Hi, guys. I haven't posted on gaming websites in years, but I recently saw this post from Frank Trollman that looked so absolutely ridiculous....that I couldn't quite bring myself to ignore it. Maybe I'm making a mistake in posting this here at all, but here it is anyway:
https://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=57411&sid=38d1fc599e0852b3520c1a80eafb6301
Quote from: FrankTrollmanPostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:13 pm Post subject:
ACKS is different from MYFAROG in the sense that it has some good ideas in it. It is not different in the sense that supporting it financially in any way, even indirectly is ethically inexcusable.
Alexander Macris was the actual owner of the company created for Milo to tour the country radicalizing potential racist terrorists. Since then, 8Chan has been shut down for its close links to multiple terrorist attacks killing dozens of people. In any sane world, Alexander Macris would be writing these things from jail.
There was a time that I thought all the weirdness about racial character classes was just a bloody minded adherence to old school tropes for its own sake. Turns out that he's a racist shitheel who financed a terrorist network and is personally responsible for the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of people.
But it's also true that a bad man can paint a good picture or whatever, and ACKS has infinitely more good ideas to steal than MYFAROG or RAHOWA do. What is it about racist terrorists that inspires them to make acronymized names for their games? Should I be checking Steve Jackson's house for Confederate memorabilia?
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollmanPostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:26 pm Post subject:
Dungeons & Dragons has a number of tropes in it that are difficult to justify morally. Often we handwave that off with ideas that it's just a game, or that there probably is some overriding justification for whatever violence is used but that neither the justness of the Halfling cause nor the injustice of the orc position are particularly relevant to the story about dashing knights and cunning wizards fighting battles. Saturday morning cartoon morality may suffice because we're potentially telling stories in the genre and inspired by actual Saturday morning cartoons.
However, we can't really extend that kind of good faith to ACKS, because it turns out to be written by a guy who is almost exactly Osama Bin Laden. I do not make that comparison lightly or in jest. He literally and specifically financed and supported a quite significant network of people for whom radicalizing potential terrorists was a full time job.
So the stuff where in ACKS you're supposed to go to the homes of people who look different than you, murder them, and take their gold can't really be blithely accepted as being merely hockey the way the original Gygaxianisms could. Gygax was your racist but good meaning uncle, Alexander Macris is only you're uncle if you're a Saudi prince with a family fortune of blood money to protect.
Similarly you have various tropes and events in classic fantasy literature which are potentially offensive or things that give wood to white supremacists simply because of when they were made. Tolkien was explicitly against white supremacy as an ideology, but you can definitely see why actual white supremacists think his stuff about inherently noble and powerful Numenorians is him speaking their language. Tolkien writing then was him writing in as anti-racist a manner as he was able to given his time and place and background. We extend understanding and allowance for Tolkien that we would not do for someone writing the same things today. And indeed, when Alexander Macris writes Numernor expies, we don't give him the benefit of the doubt. We don't have doubt for him to benefit from. It's racist eliminationalist rhetoric that is disgusting when Alexander Macris writes this shit in 2017.
-Frank
I had to reread this a couple times, because I initially couldn't believe my eyes. It looks like Trollman actually accuses Alexander Macris of being a
"racist terrorist", a "white supremacist"
(whatever that means), and
mass murderer. I always knew that Trollman was obnoxious and arrogant, but has he completely lost his mind? Is Trollman sperging out because Macris worked as CEO last year at some company run by Milo Yiannopoulos? How does this make Macris a
"racist terrorist" and mass murderer who is
"personally responsible for the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of people?" I don't understand.The reason why I would
(partially) classify this as a gaming thread, is because it looks like Trollman is very intentionally engaging in
defamation of character (or libel) against Macris....in order to cause
financial harm against both he and his gaming company,
Autarch (which produces ACKS).
What kills me is that absolutely nobody in the Gaming Den challenged Trollman on the falsehood of his statements, even though he was quite obviously being deliberately deceptive and manipulative in one of the most vicious and unethical ways I've ever seen.
Pundit, I don't know if I should have ignored this drama or not...but if this is an inappropriate thread, then feel free to just nuke it. However, Trollman's statements went so beyond the pale, that I had trouble processing it....and decided to share it.
This seems relatively gaming related as this nut goes on to attack D&D with the usual dead horse screed and then goes after ACKs and its designer. Is this out of the blue or has this guy been a known knut for a while? Never heard of him till now though the name seems oddly familliar.
Frank Trollman went nuts ages ago.
I think Trollman worked as a freelancer on Shadowrun. It's hard to remember. He does have a reputation for unbelievable arrogance, but these posts are on another level entirely......even for him.
Hopefully Macris will go after Trollman, but there's the question of jurisdictions and getting lawyers outside your own territory. Of course, Macris might not want to give Trollman and his cuck brigade any free publicity.
But either way, Trollman's rant was insane.
Trollman was banned by the Big Purple, back in the beginnings of the SJW era for them.... That should tell you something about how unhinged and crazy he is, given not even TBP wanted to deal with him. He's also the guy who couldn't even be bothered to read how the rules in Godbound work and dismissed it as a bad game out of hand when he assumed damage and HP worked like they did in most OSR games.
Basically, I don't trust anything Trollman says or does. He has unearned arrogance, and is a total asshole.
It would be fun to put Frank Trollman and the RPGPundit in a room together.
Trollman was a guy you could count on to show all the ways Shadowrun 4th was broken...about a decade ago. Even then he was weird when he talked about anything other then game mechanics. I see years of echo-chamber groupthink and hero-worship by the crowd at TGD have done wonders for his sanity.
Oh wow, somebody forgot to take his pills!
I bet he would fit nicely in all the twitter groups that try to push narratives like this...mentally ill people who think they're fighting "the good" fight while being at least as big asshats as the people they accuse of wrong-doing :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1108464Hi, guys. I haven't posted on gaming websites in years, but I recently saw this post from Frank Trollman that looked so absolutely ridiculous....that I couldn't quite bring myself to ignore it.
Nice to see you Sacrificial Lamb. Been a while! Surprised to not see you at EnWorld anymore these days.
Lol, what the hell? "Turns out that he's a racist shitheel who financed a terrorist network and is personally responsible for the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of people"? I'd also question the premise of Milo "radicalizing potential racist terrorists," but whatever. What a nutcase.
"Should I be checking Steve Jackson's house for Confederate memorabilia?" Oh no, he hasn't heard the news? Steve Jackson already came out as an alt-right, women-hating sexual abuse promoter and rape apologist!
As to the question about Frank Trollman, yeah his brain broke at least 5 years ago. He started a thread there that 5e D&D was "vapourware" and when it actually did come out, any sane person would have ended it there. Not Trollman....he continues to claim 5e is essentially just vapourware. That the publication rate and number of employees is evidence WOTC is just putting out a trickle of stuff to maintain the IP Rights (as if that were a thing). And when you point out that it's been on the bestseller list for literally 5 years straight, he just won't acknowledge the reality of what that means. So yeah, I really do think he's left reality to some degree. And he has a weird posse of sycophants who nod at whatever he says. It's almost cult-like.
I would drop the "almost" and go ahead and call it a cult. It's just that these are secular cults we're sometimes dealing with when by tradition we're used to recognizing religious cults.
Quote from: wmarshal;1108539I would drop the "almost" and go ahead and call it a cult. It's just that these are secular cults we're sometimes dealing with when by tradition we're used to recognizing religious cults.
As far as I know, nobody has sold all their worldly possessions, given everything they have to him, and gone to live in a compound with him. When people start getting branded on their butts with his initials we can firmly declare it a cult :)
Quote from: Mistwell;1108544As far as I know, nobody has sold all their worldly possessions, given everything they have to him, and gone to live in a compound with him. When people start getting branded on their butts with his initials we can firmly declare it a cult :)
Dude, millennials are too lazy to do all that...all you need to join a cult in the modern age is to follow someone on Instagram and give their Patreon $5/month.
QuoteSo the stuff where in ACKS you're supposed to go to the homes of people who look different than you, murder them, and take their gold can't really be blithely accepted as being merely hockey the way the original Gygaxianisms could. Gygax was your racist but good meaning uncle, Alexander Macris is only you're uncle if you're a Saudi prince with a family fortune of blood money to protect.
I don't remember where exactly in ACKS you're supposed to go to the homes of "people" who look different than you to murder their asses and steal their shit. Is this loon talking about Orcs, Goblins, etc? Those aren't "people". And if there's actually some part of go kill the people in the next village I wan't a citation and the proof the killing is because "they look different than you".
Since I bet it's the typical SJW equating Black people to Orcs, Goblins to Jews, etc. I say fuck him, with the exception of MYFAROG who we all know it's made by a self avowed white supremacist (the only kernel of thruth in all his mad rant), I'm betting that anything he and his zealots say it's "problematic" is worth my money.
Quote from: Brad;1108550Dude, millennials are too lazy to do all that...all you need to join a cult in the modern age is to follow someone on Instagram and give their Patreon $5/month.
Besides Millennials not having any worldly possessions beyond their dirty undies.
Quote from: Brad;1108550Dude, millennials are too lazy to do all that...all you need to join a cult in the modern age is to follow someone on Instagram and give their Patreon $5/month.
Naw. You should watch some of the stuff about Allison Mack and NXIVM. Definitely millennials in a cult.
Quote from: Mistwell;1108555Naw. You should watch some of the stuff about Allison Mack and NXIVM. Definitely millennials in a cult.
That one was sinister in how it was designed to take advantage of women with low self-esteem who'd be near perfect victims. I imagine any woman with a healthy regard for herself, and therefore likely to not put up with and report any change so they see, how would almost automatically remove themselves from being members of NXIVM. "Take instruction on being an empowered woman from a man? I'll pass on that!"
Sorry but I can not take anything said by someone called "Troll"man seriously.
Its like someone wants to turn real life into a parody.
Quote from: TJS;1108491It would be fun to put Frank Trollman and the RPGPundit in a room together.
Probably not for either of them, though.
Quote from: Shasarak;1108587Its like someone wants to turn real life into a parody.
As far as I'm concerned, real life is already parody.
Quote from: Mistwell;1108520Nice to see you Sacrificial Lamb. Been a while! Surprised to not see you at EnWorld anymore these days.
Thanks, man. I haven't done any tabletop gaming in a while, although I do miss it.
Someone is really butthurt about not getting to publishing/finishing anything in the last decade... And i can't say After Sundown is really a "finished product", at all.
This is sad.
Quote from: Shasarak;1108587Sorry but I can not take anything said by someone called "Troll"man seriously.
Quite. The clue is in the name.
ETortoise: "In retrospect, the fact that he's a history buff interested in late antiquity was a huge red flag."
Wonder what other time periods are off-limits?
Also found: "FrankTrollman wrote: White people are basically just horrible..."
From an image search, why is it always the pasty fuckers who say this stuff?
The irony is if Macris was a terrible person, the most far-sighted thing the nut grinders could do is say how awesome his stuff is so it provokes him to spend more time on it. But it's all about that self-aggrandizement.
For my part, I find ACKS is very interesting - especially to pull from - but I'm more of a AD&D person.
Quote from: cenmarik;1108628Also found: "FrankTrollman wrote: White people are basically just horrible..."
From an image search, why is it always the pasty fuckers who say this stuff?
Its just another example of a white person saying horrible stuff and perfect evidence for why the term "race supremacy" should not ever be pre-fixed by the word "white". There is just too many of those dumb white fuckers pulling down the average for that to be true.
Quote from: Shasarak;1108587Sorry but I can not take anything said by someone called "Troll"man seriously.
Its like someone wants to turn real life into a parody.
Frank Trollman's real last name is Trollman. Since you typically inherit your name, I don't think that you should refuse to take anything seriously given someone's real name.
I recall a Saturday Night Live episode with Nicolas Cage playing a guy with the last name 'Asswipe' (pronounced Az-wee-pay).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108680Frank Trollman's real last name is Trollman. Since you typically inherit your name, I don't think that you should refuse to take anything seriously given someone's real name.
I recall a Saturday Night Live episode with Nicolas Cage playing a guy with the last name 'Asswipe' (pronounced Az-wee-pay).
The joke -------------------------------->
You.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1108684The joke -------------------------------->
You.
The person that I feel sorry for is Mr Maga. One day you are a perfectly respectable upstanding member of your community and the next thing you know you are worse then a Nazi.
Guess old Frank finally went full retard.
... OMFG
this is asinine.
I'll be honest that I tend to be progressive and liberal. I don't agree with Mr. Macris' politics in many situations.
But this is just absurd and awful and evil. I don't know him personally, I can only go by my minor interactions with the man, and this is just absolutely baseless accusations. My limited interactions with Mr. Macris has shown me that he is a professional and kind person.
This is just absolutely ridiculous. Where does this guy come off making these claims? Why does this person think he can do this without evidence or documentation backing it up?
Granted that Mr. Macris had had some very undesirable business interactions... but that doesn't mean he deserves this level of admonishment. Doesn't even necessarily mean that he's bad person other than have made some bad business choices.
But a terrorist? WTF?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1108552I don't remember where exactly in ACKS you're supposed to go to the homes of "people" who look different than you to murder their asses and steal their shit.
Page 23, lines 32-44. It's all right there if you can hear the secret dog-whistles!
:cool:
Quote from: fixable;1109255I'll be honest that I tend to be progressive and liberal.
Quote from: fixable;1109255Why does this person think he can do this without evidence or documentation backing it up?
Quote from: fixable;1109255but that doesn't mean he deserves this level of admonishment.
Fixable, welcome to the Alt-Right! You're gonna fit right in!
:D
Quote from: Spinachcat;1109256Page 23, lines 32-44. It's all right there if you can hear the secret dog-whistles!
:cool:
Fixable, welcome to the Alt-Right! You're gonna fit right in!
:D
Meh... I'm not alt-right. Not by a long shot.
Man... you guys will latch onto anyone if they look in their direction.
I'm progressive liberal. But I'm not a witch hunter. Believe it or not, but most real liberals believe in free speech as much as you do. I have a hard time with the term "social justice warrior". Mainly because I seek better social equality among all people. But at the same time... not a fan of foolish banning of concepts that don't really help. I get pissed when SJW gets thrown about without context. I think it becomes a basket that prevents distinguishment between those who want to make real good and those who go too far.
Either way, I don't think Alex is a terrorist. He made a great game and I disagree with his politics, (I have a right to disagree) but I'll still play his game. (btw... I'm experienced with running ACKS, I have a 5 year campaign going... there's nothing racist, or fascist or terrorist about his game... It's just a better classic D&D.)
So, I'll decline your welcome. If that makes me unfit for this forum... I'll gladly refrain from posting further.
Look fixable, wayyyy up in the sky, far above your head.
That's a joke.
Quote from: Doom;1109262Look fixable, wayyyy up in the sky, far above your head.
That's a joke.
Lol.. what. You're being childish. I'm not going away. Deal with it.
Quote from: fixable;1109258I'm not alt-right. Not by a long shot.
That's exactly what those Alt-Right guys say! :)
Quote from: fixable;1109258I'm progressive liberal. But I'm not a witch hunter. Believe it or not, but most real liberals believe in free speech as much as you do.
Exactly. "Real liberals" most certainly do. Kudos on being one of them.
You'll find many posters here who are considered "on the right" are actually "real liberals" too.
Quote from: fixable;1109258I have a hard time with the term "social justice warrior".
Because they're bullshit clicktivists and online thoughtcrime bullies, not people who make the real world better for others.
It's why President Carter's Habitat for Humanity gets support from the Left and Right because its about putting nails in wood to give a homeless family their own home they helped build, not just wanking online on Twitter.
Trust me, I understand. I don't call myself an environmentalist anymore because the online fucknuts have embraced utter idiocy. Instead, I go help clean up beaches and trails and dumped my membership from every "environmental" group.
Quote from: fixable;1109258So, I'll decline your welcome. If that makes me unfit for this forum... I'll gladly refrain from posting further.
Actually, disagreeing and yet still discussing things makes you awesome for this forum. TheRPGsite should always be a mosh pit of ideas and never an echo chamber of mindless agreement.
Post more, not less.
And my welcome stands! :cool:
QuoteBecause they're bullshit clicktivists and online thoughtcrime bullies, not people who make the real world better for others.
It's why President Carter's Habitat for Humanity gets support from the Left and Right because its about putting nails in wood to give a homeless family their own home they helped build, not just wanking online on Twitter.
Trust me, I understand. I don't call myself an environmentalist anymore because the online fucknuts have embraced utter idiocy. Instead, I go help clean up beaches and trails and dumped my membership from every "environmental" group.
Actually, disagreeing and yet still discussing things makes you awesome for this forum. TheRPGsite should always be a mosh pit of ideas and never an echo chamber of mindless agreement.
Post more, not less.
And my welcome stands! :cool:
Fair enough.
I'm going to roll back and take it slow... sorry for that.
I will just state that Alexander Macris doesn't deserve the negativity pushed on him. Its heart breaking. He made an amazing game.
Quote from: fixable;1109268Fair enough.
I'm going to roll back and take it slow... sorry for that.
I will just state that Alexander Macris doesn't deserve the negativity pushed on him. Its heart breaking. He made an amazing game.
He made a bad copy of an amazing game (BECMI D&D). He doesn't deserve this crap because it's wild hysterical accusations that have no basis in reality.
Quote from: fixable;1109268He made an amazing game.
Quote from: JeremyR;1109271He made a bad copy of an amazing game (BECMI D&D).
Somebody start a pro/con ACKS thread!
My retroclone of choice is Swords & Wizardry: White Box because OD&D is my jam, so I have no horse in the ACKS race, but it would be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts about the game. Especially actual play experience.
Same with Lamentations of the Flame Princess.
Quote from: Shasarak;1108587Sorry but I can not take anything said by someone called "Troll"man seriously.
Its like someone wants to turn real life into a parody.
That's my hot take. I'm not taking Trollman seriously.
Quote from: fixable;1109258Meh... I'm not alt-right. Not by a long shot.
Man... you guys will latch onto anyone if they look in their direction.
I'm progressive liberal. But I'm not a witch hunter. Believe it or not, but most real liberals believe in free speech as much as you do. I have a hard time with the term "social justice warrior". Mainly because I seek better social equality among all people. But at the same time... not a fan of foolish banning of concepts that don't really help. I get pissed when SJW gets thrown about without context. I think it becomes a basket that prevents distinguishment between those who want to make real good and those who go too far.
Either way, I don't think Alex is a terrorist. He made a great game and I disagree with his politics, (I have a right to disagree) but I'll still play his game. (btw... I'm experienced with running ACKS, I have a 5 year campaign going... there's nothing racist, or fascist or terrorist about his game... It's just a better classic D&D.)
So, I'll decline your welcome. If that makes me unfit for this forum... I'll gladly refrain from posting further.
As near as I can tell, many if not most of the so-called "alt-right" were people who grew up being "left of center" progressives. As a teen in the 90's, I very much considered myself the same. Then, one day I woke up and found that the generation that followed mine went completely completely off the deep end of the extreme left and started calling anyone
right of them "right wing" and, later, "alt-right" (because reasons?).
So, yeah, welcome to the fucking alt-right.
I am quite constrained with what I can say about these things because of a variety of non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements. But since I read and post here regularly, I thought it would be odd not to comment at all. For what it's worth, I think I can say the following since the facts are public record.
QuoteAlexander Macris was the actual owner of the company created for Milo to tour the country radicalizing potential racist terrorists.
This is factually incorrect as follows:
1. No, I was not the "actual owner" of the company. I was an employee hired by the actual owners and investors - a wealthy family of billionaires - to run the business operations of the company. Like other executives, I was given some stock. But at no point was I the investor, the majority owner, or the beneficial owner, or the controlling stakeholder. This is public record - Buzzfeed leaked the name of the investors.
2. The business wasn't created "for Milo to tour the country radicalizing potential racist terrorists". It was created to move Milo (who had been tarred by accusations of pedophilia) into the position of tastemaker-comedian like a right-wing Bill Maher. Specifically, the premise was that humor and celebrity was a key element to left-wing influence and should be countered with the same. This is public record.
3. The so-called "Dangerous Faggot" tour of America actually took place from 2015 to February 2017. I had no affiliation with Milo during that time. MILO Inc. was founded in May 2017, three months *after* the tour was over. I had nothing to do with the tour. The two events I was involved in organizing were (a) Coming out Conservative, a party for gay New Yorkers to admit they were Republicans, and (b) Free Speech Week, an event in Berkeley CA to discuss free speech in the 21st c., held in conjunction with the Berkeley College Republicans. The latter event was cancelled due to safety and regulatory issues. In any case, neither the New York gay community nor the bow-tie wearing Berkeley College Republicans are right-wing jihadis. Most of the Berkeley Republicans though Mitt Romney was a bit too far right-wing for them...
4. The investors terminated any further funding of the company in October 2018 when a BuzzFeed article was published with evidence of ties between Milo and white nationalist groups dating from 2015 to 2017. The article, and the investor's departure thereafter, are a matter of public record.
5. With the investor's permission, I was also able to resign from the company, taking no severance and returning my stock back to the corporation without compensation. I have not been involved in any capacity for more than 18 months. Milo continues to own and operate the company. I cannot add any further comment other than to say that I am grateful to now be focusing on making RPGs.
QuoteThere was a time that I thought all the weirdness about racial character classes was just a bloody minded adherence to old school tropes for its own sake. Turns out that he's a racist shitheel who financed a terrorist network and is personally responsible for the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of people.
1. I find it tiresome to debate people who call others racist, because the people who fling the accusation don't use the word to mean what it commonly means. Critical race theorists and their ilk claim that all white people are racists, because a racist is one who benefits from systemic racism, and all white people benefit from systemic racism in America. Since I am quite pasty indeed, ergo, I'm a racist. I, personally, am a committed libertarian individualist, so I reject the entire paradigm under which they operate. In my framework, a racist is a person who personally discriminates against other people on the basis of their race. Since I don't do that, I'm not a racist. I will leave it to the reader to decide what label to apply based on their worldview. I could provide ample evidence of my actual behavior vis-a-vis other human beings in work and life, but that only matters if you think individual behavior matters.
2. Mr. Tollman obviously does not actually think I finance a terrorist network, nor does he actually I think I am personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds. If he did, he would be terrified to cross me. "The BX retro-clone you just gave a one-star review to was written by a man. And that man's name is John Wick." Since he feels secure enough to make silly claims about me, we can assume he knows his own claims are silly.
QuoteBut it's also true that a bad man can paint a good picture or whatever, and ACKS has infinitely more good ideas to steal than MYFAROG or RAHOWA do. What is it about racist terrorists that inspires them to make acronymized names for their games? Should I be checking Steve Jackson's house for Confederate memorabilia?
1. I think this means I'm better than Hitler, because Hitler was a bad man who painted bad paintings.
2. To be mentioned in the same insult as Steve Jackson is a compliment. But what about the designers of MERP, FASERIP, TOR...
QuoteDungeons & Dragons has a number of tropes in it that are difficult to justify morally. Often we handwave that off with ideas that it's just a game, or that there probably is some overriding justification for whatever violence is used but that neither the justness of the Halfling cause nor the injustice of the orc position are particularly relevant to the story about dashing knights and cunning wizards fighting battles. Saturday morning cartoon morality may suffice because we're potentially telling stories in the genre and inspired by actual Saturday morning cartoons.
1. The notion that the tropes of a game need to be justified morally is bizarre to me. I don't see any sound reason that I, or anyone, needs to justify the morality of the tropes in their art or entertainment to anyone else.
QuoteHowever, we can't really extend that kind of good faith to ACKS, because it turns out to be written by a guy who is almost exactly Osama Bin Laden. I do not make that comparison lightly or in jest. He literally and specifically financed and supported a quite significant network of people for whom radicalizing potential terrorists was a full time job.
1. I frankly neither need nor want the good faith of people who think they are equipped to be the moral judge of my life or work.
2. I neither literally nor specifically financed any network of people. No one who has ever worked for me has had the full-time job of radicalizing potential terrorists.
QuoteSimilarly you have various tropes and events in classic fantasy literature which are potentially offensive or things that give wood to white supremacists simply because of when they were made. Tolkien was explicitly against white supremacy as an ideology, but you can definitely see why actual white supremacists think his stuff about inherently noble and powerful Numenorians is him speaking their language. Tolkien writing then was him writing in as anti-racist a manner as he was able to given his time and place and background. We extend understanding and allowance for Tolkien that we would not do for someone writing the same things today. And indeed, when Alexander Macris writes Numernor expies, we don't give him the benefit of the doubt. We don't have doubt for him to benefit from. It's racist eliminationalist rhetoric that is disgusting when Alexander Macris writes this shit in 2017.
1. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the ACKS setting of the Auran Empire was inspired by the Late Roman Empire. The barbarians that sacked Rome are, in ACKS, replaced by beastmen raiders. Now, the barbarians that attacked Rome were the Germans that Hitler would later characterize as the Aryan Master Race. So the role of the Aryan Master Race in ACKS is played by the pig-men and ape-men. I fail to see how this is an example of white supremacy.
2. I'm Greek-Italian ethnicity; my father was born in Alexandria, Egypt; I lived as a child in Algeria and Greece; I studied Ancient History and Arabic in college. The Auran Empire has everything to do with my own personal interests and nothing at all to do with contemporary politics.
*****
I'm grateful for the kind words extended by several of you in this thread - thank you. I'm happy to answer questions about my actual politics for anyone who cares. I'm proud of my views and very forthright.
When I found the Den several years back, I was quite ecstatic, because the environment seemed like one that was more mechanically-minded (in terms of game mechanics), and felt like it was making progress towards development of systems - or at least ideas - that would help alleviate some of the magic tea party aspects of the game.
Before you fucking twatwaffles get your panties in a twist over that phrase, I have used MTP as well, and I don't care for it, because it means that the mechanics of the game have run out and now you're just kind of making shit up as you go. While that can work, I much prefer to have sensible systems in place that can produce reproducible results, and allow for players to act with some kind of knowledge about how the world will react to their actions. I've got enough other shit to juggle behind the screen without also having to fabricate entire subsystems out of thin air, and I'm tired of being sold products that people get paid real money to write that are incomplete piles of shit.
Unfortunately, it seems that around the time I found the Den was also around the start of its decline, and you can see the sort of garbage that Frank has been shitting out the past several years. That it has become a cult of personality over there makes it even worse: Frank apparently needs no justification for his thoughts beyond the fact that Frank uttered them. Combine that with constant injection of politics and an utter lack of any kind of mechanical or system innovation for at least the last couple years (at least that are visible to those not in the "inner party," as it were), and my interest in that hole is fading fast.
Quote from: amacris;1109404But since I read and post here regularly, I thought it would be odd not to comment at all. For what it's worth, I think I can say the following since the facts are public record.
Excellent post, thank you for the insight! So shocked with the revelation you're not a racist, terrorist-inciting white supremacist mass-murderer! :eek:
Quote from: Spinachcat;1109276Somebody start a pro/con ACKS thread!
My retroclone of choice is Swords & Wizardry: White Box because OD&D is my jam, so I have no horse in the ACKS race, but it would be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts about the game. Especially actual play experience.
So I'm four years in to a regular ACKS game. Running the PC's from 1st to 9th level. What I like about ACKS is the foundation of the game. Macris really thought out the basis of the economic rules and the way all the systems of the game interconnect. Everything from mining to trade routes.
How many games have solid domain rules so when you hit that classic 9th level mark where you get followers and can found a keep, actually do something with it. My group has founded their own domain carving it out of a hostile wilderness, gathered settlers, paid their taxes to the region ruler, and finally retired their characters into rulers. Now they're restarting with the children of the domain founders 100 years down the road.
Take a look at what's online and you'll be impressed with the well thought out rules.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1109293That's my hot take. I'm not taking Trollman seriously.
Frank's being serious, I'm afraid. On his site he posts stuff called OSSR. I think it means "old school something review?" He picks an old game (White Wolf is low-hanging fruit) and does a combo of rules analysis and social justice struggle session.
Quote from: Aglondir;1109416Frank's being serious, I'm afraid. On his site he posts stuff called OSSR. I think it means "old school something review?" He picks an old game (White Wolf is low-hanging fruit) and does a combo of rules analysis and social justice struggle session.
Only Soviet Socialist Rules?
Of course he's serious, he's a zealot!
Quote from: amacris;11094041. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the ACKS setting of the Auran Empire was inspired by the Late Roman Empire. The barbarians that sacked Rome are, in ACKS, replaced by beastmen raiders. Now, the barbarians that attacked Rome were the Germans that Hitler would later characterize as the Aryan Master Race. So the role of the Aryan Master Race in ACKS is played by the pig-men and ape-men. I fail to see how this is an example of white supremacy.
2. I'm Greek-Italian ethnicity; my father was born in Alexandria, Egypt; I lived as a child in Algeria and Greece; I studied Ancient History and Arabic in college. The Auran Empire has everything to do with my own personal interests and nothing at all to do with contemporary politics.
*****
I'm grateful for the kind words extended by several of you in this thread - thank you. I'm happy to answer questions about my actual politics for anyone who cares. I'm proud of my views and very forthright.
Good to see you posting here in your own self-defense. Until today I was unaware there was any controversy over Adventurer, Conqueror, Kings. Looks like a version of D&D too me.
As far as I know, the ancient Germans were not about white supremacy. In fact they were simply about not allowing barbarian invaders and slavers to invade Germany and take their women and children and goods away. Arminius was captured as a child in a Roman raid into Germany by the Romans when they crossed the Rhine at Xanten, and he was taken captive to Rome as a young boy. He grew up and became a classically trained cavalry commander, and became Varus' chief scout. When Varus invaded Germany again in 9 a.d. Arminius united the German clan leaders, and they deliberately lured the Roman legions deep into Germany, then ambushed them at Tuetoberger Wald. All of the Roman Eagles fell, Two were captured, and one was deliberately concealed in a bog.
It would be two decades before Roman Legions crossed the Rhine again, and they retaliated, and continued pillaging until about 275 ad
Some recommended additional reading for you;
Teutoberg Forest 9 AD
https://ospreypublishing.com/teutoburg-forest-ad-9-pb
Around 355 ad, in an attempt to escape from the invading Huns that came from the East, the Germans crossed into Roman territory. The Romans attempted to drive them back but in AD 378 the Ostrogoths and Visigoths were able to defeat them at Adrianople in the East. The Romans were now forced to do a deal with the Goths who were given permission to live within the borders of the Roman Empire under their own rulers. In return, the Goths agreed to serve under Roman officers in order to prevent further invasions. The Germans became angry though when the Romans passed a law in AD 370 prohibiting marriage between Romans and themselves. The Germans also felt they were not being treated as equals in the army.
Alaric, a Visigoths leader, took part in several campaigns under the Romans. However, when he did not receive the expected promotion in the Roman Army, he led his people against the empire. Alaric now demanded that the Visigoths should have their own independent state. In AD 410 Alaric's army was strong enough to enter Rome. Roman slaves joined with the Visigoths in sacking the city. With the slaves joining his army, Alaric now had 40,000 men at his disposal. After roaming around the Roman Empire, the Visigoths eventually decided to settle in
Aquitania.
The Vandals, under the leadership of Gaiseric, also created serious problems for the Romans. With the support of the Alans, the Vandals entered Africa from Hispania in AD 429. Although, like most invading armies, the Vandals did not do damage to property in Africa, they had mainly come to settle and not to destroy. Roman writers, who were extremely hostile to their
Arian form of Christianity, were mainly responsible for the Vandals' undeserved reputation for destroying anything to do with civilization.
The Vandals were good seamen and they were now in a position to control the Mediterranean. After taking Sardinia and Corsica, Gaiseric invaded Italy in AD 455 and spent fourteen days ransacking Rome.
The Romans tried to obtain revenge, but the two vast fleets they sent to Carthage were defeated by the superior Vandal navy. Although there were only about 80,000 Vandals, of which only about 20,000 were fighting men, they ruled the six million people in Roman Africa for the next hundred years.
Arianism didn't come from, or originate in Germany, It came from Rome. Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea in 325 ad. It remained the dominant theological stance in Germany though, until the formation of the Holy Roman Empire shortly after 800 ad. The Holy Roman Empire was Catholic, and lost favor in Germany in the late 1400's due to the corruption within the church that favored the wealthy over the masses. Martin Luther was excommunicated in 1519 and formed the Protestant Church.
The Thirty Years' War was a war fought primarily in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. One of the most destructive conflicts in human history, it resulted in eight million fatalities not only from military engagements but also from violence, famine, and plague. Casualties were overwhelmingly and disproportionately inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire, most of the rest being battle deaths from various foreign armies. The deadly clashes ravaged Europe; 20 percent of the total population of Germany died during the conflict and there were losses up to 50 percent in a corridor between Pomerania and the Black Forest.
Initially a war between various Protestant and Catholic states in the fragmented Holy Roman Empire, it gradually developed into a more general conflict involving most of the European great powers. These states employed relatively large mercenary armies, and the war became less about religion and more of a continuation of the France–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence.
The Dutch Republic enjoyed contrasting fortune; it obtained independence from the Holy Roman Empire and also from Spain (which had directly controlled the Dutch lands despite it not being part of the Holy Roman Empire) thus concluding its 80-year revolt against Spain. It subsequently enjoyed a time of great prosperity and development, known as the Dutch Golden Age, during which it became one of the world's foremost economic, colonial, and naval powers. The Thirty Years' War ended with the Treaty of Osnabrück and the Treaties of Münster, part of the wider Peace of Westphalia. The war altered the previous political order of European powers. The rise of Bourbon France, the curtailing of Habsburg ambition, and the ascendancy of Sweden as a great power created a new balance of power on the continent, with France emerging from the war strengthened and increasingly dominant in the latter part of the 17th century.
This balance of power remained relatively unchanged within Germany until after World War I. Then the old order of Protestant and Catholic Aristocrats were replaced by the young socialists of the National Socialist party (The Nazis). It was they that reintroduced Arianism along with white superiority into national German religion and politics, and made these key elements in the reformation and rebirth of Germany after the defeat in WWI, and the economic collapse shortly thereafter in the late 1920's.
Interestingly, the majority of Germans abandoned Arianism and white superiority after the defeat of Germany in 1945, just about as quickly as they had adopted it between 1933-1936, in favor of their previous religions of Protestantism and Catholicism. However it was adopted by Caucasians of many other nationalities around the world, after WWII. England, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Romania, and the United States all have right wing Arian white supremacist political factions well established in each country.
To say that Germany is an Arian white supremacist state is simply ridiculous, although there is a strong right wing white-supremacist political party that is strongly anti-immigration and xenophobic, and this group composes at present approximately 20% of the population of Germany.
Why is everyone all getting worked up about ACKS anyway?
This is absolutely ridiculous. Macris has done nothing wrong besides having once been employed by a company that is now politically unpopular (I know nothing about the company, so I have no idea if they are villainous or not). I suspect that most of the people who hate Macris are simply basing their opinion off propaganda without ever researching the actual history.
Macris' reference to his Mediterranean background and characterization of not!Germans as monster fodder is hilarious. For reference, the Nazis were racist against Mediterraneans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_race#Mediterranean_Aryans). While probably not intentional, the Auran Empire setting potentially reads as alternate history revenge fiction. That is the opposite of the racist games cited by Trollman.
Being based on the Roman Empire, the Auran Empire must obviously have comparable populations and customs (if not identical because of the fantasy genre). It must have ethnically diverse population that includes analogues of the populations in the real life Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. It must have sexual mores that are openly accepting of homosexual relationships. Thus, we should hold up Macris as an SJW icon for depicting ethnic Germans as animal-headed savages being heroically butchered by the ethnically and sexually diverse adventurers of the Auran Empire.
Obviously I am being facetious, but I am honestly surprised that I have not seen SJW fantasy settings that are transparent revenge fiction. If there are, then they have not popped on my radar.
Quote from: amacris;1109404I am quite constrained with what I can say about these things because of a variety of non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements. But since I read and post here regularly, I thought it would be odd not to comment at all.
Thank you for taking the time to provide further information, especially since you have probably had to repeat yourself in various contexts. It's much appreciated.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1109527This is absolutely ridiculous. Macris has done nothing wrong besides having once been employed by a company that is now politically unpopular (I know nothing about the company, so I have no idea if they are villainous or not). I suspect that most of the people who hate Macris are simply basing their opinion off propaganda without ever researching the actual history.
Macris' reference to his Mediterranean background and characterization of not!Germans as monster fodder is hilarious. For reference, the Nazis were racist against Mediterraneans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_race#Mediterranean_Aryans). While probably not intentional, the Auran Empire setting potentially reads as alternate history revenge fiction. That is the opposite of the racist games cited by Trollman.
Being based on the Roman Empire, the Auran Empire must obviously have comparable populations and customs (if not identical because of the fantasy genre). It must have ethnically diverse population that includes analogues of the populations in the real life Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. It must have sexual mores that are openly accepting of homosexual relationships. Thus, we should hold up Macris as an SJW icon for depicting ethnic Germans as animal-headed savages being heroically butchered by the ethnically and sexually diverse adventurers of the Auran Empire.
This made my day - thank you.
Yes, the setting has analogs to Arabs, Bactrians, Greeks, Iberians, Persians, Phoenicians, etc. The Auran Empire is portrayed as quite diverse, with people of various ethnic groups working together.
Yes, it has exceptionally open sexual mores, probably more so than actual Roman because it's more gender-neutral than the patriarchal Romans. In fact, the harshest criticism I've ever gotten of the game art was over (a) depictions of sex acts on a temple wall [based on real temple art] and (b) depictions of a female queen with half-naked male servants serving her. (Sometimes I think contemporary westerners have a hard time understanding a worldview that's utterly absent the idea that sex is a sin.)
It's also worth noting that the chaotic religion of the villains is literally based on ancient Christianity as viewed through a dark and nihilistic lens (e.g. "Jesus was a zombie" "Christians are cannibals who eat their own god" etc). The Aurans believe that you should burn the dead so that the soul can be freed to transmigrate, and they revere their heroic ancestors with worship alongside the deified emperors and the gods. The evil Chthonic faith teaches that when you die, you need to bind your soul to your body (e.g. become undead) to preserve your physical and spiritual integrity, and teach you to wait in your tomb until the Awakening, when the Chthonic gods will purify the earth and restore the sanctified bodies of the believers. This wasn't intended as some deep metaphysical commentary on Christianity; it simply allowed me to explain both resurrection and reincarnation and provided a convenient excuse to have hidden tombs packed with slumbering undead all over their place.
:D
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1109528Thank you for taking the time to provide further information, especially since you have probably had to repeat yourself in various contexts. It's much appreciated.
I probably don't do it enough, given the ongoing disinformation campaign. Thanks for reading my comments.
In the event Blicero from Gaming Hub reads this:
Thanks for the thorough review of the book. I think you were harsh but fair and am grateful you took the time to analyze it in such detail. You misunderstood the math of the distribution of places of power though, which does in fact follow the example I gave. Note that size is not power level. (And the rounding in the example was insignificant to the calculation of per-hex density, while the ratio of the three categories was relevant to the power of the place.)
To address a refrain from both this and your Player's Companion review: I'm well-aware of the fact that neither the classes nor the spells of D&D were created with any sort of system. But the OSR had a mantra that "D&D is always right" so I took it upon myself as a fun challenge to attempt to reverse engineer systems that yielded D&D-like results consistently. Because the class- and spell-building systems are built on the very shaky foundation of early D&D, they can't be used as a GURPS-style point build system but many years of play has shown they work very well as a tool if used judiciously. I grant as self-evident that it's a quixotic effort.
Since you think that domains and mass combat is the game's killer app, I'd like to extend to you an offer to preview the revised Axioms issue 3, which has the most extensive and detailed domain and economics rules I have published to date. I think you'd give it a thorough assessment.
Quote from: amacris;1109543This made my day - thank you.
You are quite welcome.
Quote from: amacris;1109543Yes, the setting has analogs to Arabs, Bactrians, Greeks, Iberians, Persians, Phoenicians, etc. The Auran Empire is portrayed as quite diverse, with people of various ethnic groups working together.
I'm really frustrated that sort of cultural exchange isn't depicted in mainstream media, and it's doubly annoying because the blame rests at the feet of the self-styled SJWs. I watched
Merlin and was surprised that Guinevere wasn't some Moorish noblewoman, because that would have made far more sense for Arthur to marry her later. Greek mythology has several black kings, queens, princes and princesses who never show up in adaptations. Africa has countless mythologies that never get referenced in Western popular culture. The
Aethiopica ("The Ethiopian Story") is about the adventures of a black princess who could pass for white, and ends with her interracial marriage to a Greek nobleman.
Quote from: amacris;1109543Yes, it has exceptionally open sexual mores, probably more so than actual Roman because it's more gender-neutral than the patriarchal Romans. In fact, the harshest criticism I've ever gotten of the game art was over (a) depictions of sex acts on a temple wall [based on real temple art] and (b) depictions of a female queen with half-naked male servants serving her. (Sometimes I think contemporary westerners have a hard time understanding a worldview that's utterly absent the idea that sex is a sin.)
All known cultures have some kind of sexual taboos (perhaps the only universal one is a taboo against public sex, which at best is seen as extremely rude and obnoxious), but the idea of sex itself being shameful can traced directly to Christianity and its concept of original sin. I'm not interested in a full digression, but I find it bizarre that Christians simultaneously consider their bodies both made in the image of God and shameful to look at (especially women's bodies for some reason). I can understand if the body must be covered due to its innate holiness (as with covering holy objects, or gods/angels concealing themselves to avoid causing an epidemic of eyeballs exploding and spontaneous combustion), but punishing someone for the divine appearance they were born with makes no sense to me.
Quote from: amacris;1109543It's also worth noting that the chaotic religion of the villains is literally based on ancient Christianity as viewed through a dark and nihilistic lens (e.g. "Jesus was a zombie" "Christians are cannibals who eat their own god" etc). The Aurans believe that you should burn the dead so that the soul can be freed to transmigrate, and they revere their heroic ancestors with worship alongside the deified emperors and the gods. The evil Chthonic faith teaches that when you die, you need to bind your soul to your body (e.g. become undead) to preserve your physical and spiritual integrity, and teach you to wait in your tomb until the Awakening, when the Chthonic gods will purify the earth and restore the sanctified bodies of the believers. This wasn't intended as some deep metaphysical commentary on Christianity; it simply allowed me to explain both resurrection and reincarnation and provided a convenient excuse to have hidden tombs packed with slumbering undead all over their place.
That is quite clever. In my setting, the adventurers are immoral tomb raiders and the undead were raised by the souls in the tomb to defend their resting places.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108680Frank Trollman's real last name is Trollman. Since you typically inherit your name, I don't think that you should refuse to take anything seriously given someone's real name.
I recall a Saturday Night Live episode with Nicolas Cage playing a guy with the last name 'Asswipe' (pronounced Az-wee-pay).
Aren't you the one that went crying to the Den that we were saying mean things about Crazy Frank?
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1109737Aren't you the one that went crying to the Den that we were saying mean things about Crazy Frank?
Did he? Link?
You know how Trollman accused Macris of "racist terrorism" and "white supremacy" and mass murder? Well, it turns out that he decided to double down. Now he's also accusing Macris of funding and controlling a "terrorist network". He also accuses Macris of money laundering, and the barking hyenas on the site are supporting him on this. When I asked him for the precise
name of this alleged "terrorist network", he won't directly answer and becomes very disturbingly non-specific in his massively arrogant way. It looks like he also tries to imply that Macris is partially responsible for the El Paso Shooting, and I still can't quite figure out how or why he's coming to this insane conclusion.....even after everything that I've read. The Denners then tried to side track the discussion by completely sperging out when I asked them if they think that Macris funds Antifa
(an actual terrorist network). And then they tried to claim that "Milo supports pedophilia", when he was the one who was the victim of sexual assault.....and Yiannopoulos just seems
(to me) like a victim in denial about his own abuse. It was all very weird. But Trollman very blatantly tried to discourage anyone from buying ACKS, because of all this.
Quote from: FrankTrollmanQuote from: Sacrificial LambSo tell us, Frank. Do you have the individual names of the 24 to 999 people that Alexander Macris is personally responsible for murdering?
Quote from: Frank TrollmanHe funneled money to an organization that trained, radicalized, encouraged, and promoted a series of terrorist mass murderers. Here is, for example One (https://time.com/5644314/8chan-shootings/) of the mass murders that came into being because of the terrorist network that Macris helped set up. That article was in Time. Twenty two people died in that event. That specific event, and Macris' own timeline admits that he helped finance this after the organization in question was already tied to these actions.
Quote from: Sacrificial LambIf a tabletop rpg publisher murdered hundreds of people, this would be front page news. Right?
The thing I don't understand is why you dumb assholes think that I think that people who act as bag men for terrorists are "bad asses" that I'd be personally afraid of in a dark alley. When they caught up with him, Osama Bin Laden was a creaky old pervert with kidney failure. He wasn't Hitler from the end of Wolfenstein 3D, he was Hitler from the end of Downfall. People who funnel money to hate groups aren't strong or brave, they're just hateful assholes who lack the courage of their convictions to even be paste eating Proud Boys.
Kissinger has lots of blood on his hands, but he's not a 10th level anti-paladin, he's just a frail old man with severe kyphosis. Obviously we understand that Macris isn't John Wick, because we know that being morally reprehensible doesn't give you super powers. Because we live in the real world, where funneling money to violent hate groups is a moral choice, and one which the vast majority of people manage to successfully correctly choose to abstain from every day of their fucking lives. Making a "deal with the devil" to perform money laundering for racist billionaires to pay for incitement of racist violence isn't like a D&D deal with the devil where you get extra hit dice and a prestige class - it just is a permanent stain on your character where people who once thought you were an OK dude never think that again.
Quote from: Sacrificial LambYou should publicly APOLOGIZE to Macris.
I've got a better idea: I'm never going to take moral choice advice from someone who thinks Antifa is a terrorist organization and sees nothing wrong with money laundering for Milo after he started promoting violent white supremacist hate groups. I'm never going to apologize to Macris. He's a horrible human being who failed the most basic moral test of our times. And I'm going to hold you in utter contempt for as long as I remember that you even exist because you are a fascist shit stain who makes the world worse just by existing.
-Frank
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1108464Hi, guys. I haven't posted on gaming websites in years, but I recently saw this post from Frank Trollman that -
Well, his name is TROLLman.
But so? Who cares what he thinks of some game? Do you like it? If so, play it! If not, don't.
Let's be serious: your favourite game sucks. But that's your problem, not mine. Why are you indignant at his indignation? Pass the cheetoes and game on, motherfucker.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1109757You know how Trollman accused Macris of "racist terrorism" and "white supremacy" and mass murder? Well, it turns out that he decided to double down. Now he's also accusing Macris of funding and controlling a "terrorist network". He also accuses Macris of money laundering, and the barking hyenas on the site are supporting him on this. When I asked him for the precise name of this alleged "terrorist network", he won't directly answer and becomes very disturbingly non-specific in his massively arrogant way. It looks like he also tries to imply that Macris is partially responsible for the El Paso Shooting, and I still can't quite figure out how or why he's coming to this insane conclusion.....even after everything that I've read. The Denners then tried to side track the discussion by completely sperging out when I asked them if they think that Macris funds Antifa (an actual terrorist network). And then they tried to claim that "Milo supports pedophilia", when he was the one who was the victim of sexual assault.....and Yiannopoulos just seems (to me) like a victim in denial about his own abuse. It was all very weird. But Trollman very blatantly tried to discourage anyone from buying ACKS, because of all this.
What a silly, silly man he is. In light of this antics, I'm hereby demoting him from Trollman to Gnollman. He lacks the intellectual Hit Dice of a troll.
Frank Gnollman: MV 30', AC 0, HD 2, hp 2, #AT 1 hyperbolic accusation of terrorism, Dmg None, Save F2, ML -4, XP None, Special Abilities: generate laughter (victims of "attack" must save vs. Paralysis or be stunned for 1d4 rounds laughing at the words coming out of his mouth)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109759Well, his name is TROLLman.
But so? Who cares what he thinks of some game? Do you like it? If so, play it! If not, don't.
Dude's name is literally Trollman, and to my knowledge that isn't an affectation. I don't see a reason to keep giving him shit about it. Low-hanging fruit.
From my perspective, the problem is that he has a pretty firm grasp of mechanics and has a rather strong analytical mind when it comes to breaking shit down and pointing out its flaws. When he is being constructive and productive, he doesn't often misstep - he does, as any human does, but the quality is pretty up there.
This is a problem because as of late (and that might mean "past several years," getting older has kind of warped my sense of the passage of time a bit), the injection of political commentary has become more and more blatant, and the Den has - overall - become more politicized and polarized. Whether or not I agree with their political stances, I come to these forums to talk about gaming, not about politics, and it's getting all so tiresome.
amacris, you're handling this incredibly well, and seem way more mature than Trollman and his henchmen. He was even accusing Pundit of being an "alt-right troll" and "neo-Nazi". I mean, seriously.
https://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=57411&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Quote from: FrankTrollmanWhich brings us back to theRPGSite. Obviously it's run by RPGPundit, and he's a hateful toxic alt-right troll who has doubled down again and again on far right sewage. Anyone who still hangs with him at this point is at least complicit in his promotion of Neo-Nazism. And the fact that those assholes think they need to defend the honor of Macris is all the proof you need that Macris doesn't have any honor to defend.
Quote from: amacris;1109761What a silly, silly man he is. In light of this antics, I'm hereby demoting him from Trollman to Gnollman. He lacks the intellectual Hit Dice of a troll.
Frank Gnollman: MV 30', AC 0, HD 2, hp 2, #AT 1 hyperbolic accusation of terrorism, Dmg None, Save F2, ML -4, XP None, Special Abilities: generate laughter (victims of "attack" must save vs. Paralysis or be stunned for 1d4 rounds laughing at the words coming out of his mouth)
You are far more "zen" than I am, my friend. I'd like to buy ACKS, as I haven't read it yet. I'm not quite sure where I should buy it. Should I get it from the Autarch website, or Amazon? I'm a little unsure. I've been away from tabletop gaming for far too long.
Quote from: amacris;1109761What a silly, silly man he is. In light of this antics, I'm hereby demoting him from Trollman to Gnollman. He lacks the intellectual Hit Dice of a troll.
You're too generous with 2HD as even a mange rattled gnoll is too cool to be associated with him.
This clown is an embarrassing 0HD ass goblin, like a snotling from Warhammer.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1109737Aren't you the one that went crying to the Den that we were saying mean things about Crazy Frank?
I think that's a mischaracterization, but yes. I'm active on both boards. Sacrificial Lamb quoted and posted to the Den in this thread. Since the folks here were directly talking about a conversation
over there, I thought it was absolutely appropriate to make the folks
over there aware. I'm sorry if you thought that talking behind their backs wasn't going to get noticed or called out.
If someone on the Den had started a thread quoting blocks of text from theRPGsite I'd generally do the same.
QuoteI'm never going to take moral choice advice from someone who thinks Antifa is a terrorist organization...
Uh...Maybe because ANTIFA is a terrorist organization. By definition. They don't all speak Arabic, ya'know.
On the general topic, I don't know Trollman from Adam (or anyone else), but he sounds like an absolute tosser. I have had many pleasant interactions with Macris, who has always been polite and knowledgeable.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1109557I'm really frustrated that sort of cultural exchange isn't depicted in mainstream media, and it's doubly annoying because the blame rests at the feet of the self-styled SJWs. I watched Merlin and was surprised that Guinevere wasn't some Moorish noblewoman, because that would have made far more sense for Arthur to marry her later. Greek mythology has several black kings, queens, princes and princesses who never show up in adaptations. Africa has countless mythologies that never get referenced in Western popular culture. The Aethiopica ("The Ethiopian Story") is about the adventures of a black princess who could pass for white, and ends with her interracial marriage to a Greek nobleman.
The very first Greek hero mentioned in the Iliad is Memnon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memnon_(mythology)), who was an Ethiopian king (and black). The fact that he was black didn't make him any less Greek, to the ancients.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109759Well, his name is TROLLman.
But so? Who cares what he thinks of some game? Do you like it? If so, play it! If not, don't.
Let's be serious: your favourite game sucks. But that's your problem, not mine. Why are you indignant at his indignation? Pass the cheetoes and game on, motherfucker.
Because we are at the point where these sociopaths can do alot of harm to someone given a chance. And people are way too willing to stand by and do nothing and say nothing against this.
And the games dont suck. You do. You need to accept this fact.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1109468To say that Germany is an Arian white supremacist state is simply ridiculous, although there is a strong right wing white-supremacist political party that is strongly anti-immigration and xenophobic, and this group composes at present approximately 20% of the population of Germany.
Aryan <> Arian
Aryan concept of race did not originate until the mid 19th century though.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109809I think that's a mischaracterization, but yes. I'm active on both boards. Sacrificial Lamb quoted and posted to the Den in this thread. Since the folks here were directly talking about a conversation over there, I thought it was absolutely appropriate to make the folks over there aware. I'm sorry if you thought that talking behind their backs wasn't going to get noticed or called out.
If someone on the Den had started a thread quoting blocks of text from theRPGsite I'd generally do the same.
"Frank, the folks over at theRPGsite decided to repost your comments for the specific purpose of making fun of you.
It's almost funny that they're calling you out for libel and then engaging in libel."
- You, making them "aware".
Such a fucking weasel.
Quote from: BronzeDragon;1109856"Frank, the folks over at theRPGsite decided to repost your comments for the specific purpose of making fun of you.
It's almost funny that they're calling you out for libel and then engaging in libel."
- You, making them "aware".
Such a fucking weasel.
Not only that, but he posted that with a straight face while at the same time quoting Frank's "we can't really extend that kind of good faith to ACKS, because it turns out to be written by a guy who is almost exactly Osama Bin Laden" line.
Lmao. Stay classy, deadDMwalking.
Quote from: BronzeDragon;1109856"Frank, the folks over at theRPGsite decided to repost your comments for the specific purpose of making fun of you.
It's almost funny that they're calling you out for libel and then engaging in libel."
- You, making them "aware".
Such a fucking weasel.
Greetings!
DeadDMwalking actions--making them "aware"--reminds me of the character "Oppen" in the movie, "Saving Private Ryan." Oppen was the pasty, weak, American GI that was assigned to the American rescue mission as a translator.
While fighting against attacking Nazi soldiers in a village, the American forces desperate to achieve victory or successfully escape, Oppen stood by and watched as the brutal Nazi soldier got the jump on the Jewish American GI, overpowered him, and slowly drove his dagger into the valiant American soldier, killing him. Afterwards, the Nazi soldier gets up, and walks past the cowing, swarmy Oppen American, trembling, crying, and shitting himself. The Nazi soldier shakes his head, gazing at Oppen with utter contempt and disgust, laughing grimly, before walking past the coward Oppen. It's a powerful scene in the film illustrating the price of cowardice, moral weaness, and self-serving, boot-licking complicity.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
This is what I envision deadDMwalking looking like:
(https://i.imgur.com/jj8EfnV.jpg)
Quote from: BronzeDragon;1109856"Frank, the folks over at theRPGsite decided to repost your comments for the specific purpose of making fun of you.
It's almost funny that they're calling you out for libel and then engaging in libel."
- You, making them "aware".
Such a fucking weasel.
Really?
The worst that's going on here is that people are mocking Trollman. I don't agree with the mockery on moral principle, but it isn't the same as trying to tarnish Macris' reputation by falsely claiming he is a neo-nazi terrorist.
Quote from: Brad;1109893This is what I envision deadDMwalking looking like:
(https://i.imgur.com/jj8EfnV.jpg)
Greetings!
You know, that image was also in my mind, but I couldn't remember the actor's name. You're reading my mind, brother! Fucing so right on! That's hilarious, Brad!
YES MASTER!!!!!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109809I think that's a mischaracterization, but yes. I'm active on both boards. Sacrificial Lamb quoted and posted to the Den in this thread. Since the folks here were directly talking about a conversation over there, I thought it was absolutely appropriate to make the folks over there aware. I'm sorry if you thought that talking behind their backs wasn't going to get noticed or called out.
If someone on the Den had started a thread quoting blocks of text from theRPGsite I'd generally do the same.
"It's almost funny that they're calling you out for libel and then engaging in libel"
How is that not "talking behind our backs"?
Let's not get distracted by a flame war, please?
In the modern age of fake news and political polarization, it can be difficult to determine the truth and especially the truth about what people believe. It is extremely easy for unsuspecting people to be radicalized without realizing it (I speak from personal experience). Propaganda is everywhere.
Just compare the articles on GamerGate between Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy) and Conservapedia (https://www.conservapedia.com/GamerGate), or any other topic, like Milo himself (https://www.conservapedia.com/Milo_Yiannopoulos). Conservatives believe Gamergate and Milo are good. Progressives believe they are evil. Those are two completely contradictory outlooks on reality.
All news is fake news, or at least so biased that it might as well be fake. Both sides paint themselves as martyrs and their enemies as the devil incarnate, so it's no wonder that all information is suspect at best.
It is thus impossible to say whether Macris was radicalized into adopting extremist beliefs, despite the copious evidence from private and public interviews, or whether his views simply reflect those of conservatives in general. The rampant political polarization means that both sides consider the other extremist regardless of whether they are indeed extremist or not. Not only that, but it is now very difficult to distinguish actual extremists from non-extremists unless they're literally waving Nazi or Soviet flags. Even then, they may simply be trolls.
Even assuming that Macris was indeed radicalized into adopting extremist beliefs, and isn't simply being demonized for his brief association with an alleged extremist despite only holding typical conservative beliefs that progressives consider extremist by default due to political polarization, there is no evidence that Macris currently supports white nationalism and fascism.
What matters is what Macris currently believes, because people can change and seek redemption. It seems pretty obvious from his actions that Macris regrets being associated with Milo and is trying desperately to wash his hands of the whole affair.
While I personally consider diversity quotas repugnant, I believe that the easiest way for Macris to get past the controversy is to publish RPG supplements with blatant diversity quotas and obnoxiously obvious progressive politics. For example, rescuing a black lesbian couple from being killed by misogynistic beastmen who wear swastikas. It doesn't have to be good representation, it just has to convince whoever is controlling the conversation.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1109929While I personally consider diversity quotas repugnant, I believe that the easiest way for Macris to get past the controversy is to publish RPG supplements with blatant diversity quotas and obnoxiously obvious progressive politics. For example, rescuing a black lesbian couple from being killed by misogynistic beastmen who wear swastikas. It doesn't have to be good representation, it just has to convince whoever is controlling the conversation.
Why would you do that just to appease a Troll, man?
Quote from: Mistwell;1109903"It's almost funny that they're calling you out for libel and then engaging in libel"
How is that not "talking behind our backs"?
Sacrificial Lamb already posted links back to the Gaming Den. I fully expected that people who were posting in this thread would also read that thread.
That comment was also primarily directed at Sacrificial Lamb who made it clear that he reads enough posts on the Gaming Den to have seen Frank's post and was clearly following the thread. There was no attempt at duplicity.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109971Sacrificial Lamb already posted links back to the Gaming Den. I fully expected that people who were posting in this thread would also read that thread.
That comment was also primarily directed at Sacrificial Lamb who made it clear that he reads enough posts on the Gaming Den to have seen Frank's post and was clearly following the thread. There was no attempt at duplicity.
What libel do you think has been written here?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1109898Really?
The worst that's going on here is that people are mocking Trollman. I don't agree with the mockery on moral principle, but it isn't the same as trying to tarnish Macris' reputation by falsely claiming he is a neo-nazi terrorist.
Well, I've just been banned from the Gaming Den. :rolleyes:
However, Trollman did more than just call Macris a "neo-Nazi terrorist". He called Gary Gygax a "racist", and called Pundit a "toxic alt-right troll" and "neo-Nazi". And even ignoring that, he accused Macris of:
* racism
* terrorism
* white supremacy
* financing a terrorist network
* radicalizing people for a terrorist network
* money laundering
* funneling money to violent hate groups
* being a bag man for billionaire terrorists
* playing a role in the El Paso shooting
* mass murder, causing the deaths of dozens to hundreds of people
It's all right there. That's what this clusterfuck of a thread is all about. Take note that he refused to explain what he meant by all this stuff. To any normal person, Trollman's statements are going to sound like either vicious lies or pure insanity.
Granted, I wish that I handled the situation with Trollman and his henchmen more delicately. In my defense, I haven't had proper sleep in a long time....so that might be affecting how I interacted with them. However, that doesn't really matter much.....
because Trollman lied. We don't have to use terms like "libel" or "defamation of character". He just plain lied. And he did so in the most malicious and spiteful way possible. Essentially, he used deception to prevent other posters on the Gaming Den from spending money on Autarch or ACKS. I suppose you could use the term, "financial terrorism", if we were to take a page out of Trollman's handbook.
Why did he do this? I suspect that he did this out of sheer malice, probably because of some remaining simmering butthurt over Milo Yiannopoulos....whom Macris once worked with.
In any case, the main reason why I say
that Trollman lied, is because.....every single time I would ask him to precisely
name and identify this alleged "terrorist network" that Macris is supposed to fund and radicalize for, Frank would change the subject.....and become suspiciously vague. He would not explain anything. He shared a link to Time magazine, on an article about how awful 8chan is
(and allusions to the El Paso shooting).....without explaining what that had to do Macris. Trollman doubled down, tripled down, and refused to elaborate or explain anything. At all.
If you're reading this, amacris.....I'm sorry that I handled this so poorly and messily. I should have just sent you a private message and a link to Trollman's statements, so that you could silently take note of it...and leave it at that. Oh, well. :o
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1109929In the modern age of fake news and political polarization, it can be difficult to determine the truth and especially the truth about what people believe. It is extremely easy for unsuspecting people to be radicalized without realizing it (I speak from personal experience). Propaganda is everywhere.
Just compare the articles on GamerGate between Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy) and Conservapedia (https://www.conservapedia.com/GamerGate), or any other topic, like Milo himself (https://www.conservapedia.com/Milo_Yiannopoulos). Conservatives believe Gamergate and Milo are good. Progressives believe they are evil. Those are two completely contradictory outlooks on reality.
All news is fake news, or at least so biased that it might as well be fake. Both sides paint themselves as martyrs and their enemies as the devil incarnate, so it's no wonder that all information is suspect at best.
Well said. I personally compare present-day America to the Early Modern era just after the Protestant Reformation. The shared Christian worldview that had united Europe was extinguished and in its place two different worldviews clashed, each of which was secure in its source of truth (Church and Bible respectively for Catholics and Protestants), and each of which was confident the other side was the devil incarnate. We know how that ends. It's unfortunate.
QuoteIt is thus impossible to say whether Macris was radicalized into adopting extremist beliefs, despite the copious evidence from private and public interviews, or whether his views simply reflect those of conservatives in general. The rampant political polarization means that both sides consider the other extremist regardless of whether they are indeed extremist or not. Not only that, but it is now very difficult to distinguish actual extremists from non-extremists unless they're literally waving Nazi or Soviet flags. Even then, they may simply be trolls.
Well, there's one person who can say: Me. I know for a fact that my views are considered "extreme right-wing" by some far leftists. Equally I know for a fact that my views are considered "cuckservative civic nationalist" by extreme right-wingers. This is why I think the only way forward is to state facts about myself in as neutral a manner as possible and allow people to come to whatever conclusion is right for them based on their own personal philosophy.
QuoteEven assuming that Macris was indeed radicalized into adopting extremist beliefs, and isn't simply being demonized for his brief association with an alleged extremist despite only holding typical conservative beliefs that progressives consider extremist by default due to political polarization, there is no evidence that Macris currently supports white nationalism and fascism.
What matters is what Macris currently believes, because people can change and seek redemption. It seems pretty obvious from his actions that Macris regrets being associated with Milo and is trying desperately to wash his hands of the whole affair.
If working with Milo did anything to me, it was move me left-wing, not right-wing.
To put things as clearly as I possibly can: I'm not a fascist. I'm a libertarian. A fascist believes that everything should be within the state. I believe that as little as possible should be within the state. My mother, who is also a libertarian, handed down the family copy of Atlas Shrugged to me at 16. (Not joking. She gave me LOTR, too. I know, it's a fucking meme.) Later, I
literally studied under one of libertarianism's great philosophers, Robert Nozick ("Anarchy, State & Utopia"), at Harvard Law School.
My central political preoccupation is the avoidance of concentration of power. I believe, with Thomas Sowell and Steve Pinker (in Conflict of Visions and The Blank Slate respectively) that human nature is objectively constrained and that the human condition is therefore tragic; attempts at utopia lead to evil because we are all ourselves capable of evil. It is my belief that power both corrupts and attracts the corrupt; that the concentration of power into monopoly thereby always leads to abuse of power; that only power can block power; and that freedom arises when societies' various sources of power check each other. This worldview can be found detailed in James Burnham's Machievellians: The Defenders of Freedom.
Unlike some libertarians, I include corporate power as one of these sources of power. I believe the same people who run our corporations run our government; corruption and abuse of power don't vanish if you substitute .com for .gov in your email.
From the above follows my political principles.* I support subsidiarity, the devolution of power to local government, to create many centers of power; I support robust antitrust law; I support robust civil society, including churches and not-for-profits; I support separation of church and state; I support small business and wide ownership of property; I support mixed government and separation of powers; I support robust individual rights enforced by an independent judiciary; of these I consider free speech and the right to bear arms as the most important means of keeping power distributed rather than held closely. I oppose concentrating power into monopolies such as unitary executive power, global mega-corporations, or one world government.
No, I'm by no means a progressive, because progressives have what I consider a utopian view of human nature and a wrong-headed belief in the ability of powerful organizations to remain virtuous. As a result, I oppose most progressive policies as misguided (at best) or actively destructive (at worst). I find common cause with anyone who supports individual liberty on a case-by-case basis. The closest politician to my personal views in recent memory has been Ron Paul.
I worked with Milo out of the belief that, given his evident popularity with young people at the time, he could be a powerful advocate for free speech values if properly managed. As it happened, I was very wrong. I legally can't say more; I would if I could.
Within the limits of what I am allowed, when someone spreads *lies* about me, I state the truth. Whether the people who read my words considers the truth about me to be good, bad, or ugly is out of my hands. I don't seek any other person's, group's, or deities' validation for my moral views.
QuoteWhile I personally consider diversity quotas repugnant, I believe that the easiest way for Macris to get past the controversy is to publish RPG supplements with blatant diversity quotas and obnoxiously obvious progressive politics. For example, rescuing a black lesbian couple from being killed by misogynistic beastmen who wear swastikas. It doesn't have to be good representation, it just has to convince whoever is controlling the conversation.
I believe it would be immoral to do this. First, it would be a betrayal of my artistic integrity as a creator to exploit my world in that manner. Second, it would be hypocritical to attempt to signal progressive virtue when I do not share their moral code. So, no, I will not do that. Instead I will continue to do what I have been doing: Make strangely baroque role-playing game/wargames with an overreliance on spreadsheets for an audience that thinks Dwarf Fortress could be a good boardgame.
*P.S. If you were wondering how the Auran Empire's "world empire about to fall" theme ties into my political principles of liberty and local power, consider that the Auran Empire is ostensibly founded by superpowered demigods charged by the gods themselves with bringing law and order to the world; and that it still ends up being a corrupt and dystopian basketcase run by a series of dictators within just a couple hundred years. The theme is that nothing made by man is wholly good and everything falls apart. So that's the real connection to my politics, for those of you frantically trying to connect the dots like Alex Jones on Adderall. That said, the setting is not an allegory; I just happen to see the same tragedy played out in history repeatedly and emulated it in my work.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1109929While I personally consider diversity quotas repugnant, I believe that the easiest way for Macris to get past the controversy is to publish RPG supplements with blatant diversity quotas and obnoxiously obvious progressive politics. For example, rescuing a black lesbian couple from being killed by misogynistic beastmen who wear swastikas. It doesn't have to be good representation, it just has to convince whoever is controlling the conversation.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109952Why would you do that just to appease a Troll, man?
I don't even understand wtf he's talking about...so the best way to respond to libel is to make some really shitty games? Or is this meant to be hyperbolic satire? Hard to tell anymore.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110041In any case, the main reason why I say that Trollman lied, is because.....every single time I would ask him to precisely name and identify this alleged "terrorist network" that Macris is supposed to fund and radicalize for, Frank would change the subject.....and become suspiciously vague. He would not explain anything. He shared a link to Time magazine, on an article about how awful 8chan is (and allusions to the El Paso shooting).....without explaining what that had to do Macris. Trollman doubled down, tripled down, and refused to elaborate or explain anything. At all.
All of this is shocking! Shocking, I say! Though I think you're correct in that it's probably best not to have engaged them on their most personal level and added fuel to the fire, regardless of how valid your statements might be. RIP your account, I suppose. You've been martyred for The Greater Good. You said what you thought was just and that should be lauded, even if it's not by the "right" crowds.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110041Well, I've just been banned from the Gaming Den. :rolleyes:
To be honest, I'm not really sure what you hoped to accomplish posting there.
There was no chance for that to end well.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1110054To be honest, I'm not really sure what you hoped to accomplish posting there.
There was no chance for that to end well.
You're pretty much right. It was pointless. Let's chalk it up to lack of sleep.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110057You're pretty much right. It was pointless. Let's chalk it up to lack of sleep.
Username checks out.
Quote from: Brad;1110045I don't even understand wtf he's talking about...so the best way to respond to libel is to make some really shitty games? Or is this meant to be hyperbolic satire? Hard to tell anymore.
At this point there is no longer difference between hyperbole and serious suggestions. I think it is a horrible suggestion simply because it sounds exactly like hyperbolic satire, but it would probably work at convincing the witch-hunters to harass someone else.
Macris speaks for himself and it seems clear to me that he is innocent of the ridiculous list of crimes attributed to him. Unfortunately that will not convince opposition that is clearly arguing in bad faith.
Trollman has an irrational vendetta against Macris. I doubt any amount of facts will convince Trollman and his colleagues otherwise, short of a lawsuit.
Quote from: amacris;1110043corruption and abuse of power don't vanish if you substitute .com for .gov in your email.
THAT is a great quote! Kudos.
Quote from: amacris;1110043My central political preoccupation is the avoidance of concentration of power. I believe, with Thomas Sowell and Steve Pinker (in Conflict of Visions and The Blank Slate respectively) that human nature is objectively constrained and that the human condition is therefore tragic; attempts at utopia lead to evil because we are all ourselves capable of evil. It is my belief that power both corrupts and attracts the corrupt; that the concentration of power into monopoly thereby always leads to abuse of power; that only power can block power; and that freedom arises when societies' various sources of power check each other. This worldview can be found detailed in James Burnham's Machievellians: The Defenders of Freedom.
Unlike some libertarians, I include corporate power as one of these sources of power. I believe the same people who run our corporations run our government; corruption and abuse of power don't vanish if you substitute .com for .gov in your email.
From the above follows my political principles.* I support subsidiarity, the devolution of power to local government, to create many centers of power; I support robust antitrust law; I support robust civil society, including churches and not-for-profits; I support separation of church and state; I support small business and wide ownership of property; I support mixed government and separation of powers; I support robust individual rights enforced by an independent judiciary; of these I consider free speech and the right to bear arms as the most important means of keeping power distributed rather than held closely. I oppose concentrating power into monopolies such as unitary executive power, global mega-corporations, or one world government.
No, I'm by no means a progressive, because progressives have what I consider a utopian view of human nature and a wrong-headed belief in the ability of powerful organizations to remain virtuous. As a result, I oppose most progressive policies as misguided (at best) or actively destructive (at worst). I find common cause with anyone who supports individual liberty on a case-by-case basis. The closest politician to my personal views in recent memory has been Ron Paul.
Alex, you would be amazed at how many people don't grasp this concept.
edit: On second thought, I take that back...I believe you are perfectly aware of how many people actually do not get the concept.
And Thank You for making an awesome game!
QuoteHe called Gary Gygax a "racist",
This one always cracks me up because the people who do it (or call him a sexist, or a homophobe, or whatever) never have the guts to do it directly towards Gail Gygax, or any of Gary's kids, all of whom are on social media, and all of whom promote all things Gary. They'll sit on their forums and twitter accounts and mumble incoherently about the big meaniehead Gary Gygax, and yet, when push comes to shove, never straight up go to his kids (who would know) or his wife (who would also know) or even his divorced wife (who would have no reason to not say if it were the case).
Ah, mercy.
But yeah Frank Trollman's messed up. Didn't he have an account here?
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1110124This one always cracks me up because the people who do it (or call him a sexist, or a homophobe, or whatever) never have the guts to do it directly towards Gail Gygax, or any of Gary's kids, all of whom are on social media, and all of whom promote all things Gary. They'll sit on their forums and twitter accounts and mumble incoherently about the big meaniehead Gary Gygax, and yet, when push comes to shove, never straight up go to his kids (who would know) or his wife (who would also know) or even his divorced wife (who would have no reason to not say if it were the case).
Ah, mercy.
But yeah Frank Trollman's messed up. Didn't he have an account here?
I think so, years ago. It's hard to remember now.
That thread over at the Gaming Den is both cringe worthy and frightening to read. Frank Trollman said something no matter if it is a lie, libel or slander so he is to be absolutely believed completely. Then they wonder why some SJWs get a bad name. It is like the cuckoo clock struck twelve or something.
Quote from: amacris;1110043I believe the same people who run our corporations run our government; corruption and abuse of power don't vanish if you substitute .com for .gov in your email.
That's actually a remarkably pithy remark, which I'd like to preserve as a quote with your permission.
Along the same lines, I have a friend who used to work in banking, who said he was very glad the sharks he saw there were in the private sector, safely well away from government. Because if they saw the best opportunities (and rewards) in working for the state, they'd be there instead, toying with ordinary people's lives for fun.
Quote from: amacris;1110043
That was a masterwork of a post.
The attacks against you always seemed unfair from everything I'd read. It's absolutely chilling to consider that you seem to be such a reasonable and thoughtful person and are still getting targeted like this.
I guess that we know from history how awful mobs are, and our present situation is that we get to figure it out again, on the internet this time.
Sorry. Thank you for carrying on.
Quote from: amacris;1110043Instead I will continue to do what I have been doing: Make strangely baroque role-playing game/wargames with an overreliance on spreadsheets for an audience that thinks Dwarf Fortress could be a good boardgame.
I finally took the leap and went in on ACKS. Now I am
positive I need to be playing it.
Edit: And echoing Stephen Tannhauser's request for quote preservation, but for that quote as well. :D
Stephen Tannhauser and Insubordinate Polyhedral, you're both welcome to use that text in a quote! Thank you for the kind words.
The folks who dislike me apparently think I'm Osama bin Laden, it's hard to imagine a pithy quote could do me any harm :D
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1110181The attacks against you always seemed unfair from everything I'd read. It's absolutely chilling to consider that you seem to be such a reasonable and thoughtful person and are still getting targeted like this.
I don't think so. It sounds to me like he knew Milo was unpleasant, but thought he could use the monster for his own purposes. That's exactly the villain in Jurassic World. Nobody is surprised when the monster turns on you, or bites the hand feeding it.
Playing with fire...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110245I don't think so. It sounds to me like he knew Milo was unpleasant, but thought he could use the monster for his own purposes. That's exactly the villain in Jurassic World. Nobody is surprised when the monster turns on you, or bites the hand feeding it.
Playing with fire...
Still waiting for you to explain how we libeled Frank Trollman.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110245I don't think so. It sounds to me like he knew Milo was unpleasant, but thought he could use the monster for his own purposes.
Playing with fire...
Is that projection? Because that's classic SJW right there.
Quote from: Mistwell;1110248Still waiting for you to explain how we libeled Frank Trollman.
When I used the term libel, I meant it in the hyperbolic sense that I understood it to be used in Sacrificial Lamb's original post, effectively meaning 'people are saying mean things in writing'.
Proving something is a lie that is not directly about me is a difficult standard to meet.
Proving that the person who made the claim COULD not know it to be true is much easier. When someone makes an accusation that is supported by evidence, it may not meet the legal definition of libel, even if it turns out to be false. Likewise, if someone makes an accusation that is TRUE, there's nothing stopping people from CLAIMING libel, and in fact, good reason to pursue that as a legal defense.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110252When I used the term libel, I meant it in the hyperbolic sense that I understood it to be used in Sacrificial Lamb's original post, effectively meaning 'people are saying mean things in writing'.
Proving something is a lie that is not directly about me is a difficult standard to meet. Proving that the person who made the claim COULD not know it to be true is much easier. When someone makes an accusation that is supported by evidence, it may not meet the legal definition of libel, even if it turns out to be false. Likewise, if someone makes an accusation that is TRUE, there's nothing stopping people from CLAIMING libel, and in fact, good reason to pursue that as a legal defense.
God, you are such a little bitch.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110245I don't think so. It sounds to me like he knew Milo was unpleasant, but thought he could use the monster for his own purposes. That's exactly the villain in Jurassic World.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110252When I used the term libel, I meant it in the hyperbolic sense that I understood it to be used in Sacrificial Lamb's original post, effectively meaning 'people are saying mean things in writing'.
Proving something is a lie that is not directly about me is a difficult standard to meet. Proving that the person who made the claim COULD not know it to be true is much easier. When someone makes an accusation that is supported by evidence, it may not meet the legal definition of libel, even if it turns out to be false. Likewise, if someone makes an accusation that is TRUE, there's nothing stopping people from CLAIMING libel, and in fact, good reason to pursue that as a legal defense.
You are both a moron and a worm. Which trait is most predominant is yet to be decided.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110252When I used the term libel, I meant it in the hyperbolic sense that I understood it to be used in Sacrificial Lamb's original post, effectively meaning 'people are saying mean things in writing'.
Proving something is a lie that is not directly about me is a difficult standard to meet. Proving that the person who made the claim COULD not know it to be true is much easier. When someone makes an accusation that is supported by evidence, it may not meet the legal definition of libel, even if it turns out to be false. Likewise, if someone makes an accusation that is TRUE, there's nothing stopping people from CLAIMING libel, and in fact, good reason to pursue that as a legal defense.
You still refuse to admit how malicious and unethical Frank Trollman is, and how similarly unethical your Gaming Den pals are. :mad:
Did you read what I wrote on post #80 on page 8 of this thread?
For the sake of the argument, let's ignore Frank's bullshit attacks on Gygax or Pundit. Let's ignore Lord Mistborn deliberately ignoring everything that Frank said. Let's ignore one of your site members proudly and snarkily admitting to being part of an anarcho-Communist terrorist cell, while pretending that this isn't precisely what Antifa really is.
Explain to me how Frank Trollman has the moral high ground in this argument.
I don't think you can.
Did you notice that Frank refused to explain himself when he accused amacris of money laundering, mass murder, white supremacy, and funding and radicalizing people for a terrorist network? Remember when he very strongly implied that amacris was responsible for the El Paso shooting?
I definitely noticed.
I noticed that Frank would not explain himself; he refused to elaborate and explain precisely what he meant by any of this. When asked to provide the
name of this "terrorist network", he refused to do it....and hid like a coward. Now.......I can understand someone who does not articulate specifics, for either legal reasons or out of fear of violence, job loss, deplatforming, etc.....
.....but that is not Frank Trollman's situation.
This is all just his epic butthurt about Milo Yiannopoulos on Frank's part, so he decided to financially attack someone more vulnerable who worked with him once. In other words, the motivation here is just pure malice.
Frank used malicious deception to financially damage an rpg company. He used these tactics to convince other people on that website to not purchase a tabletop rpg product sold by Autarch. And guess what? Mission accomplished. One of your posters already admitted to pirating the game, because of all this. It's right there:
https://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=57411&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75
Quote from: The Adventurer's AlmanacThis thread made me pirate ACKS so I could give it to all my (read: one) friends who were interested in the game. Friends don't let friends financially support assholes.
You cannot, in good conscience, publicly accuse a small-time tabletop rpg publisher of money laundering, terrorism, white supremacy, and mass murder.....without explaining precisely what you mean. :cool:
In other words, Frank Trollman is an unethical, malicious, and lying piece of shit......and so are your pals on the Gaming Den.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110266In other words, Frank Trollman is an unethical, malicious, and lying piece of shit......and so are your pals on the Gaming Den.
And yet, somehow this thread and yours and Macris' posts are equally libelous for attempting to cut through the lies, accusations and bullshit Trollman's spewing (I'm pretty certain deconstructing blatantly fallacious libel is not, itself, considered libel :o) and for laughing at the absurdity of lines like "[Macris] is almost exactly Osama Bin Laden" delivered in complete seriousness.
Bullshit.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110266You still refuse to admit how malicious and unethical Frank Trollman is, and how similarly unethical your Gaming Den pals are. :mad:
I don't know that I'd describe anyone at the Den as a 'pal' and I'm certainly not interested in defending the things they say whether they were right or wrong. If someone feels that they need to justify their position, they can do it themselves.
In
this thread, Macris indicates that he worked for a company that hired Milo Yiannopoulos after it was known the type of hate-spewing he's responsible for.
Is there a direct connection to Milo having a platform and people going on rampages? I'm not sure,
but there is some concern about it (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/03/16/milo-yiannopoulos-australia-bans-tour-wake-new-zealand-massacre/3184724002/)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110283I don't know that I'd describe anyone at the Den as a 'pal' and I'm certainly not interested in defending the things they say whether they were right or wrong. If someone feels that they need to justify their position, they can do it themselves.
In this thread, Macris indicates that he worked for a company that hired Milo Yiannopoulos after it was known the type of hate-spewing he's responsible for.
Is there a direct connection to Milo having a platform and people going on rampages? I'm not sure,
but there is some concern about it (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/03/16/milo-yiannopoulos-australia-bans-tour-wake-new-zealand-massacre/3184724002/)
Where do you work, if you even have a job? Seriously asking.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110283In this thread, Macris indicates that he worked for a company that hired Milo Yiannopoulos after it was known the type of hate-spewing he's responsible for.
DeadDMwalking, can you pause for a moment and clarify what aspects of Milo's actions you refer to as "hate-spewing"?
if you mean the ties to white supremacist groups that Buzzfeed discovered and leaked in October 2017: I was not aware of those, nor were the investors. Their revelation led to everyone's hasty exit from the scene.
If you mean the Dangerous Faggot tour: I was of course aware of the tour. I didn't think it was spewing hate.
It's worth noting that Milo was invited to be the *keynote speaker* at CPAC, the #1 conference for conservatives in the country, following that tour. Virtually no one in the right wing thought that tour was spewing hate. If you do think it was hateful, then you simply have a different definition of hate than that held by most right-wingers. I would assume you also think Tucker Carlson, Jordan Peterson, and/or Trump spew hate. I know for a fact that for many progressives, there is no difference between a libertarian and a Nazi or a Republican and a fascist etc., in the same that for an ultra-montane Catholic there's no difference between a heretic and a protestant or for an ultra-capitalist there's no difference between communism and socialism.
I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify your sentiments above so I can understand what you are accusing me of. I'm certainly a Tucker Carlson-watching Republican who voted for Trump over Clinton. I am not a fascist or Nazi. Can you clarify whether you see a difference, or if you think Republican = Nazi?
FrankTrollman seems to be nuts, plain and simple. Someone quoted him saying this:
Quote from: FrankTrollmanWhite people are basically just horrible...The entire Reagan Revolution is just white people voting to destroy their own social safety nets because they'd rather fucking starve than let black people eat.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110283Is there a direct connection to Milo having a platform and people going on rampages? I'm not sure,
but there is some concern about it (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/03/16/milo-yiannopoulos-australia-bans-tour-wake-new-zealand-massacre/3184724002/)
That's not really a concern about him causing the rampage in question though. It's a concern that he was being disrespectful and causing division AFTER a rampage. It's similar to saying that Bill Maher caused terrorism because he said that the terrorists were not cowards after 9/11.
Quote from: amacris;1110291DeadDMwalking, can you pause for a moment and clarify what aspects of Milo's actions you refer to as "hate-spewing"?
if you mean the ties to white supremacist groups that Buzzfeed discovered and leaked in October 2017: I was not aware of those, nor were the investors. Their revelation led to everyone's hasty exit from the scene.
If you mean the Dangerous Faggot tour: I was of course aware of the tour. I didn't think it was spewing hate. It's worth noting that Milo was invited to be the *keynote speaker* at CPAC, the #1 conference for conservatives in the country, following that tour. Virtually no one in the right wing thought that tour was spewing hate. If you do think it was hateful, then you simply have a different definition of hate than I do. If so, I would assume you also think Tucker Carlson and Trump spew hate. I know for a fact that for many progressives, there is no difference between a libertarian and a Nazi or a Republican and a fascist etc., in the same that for an ultra-montane Catholic there's no difference between a heretic and a protestant.
I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify your sentiments above so I can understand what you are accusing me of. I'm certainly a Tucker Carlson-watching Republican who voted for Trump over Clinton. I am not secretly a fascist or Nazi. Can you clarify whether you see a difference, or if you think Republican = Nazi?
Milo did project a photo of a trans student who had filed a complaint against the school at his UW Milwaukee talk and mocked them as tranny who 'the way you know he has failed is I can still bang him.' Publicly mocking and insulting a non-public person so viciously hardly seems to be in line with conservative values of privacy and civility and I think could be reasonably termed 'hateful.' Did that happen before or after you started working with him?
Milo's Breibart article (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/) that was a supposed 'establishment conservative guide to the alt right' defended racist rhetoric and holocaust denial as 'creativity and taboo shattering.' At the time many conservatives saw the article for what it is, an apologist defense of white supremacists and their ilk, this is the very article that was later revealed to have been written with the active, inappropriate participation of the white supremacists that you acknowledge and that Milo so ineptly defends in the piece.
I'm think of myself as a conservative and I'm a practicing Cathlolic but I and many other conservatives could recognize Milo for the cruel fool and empty provocateur he was long before his ties to the white supremacists were confirmed beyond doubt. I don't think you are a Nazis but I think you were not being honest with yourself about who Milo clearly was.
Greetings!
*Laughs* How the hell can Milo be a "white supremacist"? I have seen interviews with Milo where Milo eagerly admits to having BLACK gay men as his favourite lovers. That would seem to disqulify Milo entirely for being a "white supremacist". *laughs* Give me a break. The Liberals thin anyone that doesn't agree with them is a "white supremacist" as well as sexist, racist, homophobe, imperialist, Nazi, whatever bullshit they come up with. They are just a bunch of lying, greedy, pathetic fucking pussies.
Liberals hate the fact that Milo is *gay*--and yet, he stands against the Liberal, SJW agenda. That is why they hate him. It is hilarious listening to Milo running the SJW's the fuck over.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Rhiannon;1110308Milo did project a photo of a trans student who had filed a complaint against the school at his UW Milwaukee talk and mocked them as tranny who 'the way you know he has failed is I can still bang him.' Publicly mocking and insulting a non-public person so viciously hardly seems to be in line with conservative values of privacy and civility and I think could be reasonably termed 'hateful.' Did that happen before or after you started working with him?
Milo's Breibart article (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/) that was a supposed 'establishment conservative guide to the alt right' defended racist rhetoric and holocaust denial as 'creativity and taboo shattering.' At the time many conservatives saw the article for what it is, an apologist defense of white supremacists and their ilk, this is the very article that was later revealed to have been written with the active, inappropriate participation of the white supremacists that you acknowledge and that Milo so ineptly defends in the piece.
I'm think of myself as a conservative and I'm a practicing Cathlolic but I and many other conservatives could recognize Milo for the cruel fool and empty provocateur he was long before his ties to the white supremacists were confirmed beyond doubt. I don't think you are a Nazis but I think you were not being honest with yourself about who Milo clearly was.
Okay, sure, but so what? Not all people clue into something at the same rate.
Also... it's not quite so clear even today what Milo IS. Keep in mind that he has a black boyfriend... or is it husband now, and is partially Jewish by decent. Does this excuse anything? No, but it does indicate that this is a troubled and contradictory person who is hard to pin down. I get that as a Catholic conservative you might not care for Milo, but also you can't condemn Macris or even Milo for being human and fallible, can you?
Quote from: Rhiannon;1110308Milo did project a photo of a trans student who had filed a complaint against the school at his UW Milwaukee talk and mocked them as tranny who 'the way you know he has failed is I can still bang him.' Publicly mocking and insulting a non-public person so viciously hardly seems to be in line with conservative values of privacy and civility and I think could be reasonably termed 'hateful.' Did that happen before or after you started working with him?
On the 'privacy' part here, he took that photo from the news interview with this trans person. It's not like he outed someone that nobody had seen before. This was the news report that he mocked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNrpoWNWeG8
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110252When I used the term libel, I meant it in the hyperbolic sense that I understood it to be used in Sacrificial Lamb's original post, effectively meaning 'people are saying mean things in writing'.
Proving something is a lie that is not directly about me is a difficult standard to meet. Proving that the person who made the claim COULD not know it to be true is much easier. When someone makes an accusation that is supported by evidence, it may not meet the legal definition of libel, even if it turns out to be false. Likewise, if someone makes an accusation that is TRUE, there's nothing stopping people from CLAIMING libel, and in fact, good reason to pursue that as a legal defense.
I'm confused by your answer. You think it was not libel for Frank Trollman to accuse Macris of being, "[A] racist shitheel who financed a terrorist network and is personally responsible for the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of people?"
You think that's just hyperbolic and that libel just means hyperbole?
Because I don't think it was intended to come across as hyperbole by Frank to readers, and I don't think it was communicated in a manner that would suggest to the reasonable reader of Frank's posts that Frank does not literally mean what he's saying about Macris. Given the context, the specified company he's naming, the actions he's naming, it looks like factual statements which he intended as malicious libel to me.
I didn't ask you to PROVE anything. I asked you what you think was libellous here by us concerning Frank. I am asking what, in your opinion, was libel such that you told Frank and others there that you thought we were libeling Frank.
Quote from: amacris;1110291DeadDMwalking, can you pause for a moment and clarify ...
I am a registered Republican and have been for my entire adult life. I do not think that Republicans are all Nazis. I do think Trump 'spews hate'.
As far as the subject of this thread, Frank Trollman has made some pretty serious accusations. I think they're hyperbolic. Even if you were involved in a company that was providing a platform to White Supremacists, I don't think that necessarily equates to financing and leading a terrorist network
directly, but I can also see why some people would feel otherwise.
I think that the essential thrust of the accusation - that you knowingly worked with an individual who was known to be 'divisive' (polite euphamism) or 'successfully trolls women and Muslims' in SacrificialLamb's parlance and provided him a platform to radicalize disaffected young people - appears to be substantiated by the things you have been able to reveal here. If that's not 100% correct, I'm sorry.
As far as whether anything Frank has said is costing you sales, I can say that it is not in my case. I was not interested in ACKS, although I do hear that it considers Domain Management more successfully than most other games. That hasn't been a focus of my games, but I am interested in game design. If I were seriously working on a domain management mini-game, I might be interested in looking at ACKS in the future.
I like to participate in gaming forums, and I think that a question that we're all wrestling with with games and other aspects of our life is how far we can separate art from artist. If a company makes a good product but they're exploiting child labor, are we complicit by buying their products? If an artist makes enjoyable music but has been convicted of rape, can we still, in good-conscious, support the work? And of course, most of the time we won't have a 'smoking gun'. If there is a credible accusation of actions we don't agree with, how should we temper our response? As an individual, does it matter if I'm inconsistent (ie, I buy chocolate believing it was made with child labor, but make sure to buy shoes that I know weren't)?
Quote from: FrankTrollmanWhite people are basically just horrible...The entire Reagan Revolution is just white people voting to destroy their own social safety nets because they'd rather fucking starve than let black people eat.
Frank Trollman
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3919[/ATTACH]
I have always said that no one can logically support White Supremacy when you have people like this weighing down the average.
Quote from: Rhiannon;1110308Milo did project a photo of a trans student who had filed a complaint against the school at his UW Milwaukee talk and mocked them as tranny who 'the way you know he has failed is I can still bang him.' Publicly mocking and insulting a non-public person so viciously hardly seems to be in line with conservative values of privacy and civility and I think could be reasonably termed 'hateful.' Did that happen before or after you started working with him?
That was before I started working for him. I was aware of it. I think what he said was in bad taste. I also think Trump is frequently in bad taste. I also think both Milo and Trump are part of a surge by the right to punch back against the demonization of conservatives that has become absolutely mainstream. I don't like Alinsky-style tactics but I understand why they are used by both sides - they work.
In any case, there were no such incidents while I was managing things. The whole goal for the investors was to establish Milo with a show on Fox or similar. The major task I accomplished there was publishing his book, which became a WSJ #1 bestseller.
QuoteMilo's Breibart article (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/) that was a supposed 'establishment conservative guide to the alt right' defended racist rhetoric and holocaust denial as 'creativity and taboo shattering.' At the time many conservatives saw the article for what it is, an apologist defense of white supremacists and their ilk, this is the very article that was later revealed to have been written with the active, inappropriate participation of the white supremacists that you acknowledge and that Milo so ineptly defends in the piece.
I read that article at the time it was written and didn't read it a defense of white supremacism. Having been around plenty of "alt-righters" I think the characterization of them in the article is accurate. They range from disaffected libertarians who fear the cause of liberty is lost, to 4chan edgelords who would have been punks in another era, to hyper-intellectual whiz kids who want a techno-monarchy. In any case, you are correct that the article was written with inappropriate participation by white supremacists, so whether I saw it as propaganda to promote their cause is irrelevant, because it turned out it *actually* was just that.
QuoteI'm think of myself as a conservative and I'm a practicing Cathlolic but I and many other conservatives could recognize Milo for the cruel fool and empty provocateur he was long before his ties to the white supremacists were confirmed beyond doubt. I don't think you are a Nazis but I think you were not being honest with yourself about who Milo clearly was.
I don't think I was being dishonest with myself, I simply made an error of judgment. I had spent the prior decade working in the entertainment industry, and the last three years of that career for a Hollywood-based studio. All too many celebrities are monstrous off camera; cruel and empty narcissism is the default personality of Hollywood talent. The only thing that keeps the typical celebrity from self-destructive disaster is their army of agents, managers, and press staff. So I wrote off his behavior as simply typical for a celebrity who wasn't being well-managed. But perhaps one could argue that everyone who works with atrocious Hollywood celebrities is dishonest with themselves; if so, then certainly guilty.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110327I am a registered Republican and have been for my entire adult life.
Everyone get your hip waders on. Just when you thought it couldn't get any deeper ...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110327I am a registered Republican and have been for my entire adult life. I do not think that Republicans are all Nazis. I do think Trump 'spews hate'.
OK. I understand that perspective. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
QuoteAs far as the subject of this thread, Frank Trollman has made some pretty serious accusations. I think they're hyperbolic. Even if you were involved in a company that was providing a platform to White Supremacists, I don't think that necessarily equates to financing and leading a terrorist network directly, but I can also see why some people would feel otherwise.
I agree that his accusations are hyperbolic and, frankly, silly. There are plenty of things about me that a progressive can hate. There's no need to make up terrorism or money laundering.
QuoteI think that the essential thrust of the accusation - that you knowingly worked with an individual who was known to be 'divisive' (polite euphamism) or 'successfully trolls women and Muslims' in SacrificialLamb's parlance and provided him a platform to radicalize disaffected young people - appears to be substantiated by the things you have been able to reveal here. If that's not 100% correct, I'm sorry.
He was definitely divisive. However, the platform was not intended to radicalize disaffected young people. The platform was intended to set Milo up as a Bill Maher* host with his own show on, ideally, FOX. Now, if your argument is that Tucker Carlson actually does radicalize disaffected youth and Trump actually does radicalize disaffected youth, so that the platform I was running would do that, too, then I understand your position. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
(*Bill Maher was the example because he was explicitly Politically Incorrect and, e.g. mocked feminists and Muslims in the same manner that Milo did, while being left-wing. I think the reality is that trends actually went the opposite way and rather than a right-wing Bill Maher becoming permissible, I think the actual Bill Maher became impermissible.)
QuoteAs far as whether anything Frank has said is costing you sales, I can say that it is not in my case. I was not interested in ACKS, although I do hear that it considers Domain Management more successfully than most other games. That hasn't been a focus of my games, but I am interested in game design. If I were seriously working on a domain management mini-game, I might be interested in looking at ACKS in the future.
It hasn't cost me a whit. If it had, I would sue him for libel. But I can't because what would my damages be? Extra sales from TheRPGSite's readers?
QuoteI like to participate in gaming forums, and I think that a question that we're all wrestling with with games and other aspects of our life is how far we can separate art from artist. If a company makes a good product but they're exploiting child labor, are we complicit by buying their products? If an artist makes enjoyable music but has been convicted of rape, can we still, in good-conscious, support the work? And of course, most of the time we won't have a 'smoking gun'. If there is a credible accusation of actions we don't agree with, how should we temper our response? As an individual, does it matter if I'm inconsistent (ie, I buy chocolate believing it was made with child labor, but make sure to buy shoes that I know weren't)?
To answer your questions:
- I do think you are complicit if you buy a product built with child labor because the sale of the product furthers the crime. That said, it may be impossible not to be complicit if your economic system is unjust. A Chinese citizen can't be held accountable for buying goods from CCP-owned companies, what choice do they have?
- I do not think you are complicit if you buy art from an artist who committed a crime unless the music furthers the crime. If the musician says "I'm going to use my money to commit more crime!" I see that as very different from a musician that says "I have left the life of crime behind and am working full time to produce great music". I don't feel any guilt in buying Cardi B records even though she admitted mugging and robbing someone.
- If there's a credible accusation of actions, I think you ask/seek additional information.
- I think everyone is inconsistent and all we can do is strive to be consistent to teh extent we, as fallible humans can be.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Quote from: Shasarak;1110330Frank Trollman
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3919[/ATTACH]
I have always said that no one can logically support White Supremacy when you have people like this weighing down the average.
It's weird. Virtually every single example of someone hating their own race is white. Whites thinking that their own race is the very worst. Never mind that Asians (in my experience) tend to be far more racist, and proud of it, but that's probably just my white racism talking.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109759Let's be serious: your favourite game sucks.
Ha, well, you can't throw that at me Kyle because
my favorite game is 1e AD&D and I happen to know that it's
your favorite game too! :D
Quote from: Trond;1110355It's weird. Virtually every single example of someone hating their own race is white. Whites thinking that their own race is the very worst. Never mind that Asians (in my experience) tend to be far more racist, and proud of it, but that's probably just my white racism talking.
Maybe not a great picture, and not the only one I've seen of him, but he's also not Quasimodo.
I'm just as white as Trollman, and I don't hate 'the white race'. I don't believe that race automatically makes
me great, and more than being an American automatically makes
me great. I can talk about how America is a better country in ways X, Y, & Z than some other country, but it doesn't mean that we don't have absolute trash here. There are plenty of Americans that I don't think reflect well on our country.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110283I don't know that I'd describe anyone at the Den as a 'pal' and I'm certainly not interested in defending the things they say whether they were right or wrong. If someone feels that they need to justify their position, they can do it themselves.
In this thread, Macris indicates that he worked for a company that hired Milo Yiannopoulos after it was known the type of hate-spewing he's responsible for.
Is there a direct connection to Milo having a platform and people going on rampages? I'm not sure,
but there is some concern about it (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/03/16/milo-yiannopoulos-australia-bans-tour-wake-new-zealand-massacre/3184724002/)
"There is some concern." :rolleyes:
Oh, no.....you don't. :mad: You don't get to play that neo-Marxist game of emotional manipulation, via using deception and word weapons. The other poster was right; you are a worm. Does Milo Yiannopoulos control a "terrorist network" or not? Is amacris guilty of Frank Trollman's accusations or not?
Answer the question.Yes, or no.
And what "hate spewing" of Milo's are you referring to? Be precise; be specific. You guys no longer have the luxury of speaking in vague terms, if you try to take the moral high ground. Not today.
Since Frank disgustingly tried to lay the blame for El Paso at amarcis's feet, I'll say that if you want an idea of who is truly responsible for the El Paso shooting....then I'll just tell you to research the identity of the alleged shooter, research the alleged shooter's father, and then research the names and backgrounds of the men who were associates of the alleged shooter's father. Beyond that, I don't want to get into specifics. But the real point here is that:
Frank. Just. Keeps. Lying.And Milo is barely even culturally relevant now. It's not 2017 any more. Now it's "current year". That's how fast modern cultural changes happen. And anyone who pays attention to current cultural and political trends....knows how deceptive, divisive, and monstrously corrupt both the mainstream media and modern western governments currently are. I don't consider
"USA Today" to be a particularly reliable and objective source of information. And if the USA Today article is correct, in that Milo did indeed say:
Quote from: Milo Yiannopoulos"....the establishment panders to and mollycoddles extremist leftism and barbaric, alien religious cultures."
.....then my response is that he's
absolutely correct. However, I'm not going to delve into a larger cultural and political discussion.....because this is supposed to be a site about tabletop rpgs, and not yet another politically radicalized neo-Marxist SJW battleground.
Your hero, Frank Trollman......has to put up or shut up. It's as simple as that. :cool:
Greetings!
Oh, yes. The snivelling, boot-licking Liberal toadies. Always seeking to hide behind word games and vague references.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110382Be precise; be specific. You guys no longer have the luxury of speaking in vague terms, if you try to take the moral high ground. Not today.
I do not owe you an answers or explanations; I do not owe you any more detail that I have provided. I am not making a claim to the moral high ground.
I'm not going to argue the definition of 'is' to satisfy whatever criteria you have decided is sufficient for my claims. I'm not trying to convince you; I'm engaged in a discussion and the folks reading this are certainly capable of deciding if they have 'concerns' or not. I'm not planning on sticking my head so far up your disinformation campaign that I understand what bizarre conspiracy theory you're alluding to and refuting.
If you had spent any amount of time on the Gaming Den, you'd know that Frank and I disagree in a number of matters. He is not 'my hero', but I think he's right more than he's wrong. Even when he's wrong, he actually has interesting ideas about design goals that are worth considering. We have butted heads on more than a few occasions, but I respect that he has carefully considered his position and looking at how he came to that conclusion is worthwhile.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110400I do not owe you an answers or explanations; I do not owe you any more detail that I have provided. I am not making a claim to the moral high ground.
I'm not going to argue the definition of 'is' to satisfy whatever criteria you have decided is sufficient for my claims. I'm not trying to convince you; I'm engaged in a discussion and the folks reading this are certainly capable of deciding if they have 'concerns' or not. I'm not planning on sticking my head so far up your disinformation campaign that I understand what bizarre conspiracy theory you're alluding to and refuting.
If you had spent any amount of time on the Gaming Den, you'd know that Frank and I disagree in a number of matters. He is not 'my hero', but I think he's right more than he's wrong. Even when he's wrong, he actually has interesting ideas about design goals that are worth considering. We have butted heads on more than a few occasions, but I respect that he has carefully considered his position and looking at how he came to that conclusion is worthwhile.
Nothing interesting about accussing someone they dislike as a mass murderer.
Little bitch.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110374Maybe not a great picture, and not the only one I've seen of him, but he's also not Quasimodo.
I'm just as white as Trollman, and I don't hate 'the white race'. I don't believe that race automatically makes me great, and more than being an American automatically makes me great. I can talk about how America is a better country in ways X, Y, & Z than some other country, but it doesn't mean that we don't have absolute trash here. There are plenty of Americans that I don't think reflect well on our country.
?That's a bit odd response, since I didn't imply that he's ugly, nor that all whites hate white people. But hating on one's own racial group is a very bizarre white phenomenon.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110400I do not owe you an answers or explanations; I do not owe you any more detail that I have provided. I am not making a claim to the moral high ground.
I'm not going to argue the definition of 'is' to satisfy whatever criteria you have decided is sufficient for my claims. I'm not trying to convince you; I'm engaged in a discussion and the folks reading this are certainly capable of deciding if they have 'concerns' or not. I'm not planning on sticking my head so far up your disinformation campaign that I understand what bizarre conspiracy theory you're alluding to and refuting.
If you had spent any amount of time on the Gaming Den, you'd know that Frank and I disagree in a number of matters. He is not 'my hero', but I think he's right more than he's wrong. Even when he's wrong, he actually has interesting ideas about design goals that are worth considering. We have butted heads on more than a few occasions, but I respect that he has carefully considered his position and looking at how he came to that conclusion is worthwhile.
Well, your other Gaming Den pal, Lord Mistborn.....is switching tactics, and is now trying to blame the ChristChurch shooting in New Zealand on Milo Yiannopoulos.
Quote from: Lord MistbornNow normally I'm not one to do this... nah I'm totally the type to engage in a bit of unsportsmanlike gloating. Especially when the subject for it is the lowest and most loathsome example of human refuse. You see Lamb is complaining about us/seeking solace in the moist, blubbery, and foul-smelling embrace of theRPGsite's hugbox.
The way he's carrying on makes me pretty sure he's still reading this thread and quaking in important rage. Still I'll indulge your post-ban tantrum Sacrifical Lamb. I know that somewhere in your shriveled pestilent heart you crave my flowery textual abuse, you know that it's better than you deserve so enjoy another taste. So yeah let's not "ignore Lord Mistborn deliberately ignoring everything that Frank said." I did so much ignore Franks argument as state the version of it that would better appeal to a neutral, or skeptical observer, but for the record I stand by everything Frank has said.
His argument and mine are not complicated, by serving as C.E.O. of Milo Inc Alexander Macris served as a cog in the Alt-Right propaganda machine. Provocateurs like Yiannopoulos contribute to the radicalization of people like the the Christchurch Shooter who have killed hundreds. (Frank feel free to correct my if I am mischaracterizing you at any point). The thing is that Frank and to a lesser extent myself don't really care about your type, chuweros who eat a fuck shit. The good doctor is even less interested in lost causes like yourself than I am, and likely did not consider that a chuwero would be reading his post and would get butthurt enough to cause an incident. Everyone else in the thread understood the thrust of what Frank was about instantly. It was "the guy who makes ACKS is alt-right and a shitter don't give him money" for those of you from theRPGsite and dumb.
Now his particular phrasing had a nice side benefit, when you read it you completely lost your cool. Instead of "hiding your powerlevel"(as the sharper examples of your species would say) and us having to deal with page after page of your diarrhea you posted ban-worthy content in your fourth post in this thread. Given everything you posted before and after that was likely the best possible outcomes. You would never acknowledge the alt-right's fascist recruitment machine which you defend is what it is, it's not in your nature. If you understood that the shit you gleefully fuck, consume, and regurgitate upon any webfourm you do the disservice of joining was shit, then this conversation would not have happend in the first place. (and you would not be in the position you are fuming at your justly deserved ban for rascism.)
I'm banned there now, so I cannot respond to him directly. But let's take note that the ChristChurch shooting is sadly looking like yet another state sponsored MK ultra false flag event, using a mentally ill man as their weapon. Brenton Tarrant was supposed to be the shooter, but there were two other men apprehended, and we never hear about it. If I'm remembering correctly, Tarrant visited Israel. Well, if the ChristChurch shooter was a "white supremacist".....then why did he say nothing negative about Jews at all in his long manifesto? It makes no sense, right? It's a strange omission. I am ethnically Jewish, so I find this to be very confusing.
I think it's very likely that Israeli Mossad played a role in that ChristChurch incident.
And yes, real people died. So why would this happen? If I were to guess, I'd say that the intent was probably to spread more fear and division, and create a political climate that makes it easier for authorities to casually engage in gun confiscation of ordinary citizens....all around the world. And these types of events are occurring more frequently lately.
But....who cares? As awful as that is, this should not have anything to do with tabletop roleplaying games, right? Only there's one little problem. The people at the Gaming Den keep bringing up mass shootings, over and over again.....trying to manipulate us into believing that Milo Yiannopoulos is
personally responsible for other people's actions. Is it really that much of a stretch for a gay man to criticize Islam, due to not wanting to be thrown off a roof by Muslims?
If there's a mass shooting somewhere, Frank Trollman and Lord Mistborn expect us to believe that Milo Yiannopoulos is
personally responsible for these deaths. They expect us to believe that if you work with Milo at all
(like macris did).....then you also magically become
personally responsible for these mass shootings.
How does that work? I have no fucking clue, since I see a Jewish homosexual
(married to a black man) who is verbally dismantling bitter third wave feminist harpies, and voicing opposition to Islam, since Muslims have a long history of violence against homosexuals. And this has exactly what to do with
(most likely) state sponsored mass shootings? Who knows? I certainly don't.
But this is the type of bullshit reasoning that both Frank and Mistborn are trying to use to justify accusing macris of money laundering, terrorism, and mass murder. Oh, and Mistborn is advocating that people pirate a tabletop roleplaying game from a
small company. He's a real class act, right? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Lord MistbornAlso if you're going to raise a stink about Frank financially damaging Maris the least you can do is give me the credit due. I'm the one who recommended people pirate his game and I stand by that proudly.
I finally had the incentive I needed to buy a copy of ACKs and, given the speed of mail from the UK, should be the proud owner in approximately 3 to 4 weeks.
I mean with reviews this good, how could I not?
For those that might be curious:
https://github.com/capheind/ACKS_SRD
With all due respect to Deadmanwalking if your going to engage in cross forum drama expect to be called out on it. Your intent was to cause cross forum drama and you succeeded. Trying to play the fake concerned citizen at it hurting posters is bullshit. Grow a pair and accept the consequences of your actions. All your fake concern is hypocrisy at it's finest and transparent emotional deflection.
Quote from: sureshot;1110491With all due respect to Deadmanwalking if your going to engage in cross forum drama expect to be called out on it. Your intent was to cause cross forum drama and you succeeded. Trying to play the fake concerned citizen at it hurting posters is bullshit. Grow a pair and accept the consequences of your actions. All your fake concern is hypocrisy at it's finest and transparent emotional deflection.
I think these comments should be directed at the OP. Also, my handle is deadDMwalking; I know there is a deadMANwalking on other forums - no relation. There also hasn't been any cross-forum drama. The folks at the Den have stayed on the Den. The folks at RPGsite have stayed on the RPGsite. People who are active on both have been active on both.
When you quote someone in full and start a conversation about their statements, you should expect that the people who you're talking about will become aware of it. Are you hiding something? Did you want to talk about his statements behind his back without offering opportunity for clarification?
I mean, pretty clearly some of the folks here
did want that. But that's not my bag, baby.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110444But let's take note that the ChristChurch shooting is sadly looking like yet another state sponsored MK ultra false flag event, using a mentally ill man as their weapon.
You're wrong and you have no evidence to support this. You are guilty of
confirmation bias. Any 'fact' that supports the narrative you want to tell is immediately latched on to and any 'fact' that either refutes or supports an alternate theory is immediately discarded. It is common to say that someone who commits a mass shooting is 'mentally ill' because you have to be crazy to go on a killing rampage. Welcome to tautology club. Only mentally ill people commit mass shootings because you have to be mentally ill to commit a mass shooting.
If that's the case, why
isn't a requirement to prove your mental competency before purchasing firearms good policy?
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110444Well, if the ChristChurch shooter was a "white supremacist".....then why did he say nothing negative about Jews at all in his long manifesto?
If I identify as a white supremacist and I spend all my time talking about blacks and gays, you're saying I'm not a white supremacist? I can't be one until I
also talk about Jews? That's pretty weird, especially if I live in a place where Judaism is not well represented. In New Zealand, Muslims make up more than 1% of the population and it has been growing; Jews make up less than 1% of the population and in fact their representation is included in an 'other' category that includes a number of minor Asian religions. I don't know if they make up 1/10 of 1% of 1/100 of 1%; but I certainly don't think 'not hating jews' or more specifically 'not actively advocating for the mass extermination of jews' is enough to clear you of charges of subscribing to a theory of racial superiority.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110512Only mentally ill people commit mass shootings because you have to be mentally ill to commit a mass shooting. If that's the case, why isn't a requirement to prove your mental competency before purchasing firearms good policy?
Uhh...because you don't remove a person's natural rights until they have actually done something wrong?
Unless of course you believe that people should have to prove they aren't crazy before they can exercise their natural rights to life, liberty, ownership of property, speaking their mind, traveling freely, etc.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110512You're wrong and you have no evidence to support this. You are guilty of confirmation bias. Any 'fact' that supports the narrative you want to tell is immediately latched on to and any 'fact' that either refutes or supports an alternate theory is immediately discarded.
Coming from the undisputed king of confirmation bias, this is especially rich.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1110526Coming from the undisputed king of confirmation bias, this is especially rich.
Just curious. Do you want to go on record supporting Sacrificial Lamb's contention that the Christchurch shooting was a false flag operation?
From earlier this thread, Macris makes the case that you shouldn't support artists that you think are using the profits from their products in immoral ways. I've always supported voting with your wallet on the issues that are important to you - I think that should be true in gaming, too. As far as communicating to artists what those values are, that's important, too. I don't think there's anyone that's so far gone they can't be redeemed - some will just have to do a lot more penance than others before their conversion will be accepted as genuinely true.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110529Just curious. Do you want to go on record supporting Sacrificial Lamb's contention that the Christchurch shooting was a false flag operation?
What I wrote is exactly what I meant; it was in direct relation to you, and you specifically. Nice diversion attempt though. It is rich that you are criticizing Lamb for confirmation bias when you, yourself rely on it so often in this forum.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110529From earlier this thread, Macris makes the case that you shouldn't support artists that you think are using the profits from their products in immoral ways. I've always supported voting with your wallet on the issues that are important to you - I think that should be true in gaming, too. As far as communicating to artists what those values are, that's important, too. I don't think there's anyone that's so far gone they can't be redeemed - some will just have to do a lot more penance than others before their conversion will be accepted as genuinely true.
Okay?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110512If I identify as a white supremacist and I spend all my time talking about blacks and gays, you're saying I'm not a white supremacist? I can't be one until I also talk about Jews? That's pretty weird, especially if I live in a place where Judaism is not well represented. In New Zealand, Muslims make up more than 1% of the population and it has been growing; Jews make up less than 1% of the population and in fact their representation is included in an 'other' category that includes a number of minor Asian religions. I don't know if they make up 1/10 of 1% of 1/100 of 1%; but I certainly don't think 'not hating jews' or more specifically 'not actively advocating for the mass extermination of jews' is enough to clear you of charges of subscribing to a theory of racial superiority.
Blaming the Christchurch shooting on people like Milo is pretty idiotic. Kinda like blaming every single outspoken Muslim for 9/11.
Still, I agree with the quoted part. You don't have to hate Jews to be a white nationalist. You pretty much have to in order to be a Nazi though.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110512I think these comments should be directed at the OP. Also, my handle is deadDMwalking; I know there is a deadMANwalking on other forums - no relation. There also hasn't been any cross-forum drama. The folks at the Den have stayed on the Den. The folks at RPGsite have stayed on the RPGsite. People who are active on both have been active on both.
When you quote someone in full and start a conversation about their statements, you should expect that the people who you're talking about will become aware of it. Are you hiding something? Did you want to talk about his statements behind his back without offering opportunity for clarification?
I mean, pretty clearly some of the folks here did want that. But that's not my bag, baby.
You're wrong and you have no evidence to support this. You are guilty of confirmation bias. Any 'fact' that supports the narrative you want to tell is immediately latched on to and any 'fact' that either refutes or supports an alternate theory is immediately discarded. It is common to say that someone who commits a mass shooting is 'mentally ill' because you have to be crazy to go on a killing rampage. Welcome to tautology club. Only mentally ill people commit mass shootings because you have to be mentally ill to commit a mass shooting. If that's the case, why isn't a requirement to prove your mental competency before purchasing firearms good policy?
If I identify as a white supremacist and I spend all my time talking about blacks and gays, you're saying I'm not a white supremacist? I can't be one until I also talk about Jews? That's pretty weird, especially if I live in a place where Judaism is not well represented. In New Zealand, Muslims make up more than 1% of the population and it has been growing; Jews make up less than 1% of the population and in fact their representation is included in an 'other' category that includes a number of minor Asian religions. I don't know if they make up 1/10 of 1% of 1/100 of 1%; but I certainly don't think 'not hating jews' or more specifically 'not actively advocating for the mass extermination of jews' is enough to clear you of charges of subscribing to a theory of racial superiority.
Bullshit. Anyone that would be classified as a "white supremacist", will
always talk about the Jews. So this so-called "white supremacist" ChristChurch shooter railed against immigration, fertility rates, and white genocide in his manifesto.....but he didn't talk about the Jews? And he even visits Israel?
Fake news, motherfucker.
And I notice that you deliberately ignored my recommendation to research the background of the El Paso shooter's father and his associates
(because it's very relevant). On the Gaming Den, I talked about how Spanish-speaking witnesses in El Paso saw multiple masked gunman
(not police), but they were completely ignored by the media. Or we could bring up the Las Vegas shooting, after which eight different witnesses reported online that they saw multiple gunmen, but then they all mysteriously died within 1 month of that mass shooting. There are other incidents as well, but basically.....there's a lot of strange, creepy false flag shit happening out there. So stop fucking telling me that Milo or amacris have any "personal responsibility" for these events.
I was hoping that this was all just a misunderstanding on your part, but now I suspect that you are full of shit as well. My advice to you is to stop behaving like an ethically disingenuous rat, and that goes tenfold for Frank Trollman.
But maybe I should thank Frank. Now I will go out and buy ACKS, since I do keep hearing good things about it. So your hero unintentionally created a new customer. It's strange how the "Streisand Effect" works, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110619But maybe I should thank Frank. Now I will go out and buy ACKS, since I do keep hearing good things about it. So your hero unintentionally created a new customer. It's strange how the "Streisand Effect" works, isn't it? :rolleyes:
ACKS will not disappoint. :)
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1110181That was a masterwork of a post.
One of the best I have read in some time. Applause!
Gnollman has now updated his viewpoint to explain that *actually* what he meant is that I am just "morally responsible" for mass murder because I "funneled dark money" to terrorists and that if you want evidence of this you should "shut up".
Since he is now making up new facts to libel me with, let me respond once again:
1. At no point in my life have I ever had access to "dark money". I don't even know what "dark money" is supposed to be. I assume he means "money from illegal sources spent in illegal ways" or something. As far as MILO Inc, we received funding from a very prominent investor to a Business Checking account at BB&T, at the local branch near where I live. Then we hired a CPA, set up a 401(k), hired W2 employees, and filed our taxes. This notion of shadowy financial networks is a figment of Gnollman's imagination.
2. At no point was any money funneled from the MILO Inc. organization towards political financing or activists. You want to know where the money was spent? It's a matter of public record that Milo had the company fund (a) an enormous billboard of his face in Times Square in front of the NBC building, (b) a huge number of political posters of Milo's face on the NY, DC, and Chicago metro system, (c) his $1 million Hawaii wedding to his black boyfriend, (d) his $500,000 custom gold-plated Tesla, (e) his full-body liposuction, (f) his full set of veneers to fix his teeth, and (g) oodles of personal jewelry and clothing, including a $13,000 designer jacket he wore exactly once. That's what we spent the money on. A lot of these expenses were gauche, unproductive, and foolish - but they weren't "dark" as they're all documented in various news stories that are widely published, and in our tax filings; they certainly aren't "terrorism" unless you think bad taste is a terrorist act.
Unlike Gnollman's imaginary facts, these facts can be empirically verified. It was all out in the public eye. Hell, the ACLU actually represented Milo in litigation, so there are legal briefs that document a lot of what we spent money on. But of course Gnollman won't even try to verify his claims because "shut up".
In any case, Gnollman clearly hasn't even thought his own conspiracy theory through. Given that Milo was world famous in 2017, why on Earth would anyone set up an entity called "MILO Inc" and use THAT to spread dark money around?!? You don't use the company of a notoriously narcissistic celebrity who likes to run his mouth for a SECRET TERRORIST FINANCING NETWORK. You set up a front company called something like "The American Liberty Fund" or "Americans For Sensible Immigration Policy" or "The Frank Trollman Center for the Mentally Handicapped" and you stay out of the news entirely. This is like Supervillain 101. George Soros must be gravely disappointed in Frank... I don't even know how Gnollman can be an effective gamemaster if his level of evil scheming is this poor. He probably runs story games.
Quote from: amacris;1110653Gnollman has now updated his viewpoint to explain that *actually* what he meant is that I am just "morally responsible" for mass murder because I "funneled dark money" to terrorists and that if you want evidence of this you should "shut up".
Since he is now making up new facts to libel me with, let me respond once again:
1. At no point in my life have I ever had access to "dark money". I don't even know what "dark money" is supposed to be. I assume he means "money from illegal sources spent in illegal ways" or something. As far as MILO Inc, we received funding from a very prominent investor to a Business Checking account at BB&T, at the local branch near where I live. Then we hired a CPA, set up a 401(k), hired W2 employees, and filed our taxes. This notion of shadowy financial networks is a figment of Gnollman's imagination.
2. At no point was any money funneled from the MILO Inc. organization towards political financing or activists. You want to know where the money was spent? It's a matter of public record that Milo had the company fund (a) an enormous billboard of his face in Times Square in front of the NBC building, (b) a huge number of political posters of Milo's face on the NY, DC, and Chicago metro system, (c) his $1 million Hawaii wedding to his black boyfriend, (d) his $500,000 custom gold-plated Tesla, (e) his full-body liposuction, (f) his full set of veneers to fix his teeth, and (g) oodles of personal jewelry and clothing, including a $13,000 designer jacket he wore exactly once. That's what we spent the money on. A lot of these expenses were gauche, unproductive, and foolish - but they weren't "dark" as they're all documented in various news stories that are widely published, and in our tax filings; they certainly aren't "terrorism" unless you think bad taste is a terrorist act.
Unlike Gnollman's imaginary facts, these facts can be empirically verified. It was all out in the public eye. Hell, the ACLU actually represented Milo in litigation, so there are legal briefs that document a lot of what we spent money on. But of course Gnollman won't even try to verify his claims because "shut up".
In any case, Gnollman clearly hasn't even thought his own conspiracy theory through. Given that Milo was world famous in 2017, why on Earth would anyone set up an entity called "MILO Inc" and use THAT to spread dark money around?!? You don't use the company of a notoriously narcissistic celebrity who likes to run his mouth for a SECRET TERRORIST FINANCING NETWORK. You set up a front company called something like "The American Liberty Fund" or "Americans For Sensible Immigration Policy" or "The Frank Trollman Center for the Mentally Handicapped" and you stay out of the news entirely. This is like Supervillain 101. George Soros must be gravely disappointed in Frank... I don't even know how Gnollman can be an effective gamemaster if his level of evil scheming is this poor. He probably runs story games.
Bolding mine, Someone needs to inform Mr amacris slavery was abolished in all the civilized world, I'm pretty sure someone could make a legal case against him just on the basis off his owning Gnollman.
Quote from: amacris;1110653Since he is now making up new facts to libel me with, let me respond once again:
1. At no point in my life have I ever had access to "dark money". I don't even know what "dark money" is supposed to be. I assume he means "money from illegal sources spent in illegal ways" or something.
If you don't know what it is, how do you know you didn't have access to it?
QuoteAccording to the Center for Responsive Politics, dark money is defined as funds from outside groups that did not publicly disclose donors, plus groups that received a substantial portion of their contributions from such nondisclosing groups.
In your earlier post, you indicated that you had funding from people who preferred to remain anonymous. Ergo, you had dark money. Or at least, it is not a bizarre leap of reasoning to suggest that you did.
And if you spent $1 million dollars to put Milo's face on a Times Square billboard, you probably should feel bad. I mean, not just in 'this was a frivolous waste of resources I could have otherwise used to further my actual agenda' (but that too) but also in the 'I'm bringing additional attention to someone who is undoubtedly going to use this attention in furtherance of hate speech'.
A claim of ignorance about what Milo was about strikes me as disingenuous if you created a company called Milo, Inc. I would certainly expect the company to vet their star before they actually invest in him.
Quote from: amacris;1110653I don't even know how Gnollman can be an effective gamemaster if his level of evil scheming is this poor. He probably runs story games.
Well ... story games ... that's harsh.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110668If you don't know what it is, how do you know you didn't have access to it?
In your earlier post, you indicated that you had funding from people who preferred to remain anonymous. Ergo, you had dark money. Or at least, it is not a bizarre leap of reasoning to suggest that you did.
And if you spent $1 million dollars to put Milo's face on a Times Square billboard, you probably should feel bad. I mean, not just in 'this was a frivolous waste of resources I could have otherwise used to further my actual agenda' (but that too) but also in the 'I'm bringing additional attention to someone who is undoubtedly going to use this attention in furtherance of hate speech'.
A claim of ignorance about what Milo was about strikes me as disingenuous if you created a company called Milo, Inc. I would certainly expect the company to vet their star before they actually invest in him.
Milo, the Gay descendant of Jews married to a black man, the secret leader of the huwhite supremacists! Bwahahahahahahah
You have no idea how stupid you sound. Then again the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents you from realizing just how profoundly stupid you really are.
Wonder if I can make an NPC based of you? Maybe for my Pulp game?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110668If you don't know what it is, how do you know you didn't have access to it? In your earlier post, you indicated that you had funding from people who preferred to remain anonymous. Ergo, you had dark money. Or at least, it is not a bizarre leap of reasoning to suggest that you did.
I know the money isn't 'dark' because I know where it came from and to whom it went. It wasn't "anonymous". The fact that I am not saying their name is because I am under an NDA with them. That doesn't make it "anonymous" or "dark" it just means I'm under an NDA. If you search Buzzfeed, I'm sure you can find their name.
If you'd like me to use your definition of "dark money" ("according to the Center for Responsive Politics, dark money is defined as funds from outside groups that did not publicly disclose donors, plus groups that received a substantial portion of their contributions from such nondisclosing groups."), again, it was certainly not dark. The company did not receive funds from "outside groups that did not publicly disclose donors". The company didn't have "donors" at all. It had "investors" as in "legal owners who file taxes".
Have you ever been involved in privately-held companies? It is absolutely routine for investors to fund private companies without their names being disclosed to the public. If you don't believe me, trying finding a list of the owners of any privately-held company. Unless it's a big VC firm, it's usually impossible. People who invest in companies get constant cold calls from needy entrepreneurs wanting money. To avoid that, they try not to be mentioned unless they are (like a VC firm) actively seeking entrepreneurs. That's simply the way private equity works in the United States.
QuoteAnd if you spent $1 million dollars to put Milo's face on a Times Square billboard, you probably should feel bad. I mean, not just in 'this was a frivolous waste of resources I could have otherwise used to further my actual agenda' (but that too) but also in the 'I'm bringing additional attention to someone who is undoubtedly going to use this attention in furtherance of hate speech'. A claim of ignorance about what Milo was about strikes me as disingenuous if you created a company called Milo, Inc. I would certainly expect the company to vet their star before they actually invest in him.
I certainly feel bad for being fooled. As I said, I wanted to advance libertarian values and instead I think I set them back.
But I already told you I don't agree with your definition of "hate". I think the whole idea of "hate speech" is a pernicious concept that is specifically designed to choke off freedom of expression. It's simply blasphemy laws updated from Catholic values to Progressive values. I support the right of artists to make "piss Christ" art and liberal comedians to make severed Trump head jokes and hippies to burn the flag and I support the right of Milo to say "feminism is cancer" and "please don't throw me off a roof" or whatever else. I think people who want to regulate what people can say are evil. If that means you think I'm evil, then we just have a different alignment and probably shouldn't adventure together.
I went to Amazon today, and I purchased the main ACKS book. This was one of those games that I'd always considered picking up, but never got around to doing so.....until now. My book should arrive in a couple days.
Frank Trollman is so good at convincing people to boycott a product, that the exact opposite happens. It's almost magic! :D
Quote from: amacris;1110671But I already told you I don't agree with your definition of "hate". I think the whole idea of "hate speech" is a pernicious concept that is specifically designed to choke off freedom of expression. It's simply blasphemy laws updated from Catholic values to Progressive values. I support the right of artists to make "piss Christ" art and liberal comedians to make severed Trump head jokes and hippies to burn the flag and I support the right of Milo to say "feminism is cancer" and "please don't throw me off a roof" or whatever else. I think people who want to regulate what people can say are evil. If that means you think I'm evil, then we just have a different alignment and probably shouldn't adventure together.
I couldn't agree with you more there. You nailed it dead center.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1110670Milo, the Gay descendant of Jews married to a black man, the secret leader of the huwhite supremacists! Bwahahahahahahah
You have no idea how stupid you sound. Then again the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents you from realizing just how profoundly stupid you really are.
Wonder if I can make an NPC based of you? Maybe for my Pulp game?
I built a whole warren of trolls, each named after a Denner. They're basically the templates for NPCs, just broken, sad, people, quite worthy of pity. But nothing says you can't have some fun with them all the same.
Quote from: Doom;1110696I built a whole warren of trolls, each named after a Denner. They're basically the templates for NPCs, just broken, sad, people, quite worthy of pity. But nothing says you can't have some fun with them all the same.
Yeah, it would have to be some really low IQ species
It is to be blunt quite sad, terrible, pathetic and even more importantly to see fellow gamers like DeadDMWalking not only close their eyes to Trollman lies, and bullshit and drink the kool-aid. They freely give their arms so that an IV can be hooked up to it. I may not have agree with much that DeadDMwalking has posted he at least until I saw how he acted in the other thread at least more intelligent and rational. If anything "Frank Trollman says it so it must be true". I have to at least give credit to Gnomeworks to giving two big middle fingers to Trollman and his butt kissing sycophants. "Post more in line of what we demand here at the Gaming Den and all will be forgiven.". Gnomeworks "take that buttkissing bullshit and shove it up your ass".
Gang, don't hold DeadDMWalking against Knoxville, TN - it really is a good town for gaming.
Looks like Alexander is almost officially a Nazi now, according to the consensus on the Gaming Den :D EDIT: for context deadDMwalking pointed out that they shouldn’t mock Alexander after he was banned, and that was just too much for some.
Here are some choice quotes from two posters:
QuoteI think anything insulting or infuriating to literal nazi's that literally exist right now and are currently attempting to help finance people involved with various wings of the fourth reich is good. And you need to take 70,000 enormous steps out of your own fucking asshole if your message is that someone may be a literal nazi but mocking them is stepping a bit out of forum guidelines and that's a line that shouldn't be crossed.
QuoteSo imagine if you will you live in a small town with a game store. Now sadly Nazi's hold a rally in your small town and people are hurt. After the dust settle during FNM or D&D night or whatever one of the patrons stands up and says that not only did the owner of the game store donate money to the Nazi's he helped organize their rally. When confronted with this with this the owner says that while he never intended anyone to be hurt and he personally abhors the Nazi's beliefs he did help them with their rally in the name of "preserving free speech." This does not satisfy most people and there is a mass walk out of the store. FNM or whatever is ruined for the forseeable future.
Oh, and how come none of them seems to be able to spell "Nazis" correctly?
Quote from: jeff37923;1110714Gang, don't hold DeadDMWalking against Knoxville, TN - it really is a good town for gaming.
Seems to have a higher concentration of bitchass than normal.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1110730Seems to have a higher concentration of bitchass than normal.
I vaguely remember him saying something about being from California, so that's all the explanation you need.
Quote from: Brad;1111028I vaguely remember him saying something about being from California, so that's all the explanation you need.
He said he likes to shit in public parks in California, Anaheim Hills if I remember correctly.
Quote from: Trond;1110723Looks like Alexander is almost officially a Nazi now, according to the consensus on the Gaming Den :D EDIT: for context deadDMwalking pointed out that they shouldn't mock Alexander after he was banned, and that was just too much for some.
Here are some choice quotes from two posters:
Oh, and how come none of them seems to be able to spell "Nazis" correctly?
Literal
Nazis
Quote from: Trond;1110723Oh, and how come none of them seems to be able to spell "Nazis" correctly?
Well, come on; they may be Nazis, but they're not
grammar Nazis.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110619Anyone that would be classified as a "white supremacist" will always talk about the Jews.
Reminds me of one of Umberto Eco's lines from
Foucault's Pendulum:
"The lunatic is all idée fixe,
and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars."
Quote from: Gagarth;1111088He said he likes to shit in public parks in California, Anaheim Hills if I remember correctly.
If only that narrowed down who he is.
Quote from: Brad;1111028I vaguely remember him saying something about being from California, so that's all the explanation you need.
So he was born in the state which has 1 out of every 8 Americans? Oh yeah, that narrows it down sooooo much.
Quote from: Mistwell;1111102So he was born in the state which has 1 out of every 8 Americans? Oh yeah, that narrows it down sooooo much.
It ain't me. I lived in California but was born in Wyoming. Probably why I don't use "majority" in a textbook manner. :D
Quote from: Doom;1109262Look fixable, wayyyy up in the sky, far above your head.
That's a joke.
Quote from: fixable;1109265Lol.. what. You're being childish. I'm not going away. Deal with it.
Ok. Damnit. I was being childish. I apologize. I went too far.
Quote from: amacris;1110653Gnollman has now updated his viewpoint to explain that *actually* what he meant is that I am just "morally responsible" for mass murder because I "funneled dark money" to terrorists and that if you want evidence of this you should "shut up".
Since he is now making up new facts to libel me with, let me respond once again:
1. At no point in my life have I ever had access to "dark money". I don't even know what "dark money" is supposed to be. I assume he means "money from illegal sources spent in illegal ways" or something. As far as MILO Inc, we received funding from a very prominent investor to a Business Checking account at BB&T, at the local branch near where I live. Then we hired a CPA, set up a 401(k), hired W2 employees, and filed our taxes. This notion of shadowy financial networks is a figment of Gnollman's imagination.
2. At no point was any money funneled from the MILO Inc. organization towards political financing or activists. You want to know where the money was spent? It's a matter of public record that Milo had the company fund (a) an enormous billboard of his face in Times Square in front of the NBC building, (b) a huge number of political posters of Milo's face on the NY, DC, and Chicago metro system, (c) his $1 million Hawaii wedding to his black boyfriend, (d) his $500,000 custom gold-plated Tesla, (e) his full-body liposuction, (f) his full set of veneers to fix his teeth, and (g) oodles of personal jewelry and clothing, including a $13,000 designer jacket he wore exactly once. That's what we spent the money on. A lot of these expenses were gauche, unproductive, and foolish - but they weren't "dark" as they're all documented in various news stories that are widely published, and in our tax filings; they certainly aren't "terrorism" unless you think bad taste is a terrorist act.
Unlike Gnollman's imaginary facts, these facts can be empirically verified. It was all out in the public eye. Hell, the ACLU actually represented Milo in litigation, so there are legal briefs that document a lot of what we spent money on. But of course Gnollman won't even try to verify his claims because "shut up".
In any case, Gnollman clearly hasn't even thought his own conspiracy theory through. Given that Milo was world famous in 2017, why on Earth would anyone set up an entity called "MILO Inc" and use THAT to spread dark money around?!? You don't use the company of a notoriously narcissistic celebrity who likes to run his mouth for a SECRET TERRORIST FINANCING NETWORK. You set up a front company called something like "The American Liberty Fund" or "Americans For Sensible Immigration Policy" or "The Frank Trollman Center for the Mentally Handicapped" and you stay out of the news entirely. This is like Supervillain 101. George Soros must be gravely disappointed in Frank... I don't even know how Gnollman can be an effective gamemaster if his level of evil scheming is this poor. He probably runs story games.
I appreciate this. Its way unfair that you have to put so much effort into clearing yourself.
Your game has brought years of fun and has rejuvenated my RPG experience (after burning out on 4E and re-discovering classic D&D your game was the first and best I found). My ACKS campaign is on hiatus due to players having moved, but I'm working to bring it back in an online format.
I think on both sides, people go WAY too far in vilifying those with differing opinions and beliefs. I include myself as often guilty of this as well. People rather pop labels on others instead of really trying to understand their point of view.
Edit: Thank you for making a great game!
This thread is extra weird, even for us!
False Flags! Dark Money! Forum Drama! OSR Retroclone! Milo! Hate Speech!
Who knew one thread would score theRPGsite bingo?
Keep up the good work! And keep those awesome quotes from the Denners coming! What a bunch of nutty bitches!
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1110670Milo, the Gay descendant of Jews married to a black man, the secret leader of the huwhite supremacists! Bwahahahahahahah
It's the perfect cover!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1111676This thread is extra weird, even for us!
False Flags! Dark Money! Forum Drama! OSR Retroclone! Milo! Hate Speech!
Who knew one thread would score theRPGsite bingo?
Keep up the good work! And keep those awesome quotes from the Denners coming! What a bunch of nutty bitches!
It's the perfect cover!
Lol.
I'm new but I'll share my thoughts... the gaming den is absolutely the most bizarre forum I have ever visited. It's like an RPG forum for people who REALLY REALLY hate role playing games.
Quote from: fixable;1111674Ok. Damnit. I was being childish. I apologize. I went too far.
Np, lots of folks come into a new place fists swinging.
And yeah, the Den is the embodiment of the worst aspects of Progressive hypocrisy, seeping into the simple pastime of sitting around a table, rolling dice...they loathe what they say they enjoy.
Quote from: Doom;1111687Np, lots of folks come into a new place fists swinging.
And yeah, the Den is the embodiment of the worst aspects of Progressive hypocrisy, seeping into the simple pastime of sitting around a table, rolling dice...they loathe what they say they enjoy.
I'd say that the Den is more about creating a game where there can not be any possible input from a human being into the execution of the game. Like 100% rules over all. It's about totalitarianism of the rules and any game that requires a human judgement is an invalid game. They take the fallible principles of 3E and 4E to their illogical conclusion.
Quote from: Doom;1111687Np, lots of folks come into a new place fists swinging.
And yeah, the Den is the embodiment of the worst aspects of Progressive hypocrisy, seeping into the simple pastime of sitting around a table, rolling dice...they loathe what they say they enjoy.
And thanks for the np. I appreciate it.
Quote from: fixable;1111693I'd say that the Den is more about creating a game where there can not be any possible input from a human being into the execution of the game. Like 100% rules over all. It's about totalitarianism of the rules and any game that requires a human judgement is an invalid game. They take the fallible principles of 3E and 4E to their illogical conclusion.
:D Yeah, we've noticed that here ages ago. They are like the Event Horizon Red Shift of 20th Cen. fads of Behavioralism or Structuralism. :p
Quote from: fixable;1111693I'd say that the Den is more about creating a game where there can not be any possible input from a human being into the execution of the game. Like 100% rules over all. It's about totalitarianism of the rules and any game that requires a human judgement is an invalid game. They take the fallible principles of 3E and 4E to their illogical conclusion.
This is incorrect. The Den accepts, admits and EMBRACES the idea that the rules cannot be exhaustive and that sometimes stepping away from the rules and just choosing reasonable outputs is the
only way to play. In fact, they consider that the
baseline of gaming - there's not a person here that can't take dice, their imagination and good friends and not come away with a good gaming session. But most GMs and Players are looking for
something more - often some consistency and the ability to know and predict what their character
can do and
ought to be able to do as well as
what they can never do. The rules are supposed to provide this. If the rules are no better than the GM rolling dice and picking reasonable outputs, they're not adding anything. In a nutshell: actual rules paid for with actual money should be
better than the GM making things up as they go
as a minimum standard.
That's hardly controversial.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111712This is incorrect. The Den accepts, admits and EMBRACES the idea that the rules cannot be exhaustive and that sometimes stepping away from the rules and just choosing reasonable outputs is the only way to play. In fact, they consider that the baseline of gaming - there's not a person here that can't take dice, their imagination and good friends and not come away with a good gaming session. But most GMs and Players are looking for something more - often some consistency and the ability to know and predict what their character can do and ought to be able to do as well as what they can never do. The rules are supposed to provide this. If the rules are no better than the GM rolling dice and picking reasonable outputs, they're not adding anything. In a nutshell: actual rules paid for with actual money should be better than the GM making things up as they go as a minimum standard.
That's hardly controversial.
This reads like a mirror universe Chick tract.
Quote from: jeff37923;1111714This reads like a mirror universe Chick tract.
I know you'd think that, but I'll chalk it up to poor reading comprehension. The reason some people here get such a skewed view of the type of discussion is because the discussion hinges on the places where the rules exist. Claiming that 'ignoring the rules is fine because Magic Tea Party works better' isn't a defense of the rules. Building rules that are better than Magic Tea Party
is really hard, but rules that
just are magic tea party with some layer of obfuscation are easy (see any thread at the Den about DungeonWorld and related games). Reasonable outputs for how easy it is to seduce the barmaid
or be seduced by the barmaid are really tricky and so are so many areas where the
player and the
GM might disagree. The rules are the place where those types of disputes are handled. Since the GM makes the world, it's totally possible for them to have barmaids that are extremely resistant to seduction (or whatever), but there's some benefit to a player to be able to know whether they MIGHT succeed and how it will be determined. Because it might end up being the right strategy for dealing with the Succubus Queen, too.
In most areas of the game, the rules are accepted by both players and GMs and people don't think about them. As a player I know what I need to roll to hit AC 25. It's the DMs call whether the monster has an AC of 25 or 35 (but there are rules that help constrain that number - just pulling an AC out of thin air isn't really using the rules) and there's really nobody at the Den that argues otherwise. Figuring out how the rules ought to work in more difficult cases (like with stealth, or influence) gets talked about a lot because a rule that is better than DM Fiat is 1) really hard and 2) desirable in the same way that knowing what you need to do to hit an opponent is helpful.
Quote from: fixable;1111693I'd say that the Den is more about creating a game where there can not be any possible input from a human being into the execution of the game. Like 100% rules over all. It's about totalitarianism of the rules and any game that requires a human judgement is an invalid game. They take the fallible principles of 3E and 4E to their illogical conclusion.
To which you responded this:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111712This is incorrect. The Den accepts, admits and EMBRACES the idea that the rules cannot be exhaustive and that sometimes stepping away from the rules and just choosing reasonable outputs is the only way to play. In fact, they consider that the baseline of gaming - there's not a person here that can't take dice, their imagination and good friends and not come away with a good gaming session. But most GMs and Players are looking for something more - often some consistency and the ability to know and predict what their character can do and ought to be able to do as well as what they can never do. The rules are supposed to provide this. If the rules are no better than the GM rolling dice and picking reasonable outputs, they're not adding anything. In a nutshell: actual rules paid for with actual money should be better than the GM making things up as they go as a minimum standard.
That's hardly controversial.
Lets unpack that in some concise principles shall we?
1.- The rules cannot be exhaustiveAgreed
2.- Most GM's and players look for consistencyAgreed but this has more to do with the world the GM created than the rules on a book
3.- GM's & Players want the ability to know and predict what their character can doAgreed but again this has more to do with the world than the rules in a book, and with another caveat: There has to be room for the unexpected.
4.- The rules are supposed to provide thisAre they? Says who?
5.- The rules should be better than a GM making things upThe rules can be better than a fledgling GM (Maybe)
The rules can be better than a shitty GM (Almost always)
The rules can be better than a mediocre GM (Sometimes)
The rules can't be better than a good GM (Almost never)
The rules can never be better than a great GM
Now lets see, if 1, 2 & 3 are true then 4 & 5 can't be true.
Why? Because the rules can't be exhaustive, because each session is different, not even if you're playing the same written module, not even if you're playing RAW, because the different players will have different characters and will get different rolls and will take different decisions, to which the different GM's will react different and the loop is complete.
What players want is consistent rules and for the world to make sense internally, what the GM wants is consistent rules and the ability to create his own worlds.
Since your rules cannot be exhaustive you can't have rules that are better than the GM because you can't take into account all the infinite variations possible.
My guess is that what the den wants is a very shitty CRPG.
You can take sound concepts and go too far with them, become too stubborn with them, and find yourself in an absurd level of extreme caricature of where you started. That's what the Gaming Den has done, on many many topics. For example, the ongoing "5e is vaporware" thread, where most Den users continue to engage in the ridiculous myth that the slower release schedule of 5e means it's a real RPG but just a sort of Hasbro placeholder to keep the IP going using a skeleton crew. That sort of insane level of denialism of reality is rampant on the Den.
Quote from: Mistwell;1111731You can take sound concepts and go too far with them, become too stubborn with them, and find yourself in an absurd level of extreme caricature or where you started.
Yes. Furthermore, if you manage to avoid all of that, and are left with only the good stuff, pushed only enough to get most of the usefulness out it--it's still not limited enough. You'll have 12 really good things in a game that can reasonably support 8. Or more likely, 40+ good things in a game that can reasonably support 8 with trace amounts of some of the others carefully selected from the rest of the pile.
Complexity budget is a thing on each sub system, and it's a thing on the the game as a whole. The 80/20 rule is usually merciless where plans intersects with reality.
what does "5e is vaporware" even mean
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111712This is incorrect. The Den accepts, admits and EMBRACES the idea that the rules cannot be exhaustive and that sometimes stepping away from the rules and just choosing reasonable outputs is the only way to play. In fact, they consider that the baseline of gaming - there's not a person here that can't take dice, their imagination and good friends and not come away with a good gaming session. But most GMs and Players are looking for something more - often some consistency and the ability to know and predict what their character can do and ought to be able to do as well as what they can never do. The rules are supposed to provide this. If the rules are no better than the GM rolling dice and picking reasonable outputs, they're not adding anything. In a nutshell: actual rules paid for with actual money should be better than the GM making things up as they go as a minimum standard.
That's hardly controversial.
This sounds awful, and terrible. Why can't you people just have fun playing RPGs? Why must it be this way for you? How sad. RPGs are supposed to be fun games. I feel bad for you.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1111738what does "5e is vaporware" even mean
At first it meant "They will never come out with 5e". Then when it came out, the argument (without any glimmer of an admission or even acknowledgement that they were previously wrong) morphed into "It's just a bare skeleton crew at WOTC pretending to produce D&D but really it's just a few books as a placeholder so they maintain the intellectual property and brand rights but D&D is really dead."
And then when it started to sell extraordinarily well, the deep denial set in. Any way to spin good sales news as neutral or bad was taken. And if it was undeniable evidence, they just called it outright a lie. A lot of "Yeah they said 4e was selling well too, which was a lie, so obviously this must be a lie as well" type responses. When you point to FIVE YEARS of the PHB being in the top 100 best seller list on Amazon you hear claims like "That's just one book" and "That's just discounted books on line and not game stores, and they wouldn't be blowing it out at discount online if it were really selling well" (as if that's how Amazon works).
And then the conversation turns back to slower release schedule, and the amount of fluff being higher than the amount of crunch in some books, and the decrease in the number of expansion books. And all this, in their warped conspiracy-laden minds, is "proof" 5e is just a placeholder edition and somehow not a real edition of D&D which at this point is just a brand and not a real game anymore.
It's a level of genuine insanity. It's rare you see this kind of denial of reality in this day and age.
Quote from: Mistwell;1111743It's a level of genuine insanity. It's rare you see this kind of denial of reality in this day and age.
I was all with you until that last sentence. What is your definition of "rare"? :)
Quote from: Mistwell;1111743It's rare you see this kind of denial of reality in this day and age.
You don't follow politics much at all, do you? ;)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;11117295.- The rules should be better than a GM making things up
The rules can be better than a fledgling GM (Maybe)
The rules can be better than a shitty GM (Almost always)
The rules can be better than a mediocre GM (Sometimes)
The rules can't be better than a good GM (Almost never)
The rules can never be better than a great GM
Why do GMs use rules?
There are a lot of GMs I've played with that have used 'house rules'. They basically say 'the rules say this, but this doesn't work for me for these reasons, so I use these rules instead'. Why would they even bother with updating the rules if they could go without rules completely?
In my experience, there are two types of houserules. The first is where the existing rules basically work fine, but they don't provide the
flavor that the GM is trying to create. You might change rules to make magic feel mysterious and dangerous, for instance - it's not that there aren't clear rules for magic - they just don't do what you want in a specific campaign. The other set is where the rules end up breaking the world - if you follow the rules you end up in a crazy place where nothing works. As a GM, you're
forced to ignore those rules and make something better. That's what SacrificialLamb thinks he's doing with 5Es Item Creation rules. When you're playing a game, using the rules, and you find yourself in a place where the game breaks, you
have to find a solution. If you're a great GM, maybe this is easy. And
maybe, if you're a great GM your rules should be 'model rules' adopted by mediocre, fledgling or shitty GMs. Because if the game rules
don't work, it's an almost sure bet that the shitty GM will create a shitty rule.
Talking about the rules in depth allows one to identify places where they
don't work and suggest improvements. A common response to that is, 'those rules don't work, but I'm an awesome GM, I don't use them and my game is fine, I do something completely different'. And that can be a fine response if you say what that 'something different' you do is. But saying 'the rules are fine, I do something different' is another common response and that doesn't make any sense at all. Why would you defend rules you don't use?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111757Why do GMs use rules?
There are a lot of GMs I've played with that have used 'house rules'. They basically say 'the rules say this, but this doesn't work for me for these reasons, so I use these rules instead'. Why would they even bother with updating the rules if they could go without rules completely?
In my experience, there are two types of houserules. The first is where the existing rules basically work fine, but they don't provide the flavor that the GM is trying to create. You might change rules to make magic feel mysterious and dangerous, for instance - it's not that there aren't clear rules for magic - they just don't do what you want in a specific campaign. The other set is where the rules end up breaking the world - if you follow the rules you end up in a crazy place where nothing works. As a GM, you're forced to ignore those rules and make something better. That's what SacrificialLamb thinks he's doing with 5Es Item Creation rules. When you're playing a game, using the rules, and you find yourself in a place where the game breaks, you have to find a solution. If you're a great GM, maybe this is easy. And maybe, if you're a great GM your rules should be 'model rules' adopted by mediocre, fledgling or shitty GMs. Because if the game rules don't work, it's an almost sure bet that the shitty GM will create a shitty rule.
Talking about the rules in depth allows one to identify places where they don't work and suggest improvements. A common response to that is, 'those rules don't work, but I'm an awesome GM, I don't use them and my game is fine, I do something completely different'. And that can be a fine response if you say what that 'something different' you do is. But saying 'the rules are fine, I do something different' is another common response and that doesn't make any sense at all. Why would you defend rules you don't use?
Remember this?
1.- The rules cannot be exhaustiveYour claim that the rules should be better than a GM contradicts this point.
Especially if you're not advocating (as you claim you're not) for playing RAW.
Either I can play as I want and the rules can't be exhaustive or the rules should be better than the GM.
And, since what I want in my game is subjectively better than what the rules say, I will change it. Not because the game is broken, but because I want something different. So I can say "The rules are fine, I do something different".
Probably you'd see my house rules and say they make the game worst, but that's your subjective opinion (unless my house rules do break the game).
If there was a single set of rules that did what you claim it should do it would erase the need for any other set of rules, and yet we keep seeing people developing their own rules and even whole systems. So your subjectively perfect rules aren't objectively better.
The only way you have to make the rules all important is to play RAW and to stifle player and GM creativity.
But then again I'm of the rulings not rules school, while you seem to be of the rule-lawyers school. And there's a huge difference. My style allows for the unexpected, you might jump this chasm today but fail to jump a similar or even smaller one in the future. Now that might not always make sense, so different rules, different approaches for different games/settings/styles.
Take my Not Scooby Do game, I'm getting rid of death, but you might want it back. Are you allowed to do so? If not why?
We might even be talking about the same thing and talking past each other here. The GM is Crom and his word is final. Agree or disagree?
Quote from: Doom;1111750You don't follow politics much at all, do you? ;)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I do follow it, and I do see that kind of thing about politics, but I think it's unusual to see it about something which isn't politics or religion.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111763Remember this?
1.- The rules cannot be exhaustive
Your claim that the rules should be better than a GM contradicts this point.
I think you misunderstand. When I GM and a situation comes up that I don't know the answer to, and I don't want to calculate it, the best thing is to come up with a ruling. If you're in the sunken fortress of the Sahuagin and you decide to cast
transmute stone to mud, it seems reasonable to me that the wall will collapse and the water will come rushing in. Will it happen immediately? Will it take 2-3 minutes? When the wall collapses, will the water slam into anyone in the room in a damaging way like a tsunami, or will it be more like a bathtub filling up? Clearly I have to figure out something that my players and I agree seems appropriate. The rules are clear about what the spell does, but there are no rules that explain fluid dynamics and how this specific environment would be influenced by the spell. If this type of situation comes up frequently,
perhaps it is worth providing a clear explanation. Maybe it's simple like 'water makes a STR check equal to the total depth (in feet) divided by 30 to crush any object submerged'. So if it requires a 50 STR check to break a section of wall, I know that the fortress could be 1,500 feet below the surface (but not more) but it could become complex. If this isn't going to be used much, leaving it out might make reading and understanding the rules easier. If it's really uncommon it might come up and the DM doesn't remember the rule so they create their own without even
referencing the RAW. This is why rules can't be exhaustive - even where rules exist there are ways to alter the environment in ways that weren't anticipated. In some versions of D&D we know what happens when you cast a fireball underwater, but what about a vacuum?
Good rules not only provide instructions for how to handle most commonly suggested situations, they offer suggestions for how to rule a question when there isn't a clear answer and different people at the table have different expectations for what SHOULD happen if that situation were to occur in real life.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111763Especially if you're not advocating (as you claim you're not) for playing RAW.
I am advocating for using the rules that you're using, or being clear when you're not. If you tell me that Wizards get a d10 HD but they take 1d6 points of damage per spell level they cast, I can live with that. As long as it's consistent it is a rule - it doesn't matter that it is
your rule or a rule that was produced by WotC. In general, I expect that when you change the rules, you're up front about it. If I show up to game to a 5e game and I've made a wizard by the rules as written but you spring a 'wizards take damage when they cast spells', I might reasonably feel that you've given me unrealistic expectations.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111763Either I can play as I want and the rules can't be exhaustive or the rules should be better than the GM.
You're not the only one playing. Rules help the players to know what should happen and allow them to be confident that things will work consistently. If the kobolds have a 'bomb' that they use on the players during an ambush and the players capture some bombs from the slain kobolds, they'll expect that they work for them the same way they worked for the kobolds. Make a rule, stick to it. But the
published rules, the ones that you paid money for, should provide instructions on the situations they expect to happen. It might be fine if 'bomb' isn't a weapon that's in the rules at all, but you might reasonably expect to know what happens if I switch from a longsword to a trident to an unarmed attack - things that happen frequently should be covered by the rules.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111763And, since what I want in my game is subjectively better than what the rules say, I will change it. Not because the game is broken, but because I want something different. So I can say "The rules are fine, I do something different".
Yes. People can take the published rules and do what they want with them. I don't think I've ever played a game that didn't have at least one houserule. Changing the rules for flavor reasons is fine. Now, if I change a lot of rules to suit my personal tastes, it isn't really possible to tell other people how the game rules might work - I don't play by those rules. My opinion of the game rules and how they work becomes less and less relevant as I throw out more and more of the game. If you say 'Fighters work as a class because at 10th level I make Fighters into Storm Giants' you're really saying 'Fighters don't work and here's how I fixed it for my game'. Just be honest about it.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111763If there was a single set of rules that did what you claim it should do it would erase the need for any other set of rules, and yet we keep seeing people developing their own rules and even whole systems. So your subjectively perfect rules aren't objectively better.
Folks at the Den aren't arguing for a Platonic ideal of a rule set that will replace all other games. In fact, there's a recognition that some games do some things well and not others. There's also a recognition that games don't NEED to do everything well. If I'm making a game about the Wild West, you better believe I better have rules about gunfights. But I don't have to have complex rules about how to succeed on an Accounting Skill Check. But if I'm making a game based on 'Office Space', I
probably do need to have rules about how to do well enough on an office task to avoid getting hassled by the boss. At the Den they're willing to ask if the rule is necessary, whether it does what it is supposed to do, whether it can be reduced/simplified/standardized to apply to other ways. Game rules are never going to be as exhaustive as reality - making the game fun (which is itself a subjective standard) doesn't mean making an Ecyclopedic rules set.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111763The only way you have to make the rules all important is to play RAW and to stifle player and GM creativity.
I disagree - there are a lot of ways to play by the rules and still have players be creative. And I've spent some time explaining how even if you are playing by the rules you'll reach a point where the rules are silent - that's fine -
even good - but it doesn't mean having rules
prevents that - even if you use them.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111763But then again I'm of the rulings not rules school, while you seem to be of the rule-lawyers school. And there's a huge difference. My style allows for the unexpected, you might jump this chasm today but fail to jump a similar or even smaller one in the future. Now that might not always make sense, so different rules, different approaches for different games/settings/styles.
As a player, I expect to know what my player can reasonably be expected to do. If I can jump the grand canyon 100% of the time, I would probably expect to be able to jump across a 5' wide pit 100% of the time; but if I 'trip and fail' on a Natural 1, it could happen in both cases - knowing the rules in advance I can make an informed decision and I'm fine. The rules allow us to build a common framework for making decisions. If you don't have rules that you know and I know, we have to play 'mother-may-I'. That's a somewhat derogatory way of describing a style of play where you say something like 'there's a pit' and I have to ask you about 10 different ways I could try to bypass it (with player creativity) and you tell me which ones are automatic successes, which ones I have to roll for, and which ones I'm almost certainly going to fail.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111763Take my Not Scooby Do game, I'm getting rid of death, but you might want it back. Are you allowed to do so? If not why?
You can do what you like. In a game I'm running I also too away death. Not just for the PCs - for everyone. Everyone regenerates all damage very slowly. Bad guys don't stay dead. It's a major plot point. The PCs are aware and it changes the game in specific ways. It's important to the players that there is a justification for the rules change - in this case, if they want to bring death back, they can. Of course, if they do, it applies to everyone.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111763We might even be talking about the same thing and talking past each other here. The GM is Crom and his word is final. Agree or disagree?
This is a stupid question. I mostly agree, but if Crom is an asshat, I walk. Crom can make all the 'final rulings' he wants, but if he wants to have players, his rulings ought to consider the needs and desires of the players. When players expect they can do something, if Crom wants to say 'no, you can't do that', I definitely have to consider whether I'd have more fun with someone other than Crom of whether he's being reasonable. I can think of a lot of things that Crom can do that just don't work for me. So I agree that the GM can draw a hard line - it's up to every player whether to accept it or not. Having shared rules
agreed upon in advance helps prevent these situations from coming up. If Crom is making rules that are better and I enjoy more, no problem. If Crom is making rules that I think are terrible and are ruining the fun, THAT IS A PROBLEM.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111757Why do GMs use rules?
There are a lot of GMs I've played with that have used 'house rules'. They basically say 'the rules say this, but this doesn't work for me for these reasons, so I use these rules instead'. Why would they even bother with updating the rules if they could go without rules completely?
In my experience, there are two types of houserules. The first is where the existing rules basically work fine, but they don't provide the flavor that the GM is trying to create. You might change rules to make magic feel mysterious and dangerous, for instance - it's not that there aren't clear rules for magic - they just don't do what you want in a specific campaign. The other set is where the rules end up breaking the world - if you follow the rules you end up in a crazy place where nothing works. As a GM, you're forced to ignore those rules and make something better. That's what SacrificialLamb thinks he's doing with 5Es Item Creation rules. When you're playing a game, using the rules, and you find yourself in a place where the game breaks, you have to find a solution. If you're a great GM, maybe this is easy. And maybe, if you're a great GM your rules should be 'model rules' adopted by mediocre, fledgling or shitty GMs. Because if the game rules don't work, it's an almost sure bet that the shitty GM will create a shitty rule.
Talking about the rules in depth allows one to identify places where they don't work and suggest improvements. A common response to that is, 'those rules don't work, but I'm an awesome GM, I don't use them and my game is fine, I do something completely different'. And that can be a fine response if you say what that 'something different' you do is. But saying 'the rules are fine, I do something different' is another common response and that doesn't make any sense at all. Why would you defend rules you don't use?
You don't need a SPECIFIC rule for whether you can seduce the barmaid. You just need a GENERAL rule to cover attempts to persuade, deceive, or intimate people and then a completely average level GM. So for example in D&D it's just a roll of a d20 plus your skill modifier and then a DM who needs to decide what the difficulty task level is for that scenario (is the barmaid already with someone else, is there some reason why the barmaid might be open to such attempt or not) with guidelines on what an easy, moderate, difficult, and nearly impossible set of difficulty classes might be.
AND THAT'S IT. Any average level GM can do that. They don't need a higher level of precision in the rules to accomplish this task.
But your little pet board takes these things to a different and obsessively unusual level (and calls anything short of extremely high-level precision and detail a "magical tea party"). They constantly chase more precision. They'd say no you need a chart with finer level of distinctions in DCs and also more skills and also more ways to hone those skills and more granularity in the things you can do with the skills and on and on. And if you made such a chart, they would demand even MORE level of precision including that specific type of attempt to seduce someone of the opposite sex with modifiers for a tavern setting and how that PC race reacts to that other PC race in that region with that tribal loyalty in that year.
Because that's what some people who are On The Spectrum do with life, and this is what you get when those kinds of people focus on a role-playing game as opposed to any other activity in life without someone to mention to them hey, you've over-focused and need to step back. That the range of possibilities for what are "good" rules is not an on/off switch of either "magical tea party" or "extremely high-level precision and details" and that people On The Spectrum have drastically different tolerances for what is an acceptable level of precision and detail and that those Non-Spectrum tolerances are just as objectively "good" as the ones for those On The Spectrum.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111712If the rules are no better than the GM rolling dice and picking reasonable outputs, they're not adding anything.
Sure they are, they are means of communicating to the referee the procedure the author used to handle the topic. In many cases it is either more concise or because of the use of random chance it is expressed as the mechanics of a game. It is likely that the author as part of the value the work has done the playtesting and review to make it consistent with the other procedure outline in the book.
However in the end the high level view is one referee telling another how they handled X. That in of itself is a useful. It just not the definitive end of the process, the referee making a decision based on their best judgment is.
Quote from: Mistwell;1111771You don't need a SPECIFIC rule for whether you can seduce the barmaid. You just need a GENERAL rule to cover attempts to persuade, deceive, or intimate people and then a completely average level GM. So for example in D&D it's just a roll of a d20 plus your skill modifier and then a DM who needs to decide what the difficulty task level is for that scenario (is the barmaid already with someone else, is there some reason why the barmaid might be open to such attempt or not) with guidelines on what an easy, moderate, difficult, and nearly impossible set of difficulty classes might be.
AND THAT'S IT. Any average level GM can do that. They don't need a higher level of precision in the rules to accomplish this task.
There may be people who demand greater and greater levels of precision, but that's not most of the den. It's absolutely true that if the rules require a computer to run, they're not going to be used at the table, so those are examples of bad rules. One quote that Frank is quite fond of is:
Quote from: Antoine de Saint-Exupery.Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away
Now it's absolutely true that some people have different ideas of what constitutes a
satisfying resolution. In combat, you don't pick a DC, roll a d20, add modifers and decide if you win or lose based on a single roll. A combat includes potentially hundreds of individual rolls - attacks, damage, saves, as well as sometimes true random results - usually the final result isn't a foregone conclusion, and even if it was, much of the fun and most of the 'after game stories' focus in on a few of the more memorable results. People, even years later, will say, "remember when I was the last one standing and I wanted to run but I couldn't drag three bodies with me so I used the
Mace of Disruption on the lich - we knew he would save on a 3 or better but it was our only chance - and the DM rolled in the open and it came up a Natural 1!" (true story, by the way).
Ultimately, there's a certain amount of balance to seek where complex tasks allow you to make meaningful choices. If for seducing a barmaid you just roll a Charisma check with pass/fail then it doesn't matter if you buy a drink first, or if you previously established a relationship, or if you beat someone at a game of darts first, but in real life, those are all things that might help. If you do it badly, it could also hurt - she might take you for a conceited blowhard. There's a lot of things to think about and for some people and some situations, a single roll is absolutely fine - but unless you resolve combat that way I
reject the idea that you think EVERYTHING should be resolved that way.
Now, seducing barmaids hasn't been a major feature of games that I've been in as either the GM or a player. But it is something I know some people are interested in. And there are other ways you could approach it. Some GMs don't give you a roll unless they think you've done some reasonable amount of role-play effort. You don't 'just roll Diplomacy'. First you talk in character and say what you're trying to say. Based on what you say they'll give you a roll, maybe with a benefit. That's a fine way of approaching things and one that the Den generally disagrees with. I'm sure there are folks there who struggle with interpersonal relations and it's quite possible that they're playing a character with a silver tongue that they simply can't do justice when attempting to role-play, but feel that their character should succeed or fail based on the character's abilities, not the players. I can respect that too.
For rules to have value they have to contribute to the fun of the experience, and that can be subjective. It's okay that some people like a more 'rules-heavy' game than others - different strokes for different folks - but whether you're playing rules-heavy or rules-lite, the game you paid money for is a collection of rules and it's worth talking about whether they work or not.
This is a thread nominally originally about ACKs. One of the rules there is about the preponderance of locations of Elemental Power. That's a rule that people can point out and say 'it does
this but it says it's supposed to do
that. That's where I enjoy discussions on the Den the most. They'll break down how the rule works
as written, often discuss the
intent and then talk about how to write a rule that actually does what you think it does. The Den can get a little fixated on the
as written part and get angry when you're going to change it, but you'll find Nerd Rage EVERYWHERE on the internet, including here. Most people don't care that you change rules but they will bash you for changing it in ways that don't do what you say you want to. For example, Paizo gets a lot of hate for making casters more powerful when they were trying to 'fix' the problems of 3.5 with the Pathfinder (3.75) release.
Anyone who has read my games know that I'm no fan of "mother-may-I" type mechanics. My game gives you rules for as much as I can think of. But 2,000 years of organized practice of law has found that there are no systems of adjudication that do not require a human adjudicator's involvement. The only argument is over how the adjudicator should be involved.
Start with precedent: A precedent is a legal ruling on a particular issue that can be used to help decide subsequent questions of law with similar issues. For instance, if a court is asked to decide whether a semiautomatic pistol is a legitimate weapon of self-defense, a previous ruling that revolvers were legitimate weapons of self-defense would be precedent. If the precedent is followed, it is called "binding." If the precedent is ignored, the new case is said to be "distinguished" from the old by certain new facts. For instance, the court might distinguish pistols from revolvers by pointing out that their ammunition capacity is much greater.
What does this have to do with role-playing games? One of the foundational role of the gamemaster is that of Judge, responsible for "ruling on grey areas not covered by the rules." The process of ruling on grey areas creates precedent - or what we call "house rules". How much precedent is going to matter will depend on whether your game is a "common law" or "civil law" game.
"Common law" originated in Old England as a history of legal rules created by judges when deciding disputes. The judges began with the traditional customs of how matters had been handled, and then over time built up a body of law based on those past precedents. Common law generally has little or no basis in anything written. The main disadvantage of a common law system is that there is no written "code" that citizens can consult to understand the laws of the land. The main advantage is its flexible capacity for growth and adaptation.
On the other hand, "civil law" originated in the Roman Empire as a collection or code of statutes created by legislatures. Judges interpret the statutes, but their rulings are not said to create law. The main disadvantage of a civil law system is that citizens can't depend on different judges to interpret the law the same way each time there's a case. The main advantage is that the laws tend to be more detailed and specific.
Faced with a question, a purely common-law court will look up what the court said last time it was confronted by a similar question. Meanwhile, a purely civil law court will look up what the most relevant statute says about the question and interpret it as it thinks best. Since each system has weaknesses, most legal systems today use a mix of both civil and common law, with legislators creating the overall framework of statutes, while judges fill in the gaps using common law methods based on precedent. Under this system, citizens can look at statutes to learn the baseline of the law, and then refer to past cases to understand how judges have previously ruled.
The analogy to a gamemaster in a tabletop game should, I hope, be clear. The game designer is the legislator; the game rules are the civil law; the citizens are the players; and the decisions of the gamemaster about grey areas in the rules are the common law.
A gamemaster running a rules-light game will end up acting mostly like a common law judge, forced to make rulings about particular situations without written statutes. In this case, precedent matters a lot. Fairness demands precedent. To prove this point, let's illustrate what happens when precedent is ignored. Imagine that you are running Basic Fantasy, a rules light game modeled after the classic 1980s editions of Basic Dungeons & Dragons. During a desperate retreat, Marcus, the party's fighter, wants to jump across a 15' chasm to safety. "Fighters jumping across chasms" is not covered by the rules. You decide that this is a test of heroic agility best resolved with an ability check against Dexterity. If Marcus rolls less than his Dexterity he will succeed; if not he will fail and plummet to his death. Marcus rolls a 9, less than his Dexterity of 12, and succeeds.
Next round, Quintus, the magic-user, decides he too wants to escape across the chasm. You again consult your rulebook and note that "magic-users jumping across chasms" is not covered by the rules. You decide that this is clearly a test of herculean strength, and demand an ability check against Strength. Quintus, with a Strength of 7, fails the roll, and his player demands to know why Marcus got to roll against Dexterity but he had to roll against Strength for the same task.
What can you say to this criticism? That you're the GM, your word is law, and it's your right to rule however you like on situations not covered by the rules? That there is no written rule stating which attribute is to be used in resolving the success of jumps, so this is completely fair? You can certainly say that, but it's unlikely to persuade the player of poor dead Quintus.
Let's now imagine that a couple weeks have passed, and the party must now, once again, jump across this chasm. You once again check the rules and again see no game mechanic specifying the chances of success. You announce that each character has a 2 in 6 chance of falling in, but otherwise they jump across successfully. Morne, who has both 18 Dexterity and Strength, demands to know why he now has a 33% chance of falling in, and not the 10% chance he'd have if you stuck with either of your two past rulings. You shrug. "There's no rule that says it has to be an ability check," you say.
It should be obvious that this is not a healthy manner in which to run a game. A game run like this is a game that lacks fairness, common sense, and verisimilitude. Yet it's very common when playing a rules-light game to experience this sort of arbitrary decision-making on the part of the gamemaster out of an insistence that "there aren't really any rules!" This attitude derives from a failure to recognize that, just like a common law judge creates law when he decides a case, a gamemaster creates rules when he makes rulings. Fairness to the players demands that the rules for any given situation be the same for each player in that situation.
It's common to call games like OD&D, which heavily depend on the GM's judgment calls, rules-light games, in contrast to rules-heavy games like Pathfinder, which provide exhaustive mechanics. But with our deeper understanding of common law and civil law, we can see that a gamemaster's ruling is functionally a law, just like a game designer's rule is a law. Every rules-light game will over time become heavier with rules as its judge makes decisions about how things work. Rules-light and rules-heavy are only descriptive of the starting state of the game. The only question is how much the designer has left to the GM or the legislature has left to the judge.
This being the case, when you are running a long-term campaign, you should remember that every time you issue a ruling, you have added to the "common law" of the game design. You should write down your rulings, and apply them again to similar situations in the future - or distinguish them from prior rulings to explain why they aren't being applied. The very best gamemasters do this so consistently that over time that their long-running campaigns begin to develop an entire body of house rules covering the many special situations that have arisen in their campaign. Sometimes an entire new RPG develops.
That's how my own body of D&D jurisprudence, developed over hundreds of sessions of Classic D&D, ultimately became the Adventurer Conqueror King System. Of course, my efforts with ACKS are nothing compared to the old masters. After all, the entire corpus of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is just Gary Gygax and crew's common law rulings on Original Dungeons & Dragons. Even more impressive, the legendary skill-based RPG Runequest began as a set of house-rules for D&D! (The transitional D&D-to-Runequest house rules were called the Perrin Conventions, named for Runequest's lead designer Steve Perrin.)
Quote from: amacris;1111830Anyone who has read my games know that I'm no fan of "mother-may-I" type mechanics. My game gives you rules for as much as I can think of. But 2,000 years of organized practice of law has found that there are no systems of adjudication that do not require a human adjudicator's involvement. The only argument is over how the adjudicator should be involved.
Start with precedent: A precedent is a legal ruling on a particular issue that can be used to help decide subsequent questions of law with similar issues. For instance, if a court is asked to decide whether a semiautomatic pistol is a legitimate weapon of self-defense, a previous ruling that revolvers were legitimate weapons of self-defense would be precedent. If the precedent is followed, it is called "binding." If the precedent is ignored, the new case is said to be "distinguished" from the old by certain new facts. For instance, the court might distinguish pistols from revolvers by pointing out that their ammunition capacity is much greater.
What does this have to do with role-playing games? One of the foundational role of the gamemaster is that of Judge, responsible for "ruling on grey areas not covered by the rules." The process of ruling on grey areas creates precedent - or what we call "house rules". How much precedent is going to matter will depend on whether your game is a "common law" or "civil law" game.
"Common law" originated in Old England as a history of legal rules created by judges when deciding disputes. The judges began with the traditional customs of how matters had been handled, and then over time built up a body of law based on those past precedents. Common law generally has little or no basis in anything written. The main disadvantage of a common law system is that there is no written "code" that citizens can consult to understand the laws of the land. The main advantage is its flexible capacity for growth and adaptation.
On the other hand, "civil law" originated in the Roman Empire as a collection or code of statutes created by legislatures. Judges interpret the statutes, but their rulings are not said to create law. The main disadvantage of a civil law system is that citizens can't depend on different judges to interpret the law the same way each time there's a case. The main advantage is that the laws tend to be more detailed and specific.
Faced with a question, a purely common-law court will look up what the court said last time it was confronted by a similar question. Meanwhile, a purely civil law court will look up what the most relevant statute says about the question and interpret it as it thinks best. Since each system has weaknesses, most legal systems today use a mix of both civil and common law, with legislators creating the overall framework of statutes, while judges fill in the gaps using common law methods based on precedent. Under this system, citizens can look at statutes to learn the baseline of the law, and then refer to past cases to understand how judges have previously ruled.
The analogy to a gamemaster in a tabletop game should, I hope, be clear. The game designer is the legislator; the game rules are the civil law; the citizens are the players; and the decisions of the gamemaster about grey areas in the rules are the common law.
A gamemaster running a rules-light game will end up acting mostly like a common law judge, forced to make rulings about particular situations without written statutes. In this case, precedent matters a lot. Fairness demands precedent. To prove this point, let's illustrate what happens when precedent is ignored. Imagine that you are running Basic Fantasy, a rules light game modeled after the classic 1980s editions of Basic Dungeons & Dragons. During a desperate retreat, Marcus, the party's fighter, wants to jump across a 15' chasm to safety. "Fighters jumping across chasms" is not covered by the rules. You decide that this is a test of heroic agility best resolved with an ability check against Dexterity. If Marcus rolls less than his Dexterity he will succeed; if not he will fail and plummet to his death. Marcus rolls a 9, less than his Dexterity of 12, and succeeds.
Next round, Quintus, the magic-user, decides he too wants to escape across the chasm. You again consult your rulebook and note that "magic-users jumping across chasms" is not covered by the rules. You decide that this is clearly a test of herculean strength, and demand an ability check against Strength. Quintus, with a Strength of 7, fails the roll, and his player demands to know why Marcus got to roll against Dexterity but he had to roll against Strength for the same task.
What can you say to this criticism? That you're the GM, your word is law, and it's your right to rule however you like on situations not covered by the rules? That there is no written rule stating which attribute is to be used in resolving the success of jumps, so this is completely fair? You can certainly say that, but it's unlikely to persuade the player of poor dead Quintus.
Let's now imagine that a couple weeks have passed, and the party must now, once again, jump across this chasm. You once again check the rules and again see no game mechanic specifying the chances of success. You announce that each character has a 2 in 6 chance of falling in, but otherwise they jump across successfully. Morne, who has both 18 Dexterity and Strength, demands to know why he now has a 33% chance of falling in, and not the 10% chance he'd have if you stuck with either of your two past rulings. You shrug. "There's no rule that says it has to be an ability check," you say.
It should be obvious that this is not a healthy manner in which to run a game. A game run like this is a game that lacks fairness, common sense, and verisimilitude. Yet it's very common when playing a rules-light game to experience this sort of arbitrary decision-making on the part of the gamemaster out of an insistence that "there aren't really any rules!" This attitude derives from a failure to recognize that, just like a common law judge creates law when he decides a case, a gamemaster creates rules when he makes rulings. Fairness to the players demands that the rules for any given situation be the same for each player in that situation.
It's common to call games like OD&D, which heavily depend on the GM's judgment calls, rules-light games, in contrast to rules-heavy games like Pathfinder, which provide exhaustive mechanics. But with our deeper understanding of common law and civil law, we can see that a gamemaster's ruling is functionally a law, just like a game designer's rule is a law. Every rules-light game will over time become heavier with rules as its judge makes decisions about how things work. Rules-light and rules-heavy are only descriptive of the starting state of the game. The only question is how much the designer has left to the GM or the legislature has left to the judge.
This being the case, when you are running a long-term campaign, you should remember that every time you issue a ruling, you have added to the "common law" of the game design. You should write down your rulings, and apply them again to similar situations in the future - or distinguish them from prior rulings to explain why they aren't being applied. The very best gamemasters do this so consistently that over time that their long-running campaigns begin to develop an entire body of house rules covering the many special situations that have arisen in their campaign. Sometimes an entire new RPG develops.
That's how my own body of D&D jurisprudence, developed over hundreds of sessions of Classic D&D, ultimately became the Adventurer Conqueror King System. Of course, my efforts with ACKS are nothing compared to the old masters. After all, the entire corpus of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is just Gary Gygax and crew's common law rulings on Original Dungeons & Dragons. Even more impressive, the legendary skill-based RPG Runequest began as a set of house-rules for D&D! (The transitional D&D-to-Runequest house rules were called the Perrin Conventions, named for Runequest's lead designer Steve Perrin.)
And with this the argument should be over. The GM is Crom and his word is law, but he's bound by fairness and precedent. Thus we don't need rules that should be better than the GM.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111833Thus we don't need rules that should be better than the GM.
Then why the ever-loving
fuck should I give any TTRPG company money.
Or is Crom too fucking stupid to understand economics?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;11117295.- The rules should be better than a GM making things up
The rules can be better than a fledgling GM (Maybe)
The rules can be better than a shitty GM (Almost always)
The rules can be better than a mediocre GM (Sometimes)
The rules can't be better than a good GM (Almost never)
The rules can never be better than a great GM
From experience the rules can never be better than a bad DM because a bad DM can ruin anything. This is something we try to hammer into the thick skulls of board game designers too when they start obsessing over making rules to stop players from cheating, or being the "leader" or working together or whatever bugaboo they are obsessing over this time. It does not matter how many rules you stuff the game with. It is not going to stop poor behavior or flat out bad behavior.
Back to RPGs. Mythic spends all of maybee a paragraph in the whole book on cheating. And it boils down to "dont cheat" with some examples of gaming the system. And finishes with essentially "If you are going to cheat at a solo game then why even bother playing?".
Back on topic. Wasn't the Den one of the spin off cults from the Forge and GNS "theory"?
Quote from: Mistwell;1111743At first it meant "They will never come out with 5e". Then when it came out, the argument (without any glimmer of an admission or even acknowledgement that they were previously wrong) morphed into "It's just a bare skeleton crew at WOTC pretending to produce D&D but really it's just a few books as a placeholder so they maintain the intellectual property and brand rights but D&D is really dead."
And then when it started to sell extraordinarily well, the deep denial set in. Any way to spin good sales news as neutral or bad was taken. And if it was undeniable evidence, they just called it outright a lie. A lot of "Yeah they said 4e was selling well too, which was a lie, so obviously this must be a lie as well" type responses. When you point to FIVE YEARS of the PHB being in the top 100 best seller list on Amazon you hear claims like "That's just one book" and "That's just discounted books on line and not game stores, and they wouldn't be blowing it out at discount online if it were really selling well" (as if that's how Amazon works).
And then the conversation turns back to slower release schedule, and the amount of fluff being higher than the amount of crunch in some books, and the decrease in the number of expansion books. And all this, in their warped conspiracy-laden minds, is "proof" 5e is just a placeholder edition and somehow not a real edition of D&D which at this point is just a brand and not a real game anymore.
It's a level of genuine insanity. It's rare you see this kind of denial of reality in this day and age.
This is doppelganger Mist making perfect sense again. Truly the End Times are nigh. :D
So these are the nuts that some 4e cultists (not actual 4e players) over on BGG keep trotting out as 'proof' 5e is dead. Or never existed at the far end of the loony claims. I just assumed it was more of the same ol same ol.
Quote from: Mistwell;1111768I do follow it, and I do see that kind of thing about politics, but I think it's unusual to see it about something which isn't politics or religion.
Around the time of the Forge and Pundit's Swine (storygamers) that changed as more and more of these nuts treat RPGs like a religion. Or as I've noted before. Like a fetish. And use all the tactics of both when co-opting or attacking other styles of play.
Quote from: Omega;1111840Wasn't the Den one of the spin off cults from the Forge and GNS "theory"?
I don't believe so, no. I'm not sure they take GNS seriously, either: haven't seen it mentioned over there, that I can recall.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1111836Then why the ever-loving fuck should I give any TTRPG company money.
Or is Crom too fucking stupid to understand economics?
You should do with your money whatever you like, if you need a game designer to tell you what is or not allowed go ahead. Doesn't mean we Need to give anybody money, or are you too stupid to understand capitalism?
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1111836Then why the ever-loving fuck should I give any TTRPG company money.
Or is Crom too fucking stupid to understand economics?
That's my point as well. If they reject rules, why buy new product? If people here want to play a LARP, then they should go for it. But the "rulingz not rulez" crowd here don't seem to love 3e. And my response is:
"Why not, bitches?! Rulings not rules, right?" :rolleyes:
In other words, this group secretly cares about the rules for rpgs quite a bit, but they have trouble admitting it. They're more likely to change shit for their campaigns, and they're more prone to authoritarianism and dick-waving in their DMing style.....but they still do secretly care about the rules. In any case, my 5e crafting thread
cured me of ever using the word, "rules" again....in regard to tabletop rpgs. If I have to read another
"RULINGSZ NOT RULESZ!!!!11" sperg-out, I'll melt.
So now I'll just use the term,
"game mechanics", to prevent that sperg-out from ever happening again. :cool:
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1111856That's my point as well. If they reject rules, why buy new product? If people here want to play a LARP, then they should go for it. But the "rulingz not rulez" crowd here don't seem to love 3e. And my response is:
"Why not, bitches?! Rulings not rules, right?" :rolleyes:
In other words, this group secretly cares about the rules for rpgs quite a bit, but they have trouble admitting it. They're more likely to change shit for their campaigns, and they're more prone to authoritarianism and dick-waving in their DMing style.....but they still do secretly care about the rules. In any case, my 5e crafting thread cured me of ever using the word, "rules" again....in regard to tabletop rpgs. If I have to read another "RULINGSZ NOT RULESZ!!!!11" sperg-out, I'll melt.
So now I'll just use the term, "game mechanics", to prevent that sperg-out from ever happening again. :cool:
Greetings!
acrificial Lamb, hold on there a moment. I think more than a few members have agreed with most of your basic premise that the 5E crafting rules and magic item system is not perfect, and in fact is very basic and leaves much to be desired. At the same time, many have also maintained that *Rulingz, not Rulesz" as you say is the best solution. I have said that myself. If there are shitty rules, broken, fucked up sub-systems, or whatever details that you don't like, the DM has the authority and duty to change whatever they like.
I also am not impressed with the 5E Crafting and Magic Economy system, and yes, I have changed them to better suit my campaign. Many members here have done the same, some of which for the same reasons that you decribe and critique the 5E crafting and magic economy system.
Rulingsz Not Rulesz! is a crucial concept for any and all DM's to embrace. 5E is not a perfect system, and even back in the day with AD&D, we changed and modified the official game system nine ways to Sunday. 5E nowadays is no different.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: amacris;1111830Anyone who has read my games know that I'm no fan of "mother-may-I" type mechanics. My game gives you rules for as much as I can think of. But 2,000 years of organized practice of law has found that there are no systems of adjudication that do not require a human adjudicator's involvement. The only argument is over how the adjudicator should be involved.
Start with precedent: A precedent is a legal ruling on a particular issue that can be used to help decide subsequent questions of law with similar issues. For instance, if a court is asked to decide whether a semiautomatic pistol is a legitimate weapon of self-defense, a previous ruling that revolvers were legitimate weapons of self-defense would be precedent. If the precedent is followed, it is called "binding." If the precedent is ignored, the new case is said to be "distinguished" from the old by certain new facts. For instance, the court might distinguish pistols from revolvers by pointing out that their ammunition capacity is much greater.
What does this have to do with role-playing games? One of the foundational role of the gamemaster is that of Judge, responsible for "ruling on grey areas not covered by the rules." The process of ruling on grey areas creates precedent - or what we call "house rules". How much precedent is going to matter will depend on whether your game is a "common law" or "civil law" game.
"Common law" originated in Old England as a history of legal rules created by judges when deciding disputes. The judges began with the traditional customs of how matters had been handled, and then over time built up a body of law based on those past precedents. Common law generally has little or no basis in anything written. The main disadvantage of a common law system is that there is no written "code" that citizens can consult to understand the laws of the land. The main advantage is its flexible capacity for growth and adaptation.
On the other hand, "civil law" originated in the Roman Empire as a collection or code of statutes created by legislatures. Judges interpret the statutes, but their rulings are not said to create law. The main disadvantage of a civil law system is that citizens can't depend on different judges to interpret the law the same way each time there's a case. The main advantage is that the laws tend to be more detailed and specific.
Faced with a question, a purely common-law court will look up what the court said last time it was confronted by a similar question. Meanwhile, a purely civil law court will look up what the most relevant statute says about the question and interpret it as it thinks best. Since each system has weaknesses, most legal systems today use a mix of both civil and common law, with legislators creating the overall framework of statutes, while judges fill in the gaps using common law methods based on precedent. Under this system, citizens can look at statutes to learn the baseline of the law, and then refer to past cases to understand how judges have previously ruled.
The analogy to a gamemaster in a tabletop game should, I hope, be clear. The game designer is the legislator; the game rules are the civil law; the citizens are the players; and the decisions of the gamemaster about grey areas in the rules are the common law.
A gamemaster running a rules-light game will end up acting mostly like a common law judge, forced to make rulings about particular situations without written statutes. In this case, precedent matters a lot. Fairness demands precedent. To prove this point, let's illustrate what happens when precedent is ignored. Imagine that you are running Basic Fantasy, a rules light game modeled after the classic 1980s editions of Basic Dungeons & Dragons. During a desperate retreat, Marcus, the party's fighter, wants to jump across a 15' chasm to safety. "Fighters jumping across chasms" is not covered by the rules. You decide that this is a test of heroic agility best resolved with an ability check against Dexterity. If Marcus rolls less than his Dexterity he will succeed; if not he will fail and plummet to his death. Marcus rolls a 9, less than his Dexterity of 12, and succeeds.
Next round, Quintus, the magic-user, decides he too wants to escape across the chasm. You again consult your rulebook and note that "magic-users jumping across chasms" is not covered by the rules. You decide that this is clearly a test of herculean strength, and demand an ability check against Strength. Quintus, with a Strength of 7, fails the roll, and his player demands to know why Marcus got to roll against Dexterity but he had to roll against Strength for the same task.
What can you say to this criticism? That you're the GM, your word is law, and it's your right to rule however you like on situations not covered by the rules? That there is no written rule stating which attribute is to be used in resolving the success of jumps, so this is completely fair? You can certainly say that, but it's unlikely to persuade the player of poor dead Quintus.
Let's now imagine that a couple weeks have passed, and the party must now, once again, jump across this chasm. You once again check the rules and again see no game mechanic specifying the chances of success. You announce that each character has a 2 in 6 chance of falling in, but otherwise they jump across successfully. Morne, who has both 18 Dexterity and Strength, demands to know why he now has a 33% chance of falling in, and not the 10% chance he'd have if you stuck with either of your two past rulings. You shrug. "There's no rule that says it has to be an ability check," you say.
It should be obvious that this is not a healthy manner in which to run a game. A game run like this is a game that lacks fairness, common sense, and verisimilitude. Yet it's very common when playing a rules-light game to experience this sort of arbitrary decision-making on the part of the gamemaster out of an insistence that "there aren't really any rules!" This attitude derives from a failure to recognize that, just like a common law judge creates law when he decides a case, a gamemaster creates rules when he makes rulings. Fairness to the players demands that the rules for any given situation be the same for each player in that situation.
It's common to call games like OD&D, which heavily depend on the GM's judgment calls, rules-light games, in contrast to rules-heavy games like Pathfinder, which provide exhaustive mechanics. But with our deeper understanding of common law and civil law, we can see that a gamemaster's ruling is functionally a law, just like a game designer's rule is a law. Every rules-light game will over time become heavier with rules as its judge makes decisions about how things work. Rules-light and rules-heavy are only descriptive of the starting state of the game. The only question is how much the designer has left to the GM or the legislature has left to the judge.
This being the case, when you are running a long-term campaign, you should remember that every time you issue a ruling, you have added to the "common law" of the game design. You should write down your rulings, and apply them again to similar situations in the future - or distinguish them from prior rulings to explain why they aren't being applied. The very best gamemasters do this so consistently that over time that their long-running campaigns begin to develop an entire body of house rules covering the many special situations that have arisen in their campaign. Sometimes an entire new RPG develops.
That's how my own body of D&D jurisprudence, developed over hundreds of sessions of Classic D&D, ultimately became the Adventurer Conqueror King System. Of course, my efforts with ACKS are nothing compared to the old masters. After all, the entire corpus of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is just Gary Gygax and crew's common law rulings on Original Dungeons & Dragons. Even more impressive, the legendary skill-based RPG Runequest began as a set of house-rules for D&D! (The transitional D&D-to-Runequest house rules were called the Perrin Conventions, named for Runequest's lead designer Steve Perrin.)
If you wrote a book about the jurisprudence of RPGs, I would read it and buy copies for all my friends.
Fuck it, I'm quoting the whole post because it was awesome and deserves to be quoted again.
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111917Fuck it, I'm quoting the whole post because it was awesome and deserves to be quoted again.
Please do not.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111846You should do with your money whatever you like, if you need a game designer to tell you what is or not allowed go ahead. Doesn't mean we Need to give anybody money, or are you too stupid to understand capitalism?
So you've never bought a TTRPG book, ever, then.
Either that, or you're completely full of shit.
I wonder which it could possibly be...
Quote from: SHARK;1111877Greetings!
acrificial Lamb, hold on there a moment. I think more than a few members have agreed with most of your basic premise that the 5E crafting rules and magic item system is not perfect, and in fact is very basic and leaves much to be desired. At the same time, many have also maintained that *Rulingz, not Rulesz" as you say is the best solution. I have said that myself. If there are shitty rules, broken, fucked up sub-systems, or whatever details that you don't like, the DM has the authority and duty to change whatever they like.
I also am not impressed with the 5E Crafting and Magic Economy system, and yes, I have changed them to better suit my campaign. Many members here have done the same, some of which for the same reasons that you decribe and critique the 5E crafting and magic economy system.
Rulingsz Not Rulesz! is a crucial concept for any and all DM's to embrace. 5E is not a perfect system, and even back in the day with AD&D, we changed and modified the official game system nine ways to Sunday. 5E nowadays is no different.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I'm fine with people changing game rules, if they wish to do so. No objection there. In fact, it is sometimes even necessary to change rules to fit our individual campaigns.....but I believe that the grognards still care about game rules more than they let on. If they didn't care about the rules, then they wouldn't favor one rules set over another. Granted, I'm being a little obnoxious about this, but I hate it when the grogs defend rules that are poorly written and make no logical sense.....and then defend these crappy rules with....
"Rulingsz Not Rulesz!" That just drives me nuts. :cool:
That mantra is not a legitimate justification for poorly written game mechanics. That's why I created the 5e crafting thread. I did that to break down the 5e crafting system, examine it, tear it to pieces, and then take it to its logical conclusions. Admittedly, I missed a couple details in that thread.....but I think that my overall points were solid.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1111922So you've never bought a TTRPG book, ever, then.
Either that, or you're completely full of shit.
I wonder which it could possibly be...
You do not understand capitalism. I don't NEED to buy any TTRPG book, if I buy them is because I want to. And besides the rules there's other stuff inthere, like settings, adventures, etc things I can strip from there to use in my campaign.
Needs = Food, Clothes, Shelter, Medicine
Wants = Entertainment, travel, finer clothes/food, bigger more comfortable shelter.
When you use a corpus of rules, especially a published rule set, you can provide the book(s) to your players and say 'here are the rules'. Your players can spend as much or as little time as they like learning the rules. Knowing the rules can make it easier for players to explain what they want to do in a way that the game handles. If a player wants to make a flying leap to land a kick on the boss then spin around and make attacks on all of the henchman nearby (as they may have seen in a movie) the rules explain that they can do that, but it requires multiple actions over several rounds.
Every time you change or modify the rules, you have to spend some non-zero amount of effort tracking and communicating those changes.
When a rule set requires massive changes to function, it requires significant effort to track and communicate those changes.
As a consumer of RPGs, it is in your interest to help publishers identify areas in the rules that are routinely disregarded by significant numbers of groups (maybe even a majority). Rules are disregarded for several reasons - the first and most glaring is that they produce bad results. The second and often overlooked is that they are too complicated. A lot of groups won't even realize that they're not using the rules presented in the rule set if they've 'simplified' things. The third and least problematic is when a particular flavor is desired. Lots of 'tinkering' is normal, and many games publish alternate rules to change some of the core assumptions.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1111836Then why the ever-loving fuck should I give any TTRPG company money.
Or is Crom too fucking stupid to understand economics?
Why do YOU give any TTRPG company money? What are YOU looking to buy?
Personally, I look for rules that stay out my way and buy stuff mostly because of settings, but every hobbyist has their own reasons for buying new RPGs. I'm very "Rulingz not Rulez" and I'm totally an authoritarian Viking Hat GM because it works for me and my players.
And if Crom was into economics, Conan would have been an accountant. Very different series of novels.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1111933Granted, I'm being a little obnoxious about this, but I hate it when the grogs defend rules that are poorly written and make no logical sense.....and then defend these crappy rules with...."Rulingsz Not Rulesz!"
How dare you! The AD&D 1e grappling rules were perfect!! :)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1111949How dare you! The AD&D 1e grappling rules were perfect!! :)
And the pummeling rules were...something else.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1111966And the pummeling rules were...something else.
Those were double perfect! :)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1111949And if Crom was into economics, Conan would have been an accountant. Very different series of novels.
I would like to subscribe to your series of light novels on Kindle Unlimited
Quote from: Spinachcat;1111970Those were double perfect! :)
The grappling and pummeling rules were probably the best goddamn part of the game. Other than the random city encounters with prostitutes chart. And maybe the psionic attacks.
If you could just keep those three things, and chuck the rest, you've got a real contender.
Well actually you'd need to keep the section on converting Boot Hill and Gamma World characters too, to have a fully functional and balanced game system.
Yancy, you're a very bad person!!! :D Welcome aboard!
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1111938Needs = Food, Clothes, Shelter, Medicine
Wants = Entertainment, travel, finer clothes/food, bigger more comfortable shelter.
Jesus wept you have not seen the hysteronics of some board gamers over on BGG about how X company is gouging them. MAKING them buy a second copy of the game because they NEEEEEEEEEEEED some
extra cards that absolutely 1billion% are vital to their ever being able to play the game.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1111949How dare you! The AD&D 1e grappling rules were perfect!! :)
Quote from: HappyDaze;1111966And the pummeling rules were...something else.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1111970Those were double perfect! :)
Quote from: yancy;1112095The grappling and pummeling rules were probably the best goddamn part of the game.
I legit love the core of the DMG non-lethal combat system, stripping away only the "roll a random-ish modifier and slow down the game to make a decision to on whether to use it on the success chance or the damage result". Without that fiddly bit, it's just a cool little d% mechanic that I suspect a lot of people would like if it were stealth-republished as a BFRPG table.
Overall a great post. Sorry for the belated reply I had internet issues over the weekend.
Quote from: amacris;1111830Anyone who has read my games know that I'm no fan of "mother-may-I" type mechanics. My game gives you rules for as much as I can think of. But 2,000 years of organized practice of law has found that there are no systems of adjudication that do not require a human adjudicator's involvement. The only argument is over how the adjudicator should be involved.
Start with precedent:
...
On the other hand, "civil law" originated
Sound good as a summary of two different approaches of the adjudication process. I think what not being addressed is why the process of adjudication exist for tabletop roleplaying exists. Which has an impact on the mix of "common law" "civil law" techniques a referee uses as their personal style.
My opinion that the foundation is pretending to be a character having adventures in a setting. This is what makes RPGs different from board or war games. In boardgames the point is to play the game by the rules. What makes the game interesting as entertainment is the interplay of the players as defined by the rules.
In contrast RPGs are defined by the setting of the campaign. The rules of a wargame is a tool used as an aide to reduce what the players try to do as their characters into a series of procedures and dice rolls. But what a character can and can't do is described by the setting and what been described about their character within that setting.
Boardgames necessitates a "civil law" approach because that is the point of using them as a leisure activity. To play the game, like Settlers of Catan, Chess, etc by it rules.
Wargames predate RPGs but like RPGs wargames are distinguished from boardgame in that they have as their foundation a setting. Typically one involving the many wars and battle that mankind has fought. On in the case of science fiction or fantasy, battles that are imagined.
In general wargames are played by the rules, but where a boardgame is judged by the entertainment values of the rule design alone, wargames are also judge on how well they reflect the reality of the setting. Until the rise of the Euro-games the trend in wargames was to reflect more and more details of the setting within the rules. Both historical and more fantastic like Battletech and the Warhammer series (fantasy/40k).
The historicals declined and the fantastic (Battletech/Warhammer) became the dominant forms of wargaming by the late 80s. And while the fantastic wargames had rich setting detail it was usually after the details were defined in the rules. The rules became only source of "truth" about the Battletech and Warhammer settings.
This focus on the setting is why RPGs developed out of wargames. Why the intermediate step were scenarios and campaigns involving a referee and/or expansive scenarios compared the average wargame. By focusing on individual characters, by not restricting what the characters are allowed to do within the setting, RPGs manage to even more expansive than the above wargames.
Unlike boardgames, this nesseciates a "common law" approach as no set of rules can be written that could encapsulate everything a player could try as their character.
However as the hobby and industry developed RPG system became more detailed and comprehensive. Especially system that either were designed or evolved into "generic" system capable of being utilized for different genres and radically different settings. The same trend that afflicted wargames also started in RPGs. System became more and more detailed. Like the fantastic wargames, the rules started be treated as the only source of "truth" about the genre or setting the rules represented.
The rise of Vampire and the World of Darkness style RPGs acted as a counterpoint to this trend. AD&D 2e was a mixed bag because of TSR's focus on multiple setting. But for RPGs when D&D 3.0 was released the dominant view is that what character can and can't do is defined by the rules became entrenched. The Euro-games reinforced this because the source of their appeal was the clever designs they embodied that turned out to be a lot of fun to play. But often the setting of the game was just window dressing for these games.
All of this reinforced the "civil law" approach towards refereeing RPGs. That if something wasn't covered by the system then it was a inherent flaw in the system and new "statutes" i.e. rules needed to be codified to cover it.
As for the OSR's common law approach. I think likewise the novelty of "rulings not rules" overshadowed why referee need to make any type of ruling in the first place. Too many advocates just assume that many will get that you decide things by how the genre or setting operates. Thus leaving more than a few who try this unhappy because they feel like or their players feel like the ruling are inconsistent. Not when the same situation arises but when related situations are ruled differently.
I know for me, for decades I gravitated to RPGs like the Hero System, and GURPS because of the wealth the detail they possessed. That wasn't the sole reason, another was these system make it easy for me to connect their mechanics to just about anything players could reasonably do as their characters.
I never disliked D&D, but found the above better suited for my style of refereeing. That is until I read Matt Finch's Old School Primer. It wasn't the specifics that got me excited but the realization that I could leverage my life experience and knowledge about the history of our hobby to use the classic D&D rules to run my campaigns the same way I did with GURPS and the Hero System. I.e. the players doing the same things for the same reasons while having fun. Just with a different set of mechanics.
Later on, I realized that the consistency of my now "common law" rulings was shaped by the details of the settings I used. Hence my position now that irregardless whether one uses a civil law, common-law or hybrid approach, the foundation of any ruling is not the system of the game, but the setting of the campaign. With the corollary that because setting potentially represent entire worlds no system either designed or grown through precedent can encompass all that a player can do as their character within the campaign. That a pure civil law approach is not feasible in a RPG campaign.
Quote from: amacris;1111830That's how my own body of D&D jurisprudence, developed over hundreds of sessions of Classic D&D, ultimately became the Adventurer Conqueror King System. Of course, my efforts with ACKS are nothing compared to the old masters. After all, the entire corpus of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is just Gary Gygax and crew's common law rulings on Original Dungeons & Dragons. Even more impressive, the legendary skill-based RPG Runequest began as a set of house-rules for D&D! (The transitional D&D-to-Runequest house rules were called the Perrin Conventions, named for Runequest's lead designer Steve Perrin.)
I respect what you did with ACKS far more than I do than what Gygax did with AD&D 1st edition as far as being a RPG arising out of a common law approach. For me the ultimate example of the common law approach to design is OD&D itself.
Doesn't mean I dislike AD&D, but I respect it more for Gygax's design (and writing style) rather than a corpus of common law rulings. There are too many anecdotes both from back in the day and later that what Gygax used in his sessions was not the AD&D rulebooks. But rather his own continuation of OD&D. Likewise there are too many antecdotes of various AD&D subsystem being thrown in because Gygax thought it was a good idea when he was writing the books. Not because it was something he first tried in his campaign.
But as a designed RPG, AD&D 1st is overall is brilliant. However it's strengths are not in its mechanics. Rather than then in its list of stuff for D&D (classes, monsters, spells, etc), referee's advice, and campaign aides (random tables). Much of AD&D's mechanics are either incompressible or inconsistent especially the crucial sections on combat.
Likewise I respect Runequest as being a result of a common law process as well. And a brilliant merger of two designer's work, Perrin on mechanics, and Stafford on setting.
Quote from: EOTB;1112193I legit love the core of the DMG non-lethal combat system, stripping away only the "roll a random-ish modifier and slow down the game to make a decision to on whether to use it on the success chance or the damage result". Without that fiddly bit, it's just a cool little d% mechanic that I suspect a lot of people would like if it were stealth-republished as a BFRPG table.
a) You are insano in the braino.
b) I am intrigued by your love for the core of the DMG non-lethal system. I know you actually play AD&D 1e and you're not new to the system either so I oddly suspect you're not joking.
c) Please start a thread about the system and what you find appealing and how you use the system in actual play. Also, I want to hear how you have altered the system. I am totally open to the idea that I've skipped over something cool because I didn't grok it properly.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1112395a) You are insano in the braino.
b) ... I oddly suspect you're not joking.
Guilty on both counts. Let me think about a proper persuasive essay on why I find it to run pretty easy at the table, and why the design of it works really well in my experience.
Of all the mechanics in AD&D, this is one where Gygax's writing style works against him/it really hard. The 1E weapon speed rule is the other. Both are actually pretty simple once you strip all his jargon out (WS being an if/then rule instead of an always-on rule...some people don't like if/then rules even when clearly written). I've toyed with the idea of simply rewriting them and putting it in a blog post for a while.
I wasn't lying about the grappling and pummeling rules, it's been years since I looked at them, but at the time I honest-to-God liked them better than the regular combat system :/
Wasn't lying about the random prostitute encounters chart either. Psionics, I might have been stretching it a little.
Quote from: estar;1112317I respect what you did with ACKS far more than I do than what Gygax did with AD&D 1st edition as far as being a RPG arising out of a common law approach. For me the ultimate example of the common law approach to design is OD&D itself.
Doesn't mean I dislike AD&D, but I respect it more for Gygax's design (and writing style) rather than a corpus of common law rulings. There are too many anecdotes both from back in the day and later that what Gygax used in his sessions was not the AD&D rulebooks. But rather his own continuation of OD&D. Likewise there are too many antecdotes of various AD&D subsystem being thrown in because Gygax thought it was a good idea when he was writing the books. Not because it was something he first tried in his campaign.
But as a designed RPG, AD&D 1st is overall is brilliant. However it's strengths are not in its mechanics. Rather than then in its list of stuff for D&D (classes, monsters, spells, etc), referee's advice, and campaign aides (random tables). Much of AD&D's mechanics are either incompressible or inconsistent especially the crucial sections on combat.
Likewise I respect Runequest as being a result of a common law process as well. And a brilliant merger of two designer's work, Perrin on mechanics, and Stafford on setting.
Thanks for the kind words. I agree with your entire elaboration of common and civil law in your early post. Really well said.
My copy of ACKs arrived today. Thanks for the tip Trollman!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3970[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Shasarak;1113090My copy of ACKs arrived today. Thanks for the tip Trollman!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3970[/ATTACH]
Today I learned that New Zealand isn't actually upside down, but Shasarak does tilt 90 degrees to the left. :p
Quote from: HappyDaze;1113103Today I learned that New Zealand isn't actually upside down, but Shasarak does tilt 90 degrees to the left. :p
So thats what happens when I take a photo with my left hand?
Quote from: Shasarak;1113137So thats what happens when I take a photo with my left hand?
Your accent changes. :p
Quote from: Shasarak;1113090My copy of ACKs arrived today. Thanks for the tip Trollman!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3970[/ATTACH]
Cool! I didn't have the patience to track down a hard copy, so I just grabbed the PDF myself. I wonder how many people got this game because of this whole thing? :D
Quote from: GeekEclectic;1113391Cool! I didn't have the patience to track down a hard copy, so I just grabbed the PDF myself. I wonder how many people got this game because of this whole thing? :D
Quite a few, I'd bet. And once they read it and play it for themselves, word will spread further. Because ACKS is a damn good game.
Hey folks, special offer to RPG Site members!
If you've picked up ACKS (now or in the past), private message me with your email address and I will send you a doc of the latest updates for the domain rules. These have been playtested for the last two years via my Patreon and are a major upgrade from the already-good rules in the core book.
I have the first edition version? How much has changed from that?
Quote from: Omega;1113426I have the first edition version? How much has changed from that?
Personally I consider it a major upgrade. The new system makes all income and expense relative to number of families, and allows the player to quickly calculate his per-family income (typically 5-7gp per family) and thus domain income is one button-push on a calculator. It eliminates the old rule that a lord gets 20% of his vassal's income in favor of a new tribute system. The 20% of vassal income method created recursive math forcing you to calculate 20% of 20% of 20% of 20% and so on. The new tribute system, while requiring a table look up when the tribute is first acquired, is much easier than the recursive system used previously, and "feels" more authentic to the setting and era. In general, we've been able to manage 8 player domains at the table without a spreadsheet in downtime in sessions without issue, which was simply impossible in the prior rules. The other major benefit has been to domains at war. With the Scutage-Troops-Call to Arms favors and duties, it becomes finally possible to establish a standing army. Players and Judges can simply worry about the gp cost of whatever realm they want to play without worrying about where the troops come from or where they need to be. This lets you play as Caesar or Alexander in a way you could not previously.
It's overall just better across the board.
I take it the "new" system being referred to is the most recent version already available on the Patreon?