Quote from: Settembrini;981502I would highly recommend the printed version. It is a well-crafted physical product.

Yes. Easily the most beautiful object in my game collection.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;981543Yes. Easily the most beautiful object in my game collection.

Any problems I may have with the actual contents aside, it -is- an absolutely wonderfully printed and lovely book.

Thanks for the answers, folks!

Edited to add utility: ASL = Advanced Squad Leader.

Quote from: Zak S;980010To repeat myself

"I meant the published LBBs, I assumed that was obvious."

The 3 original books--they had 3 classes: cleric, mu, fighter. Men and Magic page 6.

First: no, you don't get to claim that:). You were replying to my argument, which explicitly mentioned "the 'first' six core classes". "First" here is meant to restrict them to the classes as appearing in OD&D and later TSR editions. I'd never mentioned "the classes from the first corebooks only, excluding supplements".
Also, in all TSR editions that I'm familiar with, paladins were more powerful than Fighters (and you yourself confirmed it about an edition I'd skipped). In fact, they're also more powerful in 3e, due to getting some spellcasting, but the argument isn't concerned with that.
If you can point me to a TSR edition where paladins are less powerful than fighters, I'd like to know about it.

Quote from: Zak S;980113It doesn't matter if characters with beliefs are in the game.

The game doesn't guarantee their beliefs accurately reflect reality by changing their fate to reflect those beliefs.

The law guy can die in a ditch while the chaos guy wins and vice versa or they can both or neither. There is no metaphysical enforcement or simulation thereof.

So: if there's a lesson in any of that, the game does not try to teach it. And, as reiterated, if the argument is paladins get powers for belief, it's not a rational arguments since they are not always (A) part of the game and (b) always more powerful in editions where they do appear.

And if we agree to that, you're still wrong...because the lack of metaphysical enforcement still proves nothing about rejecting all philosophies (which is what nihilism is about, by your own definition).
Instead, I'd say that by not enforcing a particular ideology in its mechanics, the game takes a step back and allows all philosophies - including nihilism.

Quote from: estar;980014Asen is wrong because it doesn't matter what the rules try to say or not say. The focus of what we do is to play a RPG campaign not a particular set of RPG rules. What a campaign is about or not about rest solely on the shoulder of the referee and the players.

You have mistaken me with Zak S, because the part about "what the rules say" is his argument.
What I was saying was that "what a campaign is about rests solely on the group". Go back and you can find my posts.
Furthermore, my argument was that if it rests solely on the group, you can't say the game comes pre-packaged with nihilism, because it's not true for all games;).
I only made a rules argument with the paladins because that's what Zak wanted to discuss.

In short, Zak's argument is that D&D comes necessarily pre-packaged with nihilism if you look at the game itself. My argument is that it doesn't come pre-packaged with anything, except whatever the group puts into it - and the game itself merely allows all those meanings.

QuoteThat the flaw in Asen argument that even matter that the rules were written with a point of view or not.

If it doesn't matter whether the rules were written with a point of view or not, then the rules aren't rejecting all ideologies, either.

Quote from: estar;979961People talking about Nihilism as a doctrine or concept sometime use the word to refer to things that has no inherent belief or philosophy. Reading over your exchanges either you don't know about this or you are deliberately trying keep a intellectual slapping contest going for entertainment.

Yeah, except they're wrong when they do that;). Rejecting all philosophies and religions is, in itself, a philosophy - even if you don't think of it as one.

QuoteIt doesn't. It only has the meaning that a referee and/or a group of players give it.

Which is, surprisingly, exactly my point!
And "only the meaning that a Referee and group give it" also doesn't necessarily mean that "all philosophies and religions are wrong".

Quote from: AsenRG;981897a lot of stupid things.

You still didn't answer my question:

You had the moronic thesis that because the paladin is more powerful than the fighter in one iteration, D&D therefore teaches that "believing in something makes you powerful".

Rather than get in a dumb internet argument about Which Class Is More Powerful in each edition, skip to:

The paladin does not exist in the first Men & Magic book--so explain how this "belief makes you more powerful" idea could be true for people playing the version released in that book.

If your idea is true, it'd have to be true in that version.

Do that now.

Well I liked it.

And oh my isn't Zak unusually saucy with the personal insults. I wonder what he's hoping to achieve with that.

Quote from: san dee jota;978152But honestly, I found it all pretty boring.

For some reason this surprises me.

Quote from: Dumarest;978250What makes Legends of the Flame Princess different from D&D?

#Attitude

Quote from: Voros;978292Ironically the ruleset ended up outselling the adventures by an order of magnitude. Apparently people can't get enough minor variations on B/X instead of useful gameable material?

I know, right?

Quote from: Zak S;978987You can't push views on someone through a game.

Quote from: Zak S;978999Just because there is a view doesn't mean you're pushing it on someone.

Quote from: Zak S;978999D&D is nihilistic precisely because it doesn't push toward a meaning.

And we could've stopped there, but apparently the hole wasn't big enough.

Quote from: Zak S;979002Nihilism--first definition on Google:

"the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless."

The life of a D&D character conforms to no religious or moral principles and their life is meaningless. They exist only to entertain us and do whatever it takes to get that to happen.

The fact it has #Alignments which explicitly define the philosophical coordinates of the setting and have actual languages associated with them says you're wrong.

Quote from: Zak S;979002in PHILOSOPHY

"extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence."

Nothing in D&D has a real existence. It is, by definition, fiction.

Which is so broadly applicable that it renders the word meaningless when it comes to discussions about RPGs.

And yet for some reason you still wasted our time by using it.

Quote from: pjamesstuart;979012I don't think anything I've made is nihilistic and that includes MotBM. Zaks opinions and analysis are his own.

Apparently you are incorrect.

Quote from: AsenRG;979090As one of the Outrage Brigade claimed on RPG.net, "if the designer is making one option easier than others, he should have known you'd pick it - and if that options is to be immoral, you can draw your own conclusions" - I'm quoting by memory, because I can't be bothered to look for the thread, but that was the general gist of it.

My answer was something flippant, but IIRC it amounted to "doing the right thing shouldn't be the easiest thing by the system, or you doing the right thing is meaningless".

That's right. Only in systems that don't incentivize following the moral and/or religious principles can characters actually follow those same priciples. In systems that do so, you're merely playing to the system - even if the characters were basically taking the same actions.

Do they even #StarWars? The fact that doing the right thing isn't easy is what makes good fiction compelling.

I'm growing increasingly concerned about the "Right makes Might' philosophy in gaming which not only states that moral methods must be the most (if not only) effective means to achieve your goals, but that using other methods makes the player themselves immoral.

Quote from: CRKrueger;979260do you know of any RPGs that you'd say do provide mechanical support for philosophies and religious or moral principles?

Vampire: The Masquerade explicitly defines what #Humanity means in its fictional cosm and punishes/rewards characters based on that.

Quote from: Zak S;979349What possible goal could I serve by pretending to not know what this one specific vague guy was talking about while answering everyone else's question you idiot?

Same reason anyone has: To avoid addressing the issue.

Now was that your reason, and did you pretend to not know, I cannot say.

Quote from: Zak S;979351Just because a character or player thinks a deed is righteous doesn't mean the game agrees.

Which is exactly what makes the #Passions in #Pendragon, and #Beliefs in #BurningWheel, so powerful.

Quote from: Zak S;979351It pronounces no judgment, in the vast majority of playstyles anyone honestly attests to, on the righteousness of actions.

This implies that anyone attesting to a divergent playstyle is not being honest.

Quote from: Zak S;979351"I realize I'm asking a classic story games newbie question: "My players keep pushing the game to be about killing monsters and taking their stuff, but I want it to be about philosophy and relationships and the things the Buddha taught! How can I trick them into playing how I want them to play?"

- http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/comment/411962/#Comment_411962

While the idea of subversively using games as a conditioning tool is easily the most toxic thing the #StoryGame culture has ever adopted, #Buddhism does have a rich history of instruction through trickery and misdirection. In fact it may be the only way to point out the illusory nature of reality.

Quote from: Zak S;979373Rats start to look pretty tasty after all your food's been eaten by rats.

This is why we still pay attention to you.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;979381Ask anyone on this forum familiar with my posting history and they can confirm that my immense hatred of all things Goth and Punk is a hatred that knows no limit.

Your entire forum history consists of the same post.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;979375There is a time and a place for nihilism, but it must have some of kind of point or meaning to it.

You're adorable.

Quote from: Zak S;979985I meant the published LBBs, I assumed that was obvious.

Anyway the point still stands

Aaand there go the #Goalposts.

Quote from: Zak S;981441The commentary on art and artists in the book and the idea to have a section be a gallery is all Patrick's idea. The Cannibal Critics were Patrick's idea, etc. When it comes to the gallery section I did things mainly concerned with keeping gameplay solid, like making sure the second time you went through the gallery, the cannibal critics had fucked the art up, and creating the time-alteration in the gallery that made the critics into cannibals.

Huh. Out of all the ideas I though each of you was responsible for, I was pretty sure this was you.

Way to go #Patrick.

I will address your other points in a later post.

Quote from: AsenRG;981897Yeah, except they're wrong when they do that;). Rejecting all philosophies and religions is, in itself, a philosophy - even if you don't think of it as one.

You didn't read what I said. Here I will break it down for you step by step.

QuotePeople talking about Nihilism as a doctrine or concept sometime use the word to refer to things that has no inherent belief or philosophy.

Did you get the sometimes? So we are crystal clear Nihilism as a doctrine or concept has multiple related uses as a word. They are not all the same. One of which is what you referred too, describe a system of belief that rejects all philosophies and religions. Another use of the word is to describe something has no inherent belief or philosophy. You are using the former. Zak seems to be using the latter.

The two of you are not using nihilism in the same way nor each of you are willing to budge in order to have a conversation about it. Hence my crack about the two of you engaging in a intellectual slapping contest.  

And for god sake answer Zak's fucking direct question.

Quote from: estar;982251engaging in a intellectual slapping contest.  

You have to either discuss everything until one person flees or is proven wrong (or both are).

This may not be your idea of fun but there is no other good reason to be on a discussion forum.

You come to talk, don't stop talking until someone has learned something

The only good reason to disengage is if the other persone refuses to answer question or otherwise proves they're dishonest, thus rendering learning impossible.

Otherwise: why come to the place?

QuoteAnd for god sake answer Zak's fucking direct question.

+1

People only evade like this on the internet. irl if you just sat there staring into space when asked a direct question people would just patiently take you to drug treatment.

I don't really get it.

Quote from: Zak S;981441Either it's "art" or the job I do that pays all my bills is mislabeled (which conclusion I will accept without protestation). That's my job: I make paintings, they are art. They may suck and be meaningless but "art" is just what's on my tax forms. It means nothing other than that its an object that can best be sold if I call it "Art" --like every other object called art.

Did you feel this way when you began as a professional artist, or was it something that developed by experiencing the business end of the art world?

Quote from: Spinachcat;982520Did you feel this way when you began as a professional artist, or was it something that developed by experiencing the business end of the art world?

I always knew it. Everyone serious in the art world knows it--you got a kid who knocks himself out doing a wall piece for 8 months and it's "vandalism" and you got this chucklefuck over here who melted a tube of chapstick onto a podium and it's "art".

And, since you went to school with them both, you also know Mr Chapstick and the vandal are equally committed and earnest and believe equally in what they do and both of their audiences get whatever it is out of it that they personally are able to get out of art. I may not agree, but that's like saying mushrooms aren't food because I don't get why you like them.

Unless you go down the path of "What I like is art and what I don't isn't" there's no real honest way to define it other than "This is an object sold in a certain way".

Quote from: Zak S;982523Unless you go down the path of "What I like is art and what I don't isn't" there's no real honest way to define it other than "This is an object sold in a certain way".

Just to back Zak S. up here: What he is saying is exactly what you will hear from most visual artists who do paintings and sculptures, installations etc. In this regard, he is totally NOT being "out there". That's really the most boring consensus that is on this subject matter. I want to underline that point so that nobody confuses "idiosyncratic Zak" with what he is saying here. Whereas his rather wide definition of Nihilism seems to confuse some, his art definition is rock solid.

On a sidenote, it was quite interesting for me to learn that your current value as contemporary artist can be measured by a stat:

$/m² of artwork.  

At least on the European art market that's supposedly how it works, but it sounds like it is the same all over the world. Individual pieces, I am told, only gain their "own price" after the artist has died.

Never pick a fight with Zak unless you are gonna be in it for the long fucking haul.

Keep it going, please, my power is out and I can't read books by the light of my phone so this is my entertainment for the nonce.

Quote from: Dumarest;983546Keep it going, please, my power is out and I can't read books by the light of my phone so this is my entertainment for the nonce.

Play a game instead.