...I've said it many times before: He's what we called back in the day "mentally retarded".

He's definitely retarded alright lol.
But he's not the guy who's driving around, this moron is Condor DM (aka - Steven Saunders). The obese guy with no teeth.

His youtube vids are comedy gold.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on May 22, 2025, 02:17:19 PM

Quote from: blackstone on May 22, 2025, 01:23:49 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on May 22, 2025, 12:45:35 PMPundit made some very good points in the vid. And the toothless simpleton, that is Condor DM, is simply very jealous of the fact that the OSR is motoring along while his piece of shit game is rotting away on a virtual shelf.

Even slashing the price twice already still hasn't helped it budge (originally it was 44e!). lol

Regardless... Back to the topic.
Did that OSR game, that someone created, exist before it was made? No. So you've brought a game into existence which makes you a game designer.

Fat Steven's (condor DM) game uses levels and the D100 system. Did he innovate those concepts? I think not. LOL

So...he's just butthurt that he can't sell his RPG? The ass-clown recording content WHILE DRIVING, and not paying attention to the road? That poor excuse for a man and a human being?

Ok...I've said it many times before: He's what we called back in the day "mentally retarded".

He's definitely retarded alright lol.
But he's not the guy who's driving around, this moron is Condor DM (aka - Steven Saunders). The obese guy with no teeth.

His youtube vids are comedy gold.

Could have sworn is was that guy. Either way, he sounds like a guy who's face is very punchable.

(quickly looks him up on YouTube)

yep, a very punchable Canadian face...and batshit crazy to boot.

Quote from: Brad on May 22, 2025, 12:16:26 PMYou're a professional in any industry if you made at least $1 from your work

Not really intending to try to derail the thread with getting all philosophical about it, but I'm not sure I agree with this definition.

Like, as a counterpoint? All those paid GMs who popped up out of nowhere on places like roll20. I've heard enough horror stories about those paid-for games that I'd be really hesitant to universally call those GMs professionals. Some of them are, I suppose, as weird as it is to utter the phrase "professional GM," but that's the timeline we live in, I guess.

Similarly, I've got several years experience in fast food. I would be incredibly hesitant to call myself a professional in that line of work, not least of all because I'm not really sure it counts as a profession.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on May 22, 2025, 03:10:56 PM

Quote from: Brad on May 22, 2025, 12:16:26 PMYou're a professional in any industry if you made at least $1 from your work

Not really intending to try to derail the thread with getting all philosophical about it, but I'm not sure I agree with this definition.

Like, as a counterpoint? All those paid GMs who popped up out of nowhere on places like roll20. I've heard enough horror stories about those paid-for games that I'd be really hesitant to universally call those GMs professionals. Some of them are, I suppose, as weird as it is to utter the phrase "professional GM," but that's the timeline we live in, I guess.

Yeah. A kid who sells lemonade at the sidewalk isn't a food industry professional. In general, a professional is someone who genuinely makes a living doing that task - i.e. it is their primary income.

That said, there are plenty of great amateur game designers, and even given the small number of true professionals in RPG design, there are some so-called professionals who just keep putting out polished trash.

Most OSR designers are amateur game designers, but they are still talented and worthy. The key of game design is in the details and implementation, and originality is mostly overrated. The best designers don't try to reinvent the wheel just for the sake of it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on May 22, 2025, 03:10:56 PMNot really intending to try to derail the thread with getting all philosophical about it, but I'm not sure I agree with this definition.

Like, as a counterpoint? All those paid GMs who popped up out of nowhere on places like roll20. I've heard enough horror stories about those paid-for games that I'd be really hesitant to universally call those GMs professionals. Some of them are, I suppose, as weird as it is to utter the phrase "professional GM," but that's the timeline we live in, I guess.

Similarly, I've got several years experience in fast food. I would be incredibly hesitant to call myself a professional in that line of work, not least of all because I'm not really sure it counts as a profession.

Professional doesn't always mean quality. 

Quote from: Ruprecht on May 22, 2025, 06:59:38 PMProfessional doesn't always mean quality.

Most damning indictment of modern civilization I've read today, thanks.

Rules expression is just as important as any other aspect of design, period. I can point to a plethora of examples but frankly all I need to do is point to the three little brown books of OD&D, Gary was a great designer but his expression of those rules sucked ass through a straw and it shows.

the fact there has been multiple ways to calculate THAC0, each easier to explain than the former also points to this notion. I mean hell in most OSR games ascending AC is mathematically identical to descending, making them the same mechanic with a different expression, but you consider ascending AC an early innovation of the OSR.

How a rule is presented or mentally modeled is important from a design perspective. it's not simply being an "editor."

Whenever someone appends the word "real" to the front of a categorization of people, you know the category is an emotional rather than a factual one. From there on, it's "no true Scotsman" all the way down.

Yet another example of a No True Scottsman fallacy.

I think it's more accurate to say OSR tends to have complacent and unambitious design. Not always, but one of the key motives many people have when choosing to design for the OSR is that your higher level design workload is significantly reduced unless you choose specifically to manually override an OSR design trope and tinker.

This is both a good and a bad thing. The good side is that because OSR generally doesn't mess with high level design, it's rare for OSR games to goof up high level design, which creates something of a quality floor for the OSR market...at least in terms of core design pillars, anyways. The bad side is that because OSR designers aren't messing with high level design, they typically lack the experience required to mess with high level design. This means that a designer coming into OSR from outside it can usually do well because they (should) have the skills they require to design an OSR game, but that the reverse is not always true and many OSR designers may have issues leaving the OSR space because non-OSR design requires a few game design skills which OSR downplays.

My point is not to say that OSR is terrible, but that it isn't all sunshine and roses, either. You need to be aware that there are skills vacuums you may need to. Some OSR designers have the knowledge required to mess with core gameplay pillars, but most don't. Almost zero predominately OSR designers have the knowledge and experience required to mess with core mechanics design purely because they don't do that often.

I would also say that OSR has notably fewer properly phony game designers than non-OSR. One of the things you will frequently see in the industry-standard convention circuit in the larger RPG space are "game designers" with effectively zero game design skills. Instead of knowing how to make a game, they instead rely on politics. Some will also rely on professional networks or internet marketing tools, but I find that notably less objectionable; it's more a generic misnomer. While I would hesitate to call this, "the majority of the market," outside of OSR, it is a notably larger problem outside of OSR than it is within it.

As to the Forge (the video):

I have many mixed feelings about The Forge. I intentionally made a decision to learn game design via video game design discussions so I could bring in a contrasting viewpoint, so even though I was active on internet forums at the time and have a longstanding interest in game design, I intentionally passed on being part of The Forge specifically so I could have a different viewpoint than other people.

I don't view The Forge as negatively as Pundit does, but there's no getting around that it didn't accomplish much of anything. The Big Model is overly complex and GNS is kinda half-baked and often mishandled by novice designers. They didn't help small publishers break into the industry in any way which broader publishing wasn't already doing, and the instant the community grew past being the small think-tank and started to sour as a result, they decided they had accomplished their mission (even though they hadn't) and put The Forge "into winter." There's no getting around the conclusion The Forge was run by a people who had strong opinions, but didn't have strong convictions.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 22, 2025, 09:50:48 PMThis is both a good and a bad thing. The good side is that because OSR generally doesn't mess with high level design, it's rare for OSR games to goof up high level design, which creates something of a quality floor for the OSR market...at least in terms of core design pillars, anyways. The bad side is that because OSR designers aren't messing with high level design, they typically lack the experience required to mess with high level design. This means that a designer coming into OSR from outside it can usually do well because they (should) have the skills they require to design an OSR game, but that the reverse is not always true and many OSR designers may have issues leaving the OSR space because non-OSR design requires a few game design skills which OSR downplays.

I overall agree your assessment and post, in terms of complacency within the OSR and the points on the Forge but this paragraph here is a real highlight of saying a lot without saying a thing...

What does high level design mean? truly enlighten me as to what means is this some universally accepted manner? you always allude to "principles of design" that never get elaborated upon beyond their proclamation of absence in whatever subject/individual you've decided upon.

You are always asking about credentials, but never stating what precisely outside of some arbitrary degree of media literacy...

I've recently started helping a friend of mine with some with video game stuff, mainly focused on sound design and learning to 3D model. when I posited the question of how much game design skill and TTRPG design skill carry over he had this to say.

QuoteIn some ways yes, in most ways no.

He helps on my stuff and is apart of my year long playtest group, I've shown him some of your posts and he finds the assertion of Video Game design somehow being a required background to be laughable given one medium functionally predates the other.  could it give an edge? sure but only just which rules it out as a requirement.

EDIT: I do think I know what you probably mean by " High Level Design" but I want you to actually define it for all of us.

piss meant for it to be an edit not a new post.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on May 22, 2025, 03:10:56 PMNot really intending to try to derail the thread with getting all philosophical about it, but I'm not sure I agree with this definition.

That's because the word "professional" brings a ton of baggage along with it and has a lot of implication that might not be valid. We might assume a professional chef, for instance, works 80 hours a week in the kitchen and had extensive training in France under Jacques Pepin blah blah blah, but it could just be a self-trained guy who opens up a hot dog stand in the park. But cooking hot dogs doesn't make one a chef! you say. Again the word chef implies quite a bit, but really it just means you know how to cook and also understand the principles of cooking at a high level and can create new things. Who is to say the hot dog vendor isn't a chef simply because it's not haute cuisine? Couldn't he devise "artisan hot dogs" that are unlike anything you've ever seen? In this case, it's a form of gatekeeping: cooks at expensive restaurants want to keep the word "chef" safe from being used by lowly peons who simply make meals people eat all the time. Same with being a professional. If you make money doing something, you are a professional, even if you suck at it. I know plenty of people who are really bad at their jobs and yet derive enough money from doing their jobs they can sustain themselves.

To put in terms of RPGs, I'm reading _Game Wizards_ by Jon Peterson and by all accounts Arneson was a fucking terrible professional game designer. He got paid money to make games, but actually was unable to produce a coherent rules-set without a lot of help and editing. He still made a ton of money.

Quote from: Ruprecht on May 22, 2025, 06:59:38 PMProfessional doesn't always mean quality. 

And there you go...more succinct and to the point.

...

Quote from: Fheredin on May 22, 2025, 09:50:48 PMThis is both a good and a bad thing. The good side is that because OSR generally doesn't mess with high level design, it's rare for OSR games to goof up high level design, which creates something of a quality floor for the OSR market...at least in terms of core design pillars, anyways. The bad side is that because OSR designers aren't messing with high level design, they typically lack the experience required to mess with high level design. This means that a designer coming into OSR from outside it can usually do well because they (should) have the skills they require to design an OSR game, but that the reverse is not always true and many OSR designers may have issues leaving the OSR space because non-OSR design requires a few game design skills which OSR downplays.

"high level design". Sounds elitist. In fact, I'd argue there is no "high level design". It's just game mechanics you want to use. Nothing high or low level about it. Yes, different game mechanics have been developed over the years, but is one better (high level) than the other? I'd say no.

"Professional" game designer: in the TTRPG community has about as much weight as calling oneself UFOlogist. Anyone can put it after their name, but it doesn't really mean much outside of that community.

I would say yes. There were plenty of people who were designers for D&D for example, who didn't work on the core system but worked on modules and supplements. Their work is just more specialized on that system. Which is fine. And as Pundit points out in his video, many people in later waves of the the OSR, are stretching that system and adding to it in new ways

One major strength of the OSR is that it treats RPG elements beyond system mechanics as first-class citizens. OSR authors emphasize procedures, setting material, referee tools, clear presentation, and products directly usable at the table. These elements, adventure design, situation generation, practical referee advice, are often overlooked in mainstream designs, which tend to focus too heavily on inventing yet another mechanical framework.

The constant push toward creating new RPG systems in the larger industry largely arises from commercial constraints. Companies need recurring sales to stay viable, so they must continually attract attention by reinventing the wheel mechanically. In contrast, true innovation isn't limited to system mechanics; it encompasses expanding the diversity, variety, and sophistication of all types of RPG products, how they're presented, and how they support actual play. This includes developing ways for referees to run effective, engaging campaigns within the constraints of one's hobby time.

The OSR community isn't hampered by restrictive IP issues. As a result designers have a broader creative freedom than many other niches of the hobby. OSR designers not interested in system design can build directly upon proven, existing frameworks without having to come up with their own set of fundamental mechanics. Coupled with advancements in digital printing, advertising, and distribution, OSR creators can effectively serve all tiers of the hobby, from niche topics appealing to narrow audiences, to broader products that successfully compete in mass-market channels. To me, this combination of freedom, variety, and practical usability represents genuine innovation, and it's a significant strength of the OSR movement.

Yes, of course they are game designers.  The person in question is just a failed designer who wants to push his negativity on other people.

If you look at his videoss, they barely get views.   Ignore him  He is just a troll whos opinion does not matter.  Ignore the noise and just keep doing what you are doing.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 22, 2025, 10:38:31 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on May 22, 2025, 09:50:48 PMThis is both a good and a bad thing. The good side is that because OSR generally doesn't mess with high level design, it's rare for OSR games to goof up high level design, which creates something of a quality floor for the OSR market...at least in terms of core design pillars, anyways. The bad side is that because OSR designers aren't messing with high level design, they typically lack the experience required to mess with high level design. This means that a designer coming into OSR from outside it can usually do well because they (should) have the skills they require to design an OSR game, but that the reverse is not always true and many OSR designers may have issues leaving the OSR space because non-OSR design requires a few game design skills which OSR downplays.

I overall agree your assessment and post, in terms of complacency within the OSR and the points on the Forge but this paragraph here is a real highlight of saying a lot without saying a thing...

What does high level design mean? truly enlighten me as to what means is this some universally accepted manner? you always allude to "principles of design" that never get elaborated upon beyond their proclamation of absence in whatever subject/individual you've decided upon.

You are always asking about credentials, but never stating what precisely outside of some arbitrary degree of media literacy...

I've recently started helping a friend of mine with some with video game stuff, mainly focused on sound design and learning to 3D model. when I posited the question of how much game design skill and TTRPG design skill carry over he had this to say.

QuoteIn some ways yes, in most ways no.

He helps on my stuff and is apart of my year long playtest group, I've shown him some of your posts and he finds the assertion of Video Game design somehow being a required background to be laughable given one medium functionally predates the other.  could it give an edge? sure but only just which rules it out as a requirement.

EDIT: I do think I know what you probably mean by " High Level Design" but I want you to actually define it for all of us.

I would really like to see what post of mine you showed him where I said studying video game design was "mandatory." That was the path I intentionally chose, and after going some distance down it, I recommend others do the same for reasons I will get into momentarily.

I think you are misreading "high level" as "high difficulty" when it's actually about overarching concepts which apply to multiple subsystems rather than troubleshooting a specific rule. I think it's better to explain this (and your friend's non-comment) with an example. Let's discuss feedback loops.



You'll note that I am using a video game design channel as a reference here. That's because while this discussion can (occasionally) be found in some roleplaying game discussion boards if you specifically search for it, it's rare compared to the equivalent communities in video game design. Although it isn't like it's a particularly common discussion topic there, either.

For those of you not willing to click, a feedback loop is when you take the output of one subsystem and use it as an input for another subsystem. The logical interconnection between the two subsystems creates two types of feeback loops:

• Positive Feedback Loops, where you get more bad things from a bad event and more good things from a good event, and
• Negative Feedback Loops, where a bad thing turns into a good thing and vice versa.

The vast majority of balance problems in RPGs can be summed up as, "you have too many powerful positive feedback loops and not enough negative feedback loops." Designers who do not know about feedback loops tend to put a lot of positive feedback loops in because that makes intuitive sense, but intuitive design doesn't make for stable gameplay.

Unfortunately, the common tale from my perspective is that once you explain feedback loops to such a designer, they're probably already neck-deep into playtesting a fundamentally flawed 300+ page magnum opus of an WIP RPG. The sunk cost in admitting it has a flaw which runs all the way to the game's foundation is a really big deal, so upon realizing their mistake, they will either resort to an endless game of whackamole by trying to manually fix each time balance breaks, or they will drop out of the design side of the hobby outright.

This whole issue can often be prevented outright if I have an opportunity to explain feedback loops before someone writes that 300+ page magnum opus WIP RPG, but I digress.

If you think that's being elitist....

QuoteI tried to warn you that the path you took circles Ape Mountain six times before returning to the spot you started at. But you lot are just too smart for me.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 23, 2025, 04:39:54 PMI would really like to see what post of mine you showed him where I said studying video game design was "mandatory." That was the path I intentionally chose, and after going some distance down it, I recommend others do the same for reasons I will get into momentarily.

I was being somewhat hyperbolic but frankly it's a general trend with you to judge someone on every criteria except the one which qualifies them at the task they are attempting...

you'd sooner ask of an TTRPG designer to understand sudoku puzzles and magic eye images than actually understanding their own craft...

QuoteI think you are misreading "high level" as "high difficulty" when it's actually about overarching concepts which apply to multiple subsystems rather than troubleshooting a specific rule. I think it's better to explain this (and your friend's non-comment) with an example. Let's discuss feedback loops.

Unless you mean your palm or mind I can't misread something you didn't define or explain! another classical habit of yours it seems and frankly it borders on rhetorical strategy.

As for "High Level Design" in regards to the OSR I think a better way of putting it is unified vs non-unified mechanics.

OSR design rejects from the outset unified mechanics. it's literally that simple, the fact I can rip out and replace most of the individual mechanics from most OSR games and nothing consequently breaks. this is how it's possible to run flail-snail games despite all the characters being made up of different systems.

Contrast that with something like Blades In Dark where the mechanics feed into each other that removing certain ones makes the whole thing inoperable.

It's not a skill issue it's a philosophical dispute. E.g I don't judge a Windows Admin for not making their scripts posix compliant... even if that was possible outside of WSL. windows by it's natures doesn't follow the Unix philosophy and thus I wouldn't judge it on that criteria.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 23, 2025, 04:39:54 PMThis whole issue can often be prevented outright if I have an opportunity to explain feedback loops before someone writes that 300+ page magnum opus WIP RPG, but I digress.

If you think that's being elitist....

That is hardly the sole reason anyone would think your an elitist.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 23, 2025, 09:45:46 PM

QuoteI think you are misreading "high level" as "high difficulty" when it's actually about overarching concepts which apply to multiple subsystems rather than troubleshooting a specific rule. I think it's better to explain this (and your friend's non-comment) with an example. Let's discuss feedback loops.

Unless you mean your palm or mind I can't misread something you didn't define or explain! another classical habit of yours it seems and frankly it borders on rhetorical strategy.

*clears throat*

QuoteI think you are misreading "high level" as "high difficulty" when it's actually about overarching concepts which apply to multiple subsystems rather than troubleshooting a specific rule.

Now, I get why you missed that definition; it's super vague and would not be an acceptable definition in most other fields. However, this is roleplaying game design. You have to pick between vague and nonfunctional. See also: Roleplaying Game and OSR.

QuoteAs for "High Level Design" in regards to the OSR I think a better way of putting it is unified vs non-unified mechanics.

OSR design rejects from the outset unified mechanics. it's literally that simple, the fact I can rip out and replace most of the individual mechanics from most OSR games and nothing consequently breaks. this is how it's possible to run flail-snail games despite all the characters being made up of different systems.

Contrast that with something like Blades In Dark where the mechanics feed into each other that removing certain ones makes the whole thing inoperable.

It's not a skill issue it's a philosophical dispute. E.g I don't judge a Windows Admin for not making their scripts posix compliant... even if that was possible outside of WSL. windows by it's natures doesn't follow the Unix philosophy and thus I wouldn't judge it on that criteria.

Also, you haven't defined "unified mechanic" either. I assume you mean intentionally creating game feel or flavor by controlling the interaction of a bunch of subsystems simultaneously, but OSR tends to do that, too.

Practically all RPGs which involve combat have a skill check, attack roll, or saving throw subsystem which passes damage on to a health subsystem, which in turn passes information on to a death spiral or death save mechanic. Even systems which nominally don't have this sort of mechanic often actually do under a different name (see Blades in the Dark: stress is basically a sign-inverted health). And this is just one very common example; I can go on if you'd like and discuss slightly less common cross-subsystem design elements like Dis/Advantage or Insanity or XP/ Advancement.

My point is not that these are bad design decisions, but that if your goal in OSR is to remove abstract design elements which create unified gameplay flavor, you have failed miserably. What OSR actually tends to do is copy a family of set solutions to them often enough that the flavor created by abstract unified elements no longer become apparent to a large proportion of the player-base and becomes a background flavor like salt. Hence my concern that the knowledge to create new abstract models is fading.

It's my general experience with OSR that removing abstract unified design is not one of the big objectives. I am not exactly an OSR gamer, but I've been in this space for a while and interacted with a number of OSR-diehards. Many do tend to dislike Forge-style gameplay, but I think that this is mostly digital tribalism talking. This is literally the first time I have heard of a self-avowed OSR player who wanted to remove abstract unified design elements. OSR is almost always sold on fast player learning curves and easy GMing from familiar design, and a large mostly-mechanically compatible library. That means "not changing much," but, "not changing," and, "not having," are two completely different things.

Quote from: Socratic-DM

Quote from: Fheredin on May 23, 2025, 04:39:54 PMI would really like to see what post of mine you showed him where I said studying video game design was "mandatory." That was the path I intentionally chose, and after going some distance down it, I recommend others do the same for reasons I will get into momentarily.

I was being somewhat hyperbolic but frankly it's a general trend with you to judge someone on every criteria except the one which qualifies them at the task they are attempting...

you'd sooner ask of an TTRPG designer to understand sudoku puzzles and magic eye images than actually understanding their own craft...

Quote from: Fheredin on May 23, 2025, 04:39:54 PMThis whole issue can often be prevented outright if I have an opportunity to explain feedback loops before someone writes that 300+ page magnum opus WIP RPG, but I digress.

If you think that's being elitist....

That is hardly the sole reason anyone would think your an elitist.

You accuse me of being "rhetorical" while--in the same post!--admitting to taking hyperbolic liberties with my words to create a straw man. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

I can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 24, 2025, 06:44:30 PMNow, I get why you missed that definition; it's super vague and would not be an acceptable definition in most other fields. However, this is roleplaying game design. You have to pick between vague and nonfunctional. See also: Roleplaying Game and OSR.

Uh one small problem, you said I misread it within the post you defined it! again further begging the question how I was meant to understand?

It was so vague that Blackstone mistook it as a qualitative rather than categorical, so who is the common denominator in this poor communication?

And to your own admission it's a not a functional definition, even worse than say OSR which at least invokes an idea even if that idea isn't uniform among those who think about it, "High Level Design" could describe anything, which is to say it doesn't describe anything.

QuoteAlso, you haven't defined "unified mechanic" either. I assume you mean intentionally creating game feel or flavor by controlling the interaction of a bunch of subsystems simultaneously, but OSR tends to do that, too.

correct, I did not define "unified mechanics" but at least I gave examples of non-unified design, you could thus infer it's opposite, had you explained what low level design was I probably wouldn't have asked the question at all. it's called a antonymic definition and it's a perfectly valid means to describe a thing.

QuotePractically all RPGs which involve combat have a skill check, attack roll, or saving throw subsystem which passes damage on to a health subsystem, which in turn passes information on to a death spiral or death save mechanic. Even systems which nominally don't have this sort of mechanic often actually do under a different name (see Blades in the Dark: stress is basically a sign-inverted health). And this is just one very common example; I can go on if you'd like and discuss slightly less common cross-subsystem design elements like Dis/Advantage or Insanity or XP/ Advancement.

My point is not that these are bad design decisions, but that if your goal in OSR is to remove abstract design elements which create unified gameplay flavor, you have failed miserably. What OSR actually tends to do is copy a family of set solutions to them often enough that the flavor created by abstract unified elements no longer become apparent to a large proportion of the player-base and becomes a background flavor like salt. Hence my concern that the knowledge to create new abstract models is fading.

It's my general experience with OSR that removing abstract unified design is not one of the big objectives. I am not exactly an OSR gamer, but I've been in this space for a while and interacted with a number of OSR-diehards. Many do tend to dislike Forge-style gameplay, but I think that this is mostly digital tribalism talking. This is literally the first time I have heard of a self-avowed OSR player who wanted to remove abstract unified design elements. OSR is almost always sold on fast player learning curves and easy GMing from familiar design, and a large mostly-mechanically compatible library. That means "not changing much," but, "not changing," and, "not having," are two completely different things.

I don't know how we got over into talking about abstractions, since this is the first time you have mentioned them.

 It's funny how you've put things in my mouth I've never said such as wanting to "remove them entirely" not sure how one does that when the entire game is an abstraction of a human's imagination.  it wasn't like you took something I said in a hyperbolic fashion either, you just made shit up. likewise how you tagged on abstract to unified design, that was pretty funny as well.

But abstractions are necessities, not goals, in the software world they are a form of technical debt you accrue. you take it on as required.

QuoteYou accuse me of being "rhetorical" while--in the same post!--admitting to taking hyperbolic liberties with my words to create a straw man. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

Hypocrisy? If you consider Hyperbole equivalent to the kind of question dodging, falsifying,  line-drawing, and quibbling you engage in on the regular you're either retarded, malicious, or quite possibly both.

QuoteI can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Well I'm just going to take that naked insult on the cheek for what it is and ignore it.

As for the claim of elitism, I didn't make a value judgement in that respect. I just pointed out there was many a reason one could view you that way.

I'm puzzled over the discussion about "high level design."  In any design process the high level design is the broad decisions one makes about the general nature of the product that guide the more specific and narrow decisions later on.  Frex, if as an engineer I make a high level design decision about a vehicle such as "this thing needs to fly," that guides my later decisions as to what material to use and the overall shape.  Similarly, high level design decisions about a game might be "this game is about pirates,"  "encourage teamwork," or "combat should be resolved in 5 minutes."  The rest of the design decisions are then made to support these guidelines.  It's not "elitist" or "undefined" or an such nonsense.  It's a well established term used by many who design things professionally across a wide variety of fields.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 25, 2025, 03:42:43 AMI'm puzzled over the discussion about "high level design."  In any design process the high level design is the broad decisions one makes about the general nature of the product that guide the more specific and narrow decisions later on.  Frex, if as an engineer I make a high level design decision about a vehicle such as "this thing needs to fly," that guides my later decisions as to what material to use and the overall shape.  Similarly, high level design decisions about a game might be "this game is about pirates,"  "encourage teamwork," or "combat should be resolved in 5 minutes."  The rest of the design decisions are then made to support these guidelines.  It's not "elitist" or "undefined" or an such nonsense.  It's a well established term used by many who design things professionally across a wide variety of fields.

Greetings!

Exactly, my friend. That is the context that I have understood "High Level Design"--important, strategic defining decisions about whatever. I'm not sure what they are actually arguing about to begin with.

Some fights around here often remind me of how dogs operate. You know how dogs can all the sudden get into it with each other--because they have decided they don't like the way the other dog looked at them, or the way that dog smells? *Laughing* Right?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mishihari on May 25, 2025, 03:42:43 AMI'm puzzled over the discussion about "high level design."  In any design process the high level design is the broad decisions one makes about the general nature of the product that guide the more specific and narrow decisions later on.  Frex, if as an engineer I make a high level design decision about a vehicle such as "this thing needs to fly," that guides my later decisions as to what material to use and the overall shape.  Similarly, high level design decisions about a game might be "this game is about pirates,"  "encourage teamwork," or "combat should be resolved in 5 minutes."  The rest of the design decisions are then made to support these guidelines.  It's not "elitist" or "undefined" or an such nonsense.  It's a well established term used by many who design things professionally across a wide variety of fields.

If this was the definition given I would have found it perfectly agreeable, and his critique would have even made more sense. "OSR designers don't have high level design goals that are concrete" is  valid. most OSR designers are just playing coattails and don't have a vision which separate their project/product.

But again read the original post and how it's invoked. it's so vague it borders on a nothing comment. and that's what I mainly gripe with and am tired of, this verbose superfluous language to describe things that aren't complicated and then acting like everyone is stupid for not understanding it.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 25, 2025, 03:42:43 AMI'm puzzled over the discussion about "high level design."  In any design process the high level design is the broad decisions one makes about the general nature of the product that guide the more specific and narrow decisions later on.  Frex, if as an engineer I make a high level design decision about a vehicle such as "this thing needs to fly," that guides my later decisions as to what material to use and the overall shape.  Similarly, high level design decisions about a game might be "this game is about pirates,"  "encourage teamwork," or "combat should be resolved in 5 minutes."  The rest of the design decisions are then made to support these guidelines.  It's not "elitist" or "undefined" or an such nonsense.  It's a well established term used by many who design things professionally across a wide variety of fields.

You both understand, and misunderstand.  I think most people would agree with your definition of "high level design."  The problem arises when one or more posters accuse OSR as not addressing the high level design principles without clearly delineating which principles are not address by the OSR.  This leads to ambiguity that needs to be addressed, either by explaining the definition that the critic is using or by describing the weaknesses of OSR design.  Neither have been presented.

As for the charge of "elitism," it is mostly not directed at the concept of "high level design," but instead at the particular poster who was imprecise in his criticism.  A better charge would be accusing the poster of falling afoul of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.  They appear to have so little idea of what "game design" actually means that they don't know how much they don't know about it.  Some evidence of this is conflating reuse of mechanics as enforcing particular design principles.  It is possible for a similar mechanic (such as a d20 roll plus bonuses vs target number) to reflect radically different high level design choices, depending on the specifics of the other elements that interface with it.  Fantasy Craft's mechanic for conferring "advantage" is wildly different than D&D 5e's or Shadow of the Demon Lord's, yet they all have a similar resolution mechanic underlying them.

In addition, the poster also privileges terminology as used in video gaming (like "feedback loops") to describe concepts that predate video gaming by decades, suggesting that he doesn't actually understand the concepts, their origins, and their actual usage in the RPG-space.  As if RPG-designers aren't familiar with "feedback loops," a problem that only exists in the poster's mind (as no examples of this from the OSR are given).  So the charge of "elitism" has more to do with the poster than the subject matter...

Quote from: "Socratic-DM"I can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Well if we're just going to insult one another nakedly... you're an aloof fop, a hacky pretend avant guard who types out total mental masturbation. you say nothing of substance and talk down to everyone you interact with like the craven sham you are.

As for the claim of elitism, I didn't make a value judgement in that respect. I just pointed out there was many a reason one could view that way. 

You aren't going to respond with Let Me Google That For You? For shame.

I might be a nincompoop blowhard, but I am an ambitious and occasionally amusing nincompoop blowhard. One day I will be heralded as the second coming of Jeremy Clarkson. Scientists will actually discover that I am so perfectly repulsive that Dark Energy is actually the space-time continuum itself recoiling from the presence of my magnificent offensiveness. Yes, indeed; I am so vile that I produce antigravity on a cosmic scale. And if you doubt any of this, you can ask The Stig. Go on; ask him.


Oh, and this entire elitism angle is you trying to astroturf some harassment out of what is effectively a dropped point. "Many a reason one could view that way" still requires you to define what you're talking about and to demonstrate me creating an example of it, so no, you don't get to skip leg day just because you are trying to weasel some plausible deniability in. Let's stick a pin in this.

I also think between the nature of the accusation and your generally sloppy décor handling it...that I would prefer that for the rest of this thread, when you are discussing elitism, you refrain from paraphrasing other users--which by your own admission you intentionally mishandled--and use the quote function like SimpleMachines intended. But if you insist on making an ass of yourself, I know a business which caters enemas.

The fewer questions you ask the better.

Quote

QuoteAlso, you haven't defined "unified mechanic" either. I assume you mean intentionally creating game feel or flavor by controlling the interaction of a bunch of subsystems simultaneously, but OSR tends to do that, too.

correct, I did not define "unified mechanics" but at least I gave examples of non-unified design, you could thus infer it's opposite, had you explained what low level design was I probably wouldn't have asked the question at all. it's called a antonymic definition and it's a perfectly valid means to describe a thing.

Problem: what if these are not perfect opposite terms. In context, when you said unified mechanic, the opposite you defined wasn't fragmented design so much as standard design. Some degree of mechanical interoperability is permitted, which means that the definition via negative you provided is incomplete. The same is also true with high level design because the opposite is not low level so much as non-high level design. They are complimentary viewpoints and skill sets, not opposites. In computer parlance, the kernel is not the opposite of the user interface.

Also, defining by negative while mysteriously disallowing definition by example? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

QuoteI don't know how we got over into talking about abstractions, since this is the first time you have mentioned them.

 It's funny how you've put things in my mouth I've never said such as wanting to "remove them entirely" not sure how one does that when the entire game is an abstraction of a human's imagination.  it wasn't like you took something I said in a hyperbolic fashion either, you just made shit up. likewise how you tagged on abstract to unified design, that was pretty funny as well.

But abstractions are necessities, not goals, in the software world they are a form of technical debt you accrue. you take it on as required.

Well, then please be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us. How would you describe your goals?

Full disclosure: I actually am a fully qualified mind-reader, but I think it's unwise to use the full magnitude of my prodigious powers at this moment for two very important reasons:

• Someone with a disagreeable personality who takes offense easily will disagree with their own thoughts, and then take offense, and
• Someone with a disagreeable personality who takes offense easily will disagree with their own thoughts, and then take offense.

Now, I realize that's technically only one reason, but it's such an important one I thought it was worth mentioning twice.

Now where was I? Ahh, yes. "Elitism."

Now, while I am not absusing my mind-reader prerogatives, it's true that I don't properly know what your motives for dropping an argument line which could theoretically be answered with a simple Google search was. However, I can tell you what's statistically true of most Gen X/ Millennials and see if this bullseyes a nerve.

Most Gen Xers and Millennials have an emotional problem where almost all of their relationships are based on mutual use or mutual value exchange. This means that their view of their friend's humanity is always constrained by the limits of their competence and hence their salary negotiation. To such a person, asserting they lack a skill is deeply unsettling because it implies they aren't valuable.

Of course, it's obvious that no one can have all of the skills. How much do you know about the meterology of hycean exoplanets? Me, neither. How reasonable is it to assume that you know everything there is to know about game design (roleplaying or otherwise)? That's exactly right; that's not a particularly reasonable assumption, either. But because this is an emotional reaction based on a perceived attack on someone's self-worth, the rational response--maybe I should look that up--is overwritten by the emotional desire to look strong and confident and be a valuable member of the community.

And lets be real; there is a significant amount of sunk cost fallacy involved, too.

This is not how I view things. I see someone's worth as derived from the image of God as part of their core created essence, and skills are useful, but superfluous to someone's value as a human being. Hence my belief that all people are equal before God, but some people have way more relevant skills than others. Elitism is bad because it denies that God's perspective of humanity is the most important viewpoint of humanity, but denying the skills gap is also bad because it petrifies your perspective.

If you don't believe in God, you will have problems accepting the paradox that all people are different in capacity, yet equal in moral value, which means you will always have problems explaining why Elitism is bad. I am willing to wager that you (Socratic-DM) sensed that I was setting up some sort of ethical conundrum, and resorted to some unfunny insults to try to evade it.

Alas, both ends of this decision were mistakes.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 25, 2025, 12:28:12 PMIn addition, the poster also privileges terminology as used in video gaming (like "feedback loops") to describe concepts that predate video gaming by decades, suggesting that he doesn't actually understand the concepts, their origins, and their actual usage in the RPG-space.  As if RPG-designers aren't familiar with "feedback loops," a problem that only exists in the poster's mind (as no examples of this from the OSR are given).  So the charge of "elitism" has more to do with the poster than the subject matter...

--*clears throat*--

QuoteYou'll note that I am using a video game design channel as a reference here. That's because while this discussion can (occasionally) be found in some roleplaying game discussion boards if you specifically search for it, it's rare compared to the equivalent communities in video game design. Although it isn't like it's a particularly common discussion topic there, either.

In your haste to pass judgement, you seem to have...neglected to read what you were judging.

QuoteI can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Well if we're just going to insult one another nakedly... you're an aloof fop, a hacky pretend avant guard who types out total mental masturbation. you say nothing of substance and talk down to everyone you interact with like the craven sham you are.

This one is actually my fault and indicative of the source of this disagreement and problem, you did in fact bruise my ego at that point which is why I wrote that specific nasty reply, I later edited realizing it was unproductive but clearly you wrote a response to the earlier version.

Upon reading some other stuff you wrote I take back that particular insult entirely, you do in fact have of insight and value.

I overall agreed with your take and reply, I griped with the wording and use of video game language over that which a TTRPG designer would use. I let prior interactions barb that reply the way I did and it tempted you to wrath, that was my mistake and I apologize.

This discourse has since been unproductive like 3 posts ago and I'm cutting my losses.

QuoteThis is not how I view things. I see someone's worth as derived from the image of God as part of their core created essence, and skills are useful, but superfluous to someone's value as a human being. Hence my belief that all people are equal before God, but some people have way more relevant skills than others. Elitism is bad because it denies that God's perspective of humanity is the most important viewpoint of humanity, but denying the skills gap is also bad because it petrifies your perspective.

No disagreement here. but I'd caveat it with this quote by C.S Lewis:

QuoteAristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

while slavery is not an institution as it use to be in the Western World, we're all well aware "Experts" abuse their positions over laymen. that was more or less what the covid lockdowns were about, or going into the middle east to stop WMDs... I don't claim to be a doctor or an intelligence agent, but I know bullshit when I see it.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 26, 2025, 12:22:10 PM

QuoteI can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Well if we're just going to insult one another nakedly... you're an aloof fop, a hacky pretend avant guard who types out total mental masturbation. you say nothing of substance and talk down to everyone you interact with like the craven sham you are.

This one is actually my fault and indicative of the source of this disagreement and problem, you did in fact bruise my ego at that point which is why I wrote that specific nasty reply, I later edited realizing it was unproductive but clearly you wrote a response to the earlier version.

Upon reading some other stuff you wrote I take back that particular insult entirely, you do in fact have of insight and value.

I overall agreed with your take and reply, I griped with the wording and use of video game language over that which a TTRPG designer would use. I let prior interactions barb that reply the way I did and it tempted you to wrath, that was my mistake and I apologize.

This discourse has since been unproductive like 3 posts ago and I'm cutting my losses.

Fair, and apology accepted (although I really would prefer you to apologize for manipulating my words; the insult is whatever-who-cares) but I want to point out the logic that got me to using an unedited post.

When someone drops a content argument in favor of insults (funny or not), they are basically conceding that they have lost the factual argument, but want to blow a stink-cloud over the whole affair to cover the defeat. Years ago I thought it best to just let this be and move on, but after some reflection I think that being too polite in these circumstances is conditioning people to associate switching to irrelevant insults with winning an argument.

This conditioning cycle is one of the key reasons the internet has gone downhill the way it has. Robots and LLMs copying these techniques is the other.

This has led me to my current conclusion; whenever someone tries to misbehave like this, you must punish the attempt to misbehave. Not only have you already effectively won the argument, but letting the other person disengage thinking they can win by creating a big enough stink is actually bad for the overall health of the internet. Put bluntly, when someone attempts to insult me, I will intentionally disregard etiquette and shoot back, aiming at the balls.

There's nothing personal about this. The internet got where it is because too many people let this kind of behavior slide, so you should put your foot down eventually. And by, "you," I of course mean, "me."


As this is probably the thread wrapping up, I'll give Eirikrautha a (presumably) closing shot across the bow.

Actually competent people don't invoke Dunning-Kruger because a competent person would rely on their in-field competence and just correct a mistake because they would be confident in their own ability to answer follow-ups. Meanwhile, someone who is not particularly competent is likely to invoke a general principle like Dunning-Kruger to shut down the conversation without actually resorting to much comprehension. While this can occasionally be defended as a time-saver, that rarely actually makes sense because the counter-arguments to obviously flawed positions are often so easy to make, and sometimes articulating them is sometimes beneficial. No, the real explanation is almost invariably that the person invoking Dunning-Kruger isn't particularly confident in their ability to handle a follow-up.

I get that you're just copying other internet braindead users (probably from Reddit where this is a very popular argument line), but that doesn't reflect any better on you. Copying the braindead makes you also braindead.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 26, 2025, 02:58:52 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 26, 2025, 12:22:10 PM

QuoteI can tell that once upon a time, there was smart person somewhere in there. But then a switch flips and you do brazenly hypocritical tsundere nonsense like this. I think we might need to take a step back. Would you please be so kind as to explain what Elitism is and why it's bad? Preferably without resorting to Thumper's Mother's Rule.

Well if we're just going to insult one another nakedly... you're an aloof fop, a hacky pretend avant guard who types out total mental masturbation. you say nothing of substance and talk down to everyone you interact with like the craven sham you are.

This one is actually my fault and indicative of the source of this disagreement and problem, you did in fact bruise my ego at that point which is why I wrote that specific nasty reply, I later edited realizing it was unproductive but clearly you wrote a response to the earlier version.

Upon reading some other stuff you wrote I take back that particular insult entirely, you do in fact have of insight and value.

I overall agreed with your take and reply, I griped with the wording and use of video game language over that which a TTRPG designer would use. I let prior interactions barb that reply the way I did and it tempted you to wrath, that was my mistake and I apologize.

This discourse has since been unproductive like 3 posts ago and I'm cutting my losses.

Fair, and apology accepted (although I really would prefer you to apologize for manipulating my words; the insult is whatever-who-cares) but I want to point out the logic that got me to using an unedited post.

When someone drops a content argument in favor of insults (funny or not), they are basically conceding that they have lost the factual argument, but want to blow a stink-cloud over the whole affair to cover the defeat. Years ago I thought it best to just let this be and move on, but after some reflection I think that being too polite in these circumstances is conditioning people to associate switching to irrelevant insults with winning an argument.

This conditioning cycle is one of the key reasons the internet has gone downhill the way it has. Robots and LLMs copying these techniques is the other.

This has led me to my current conclusion; whenever someone tries to misbehave like this, you must punish the attempt to misbehave. Not only have you already effectively won the argument, but letting the other person disengage thinking they can win by creating a big enough stink is actually bad for the overall health of the internet. Put bluntly, when someone attempts to insult me, I will intentionally disregard etiquette and shoot back, aiming at the balls.

There's nothing personal about this. The internet got where it is because too many people let this kind of behavior slide, so you should put your foot down eventually. And by, "you," I of course mean, "me."


As this is probably the thread wrapping up, I'll give Eirikrautha a (presumably) closing shot across the bow.

Actually competent people don't invoke Dunning-Kruger because a competent person would rely on their in-field competence and just correct a mistake because they would be confident in their own ability to answer follow-ups. Meanwhile, someone who is not particularly competent is likely to invoke a general principle like Dunning-Kruger to shut down the conversation without actually resorting to much comprehension. While this can occasionally be defended as a time-saver, that rarely actually makes sense because the counter-arguments to obviously flawed positions are often so easy to make, and sometimes articulating them is sometimes beneficial. No, the real explanation is almost invariably that the person invoking Dunning-Kruger isn't particularly confident in their ability to handle a follow-up.

I get that you're just copying other internet braindead users (probably from Reddit where this is a very popular argument line), but that doesn't reflect any better on you. Copying the braindead makes you also braindead.

So, once again, you can't provide any direct examples of OSR games (especially the newer ones as referenced in Pundit's video) neglecting "high level design."  I'm happy with the readers deciding who here is displaying competence, and who is just bloviating...