Quote from: RPGPunditJonathan Tweet has never written a Swiney game in his life. He is a writer of games with real innovative talent (games like Over the Edge, Ars Magica, Everway, Omega World, D&D; the guy is probably the most under-appreciated RPG writer in the industry).

You have a double standard the size of the Chinese Great Wall. We can see your double standards from the fucking space.

Mr Tweet collaborated in Ars Magica, which storytelling advice is the fucking base for all the pretentiousness of the storytelling advice of Vampire. Actually, Vampire owes all in terms of storytelling concept to AM. Everything. And Over the Edge should be, according to your incoherent definitions, the swiniest thing, ever. Actually, R. Edwards was inspired by it to start working on Sorcerer and shit, so you can blame Mr. Tweet for that. And Everway is a great game, but according to you it should be an artsy - fartsy wankfest like Nobilis.

I understand that, when it comes to your loved authors and anything D20 - related, you couldn't muster an iota of internal coherence to save your life, and that's cool. But everyone is right, and you're wrong: there is no fucking war, and all your shouting and name calling is utterly irrelevant, the same way that the fucknugettry of R. Edwards calling some gamers brain damaged is irrelevant. because what happens in Internet is irrelevant and non - existant to most gamers. Day after day you behave in the same way that the people you hate does (according to your lunatic ramblings), and still you have the nerve of trying to get on a higher moral horse, or whatnot, when you behave like an elitist asshole just the way you claim the Swine does.

The metaphor of a Japanese soldier lost in a godforsaken Pacific island, not knowing that the war has ended is the best I've read to describe you, though.

Quote from: AkrasiaThe 'Capitalization' is in the original quote -- blame Hume, not me, for that.  They wrote English funny back then.

What's so funny about capitalizing Nouns? It's just the right Thing to do! I've got a whole Nation to back me up!

Quote from: AkrasiaAnd no, it is not like: "Let's agree to disagree".

Rather, it's like: "you're fucking wrong, but I can't be arsed to correct the error of your ways right now."

There's a difference between those two statements? Usually you use the first one to imply the second one.

Quote from: Sosthenes... There's a difference between those two statements? Usually you use the first one to imply the second one.

I don't.  

Seriously, I think there is a difference.  An important one.

Quote from: AkrasiaThank you for your 'valuable' contribution.

:confused:

When confronted with someone proposing a conslusion that appears to be in completely at odds with known reality, one can come to a limited number of conclusions.  One is that the individual has no idea what the hell they're talking about, the other is that the observer has somehow caught a glimpse of some kind of alternate reality.  

Now, while Occam's Razor suggests the former is probably more likely, I was feeling fairly charitable today, so I figured I'd hazard the latter theory.

I could consider revising my conclusion, if you'd like.

Quote from: J ArcaneWhen confronted with someone proposing a conslusion that appears to be in completely at odds with known reality, one can come to a limited number of conclusions.  One is that the individual has no idea what the hell they're talking about, the other is that the observer has somehow caught a glimpse of some kind of alternate reality.

The third is that their experience of reality differs from your own, and the fourth is that you're using the language differently.  Which means that examples can help bridge the gap.

Or, y'know, they might just be a dumbass.  But it can be handy to *try*, if only to expose the dumbassery to a wider audience.

Quote from: AkrasiaI don't.  

Seriously, I think there is a difference.  An important one.

There is. It's just that once something turns into a fixed phrase, it often loses the original meaning. "I can't be bothered to discuss this shit anymore" isn't polite enough, though it's often the more truthful statement. Personally I'd rather have honesty than politeness -- if both at the same time aren't possible.

But I really digress right now. By that elaboration on modern discussions I don't want to imply in any way that I understood your quote to be condescending and my answer to it was meant in a humorous spirit. It's just that I get sick of adding smiley sometimes...

I'd also like to add that I too think that RoleMaster is often wrongly accused of complexity. Rule-/ChartMaster doesn't hit the bone, from a mechanical point of view it's simpler than quite a lot of the Forge games. In the 80s, programmers often traded table look ups for complicated calculations, too

In retrospect, it's rather interesting that D20 does away with any tables in its basic mechanics. Tweet really likes RuneQuest, Cook wrote for RoleMaster. Both systems had tables at their cores, if I'm not mistaken. Resistance Rolls and the Maneuver table? (Too lazy to look it up right now)

Quote from: J ArcaneWhen confronted with someone proposing a conslusion that appears to be in completely at odds with known reality, one can come to a limited number of conclusions.  One is that the individual has no idea what the hell they're talking about, the other is that the observer has somehow caught a glimpse of some kind of alternate reality.  

Now, while Occam's Razor suggests the former is probably more likely, I was feeling fairly charitable today, so I figured I'd hazard the latter theory.

I could consider revising my conclusion, if you'd like.

My problem with  your original post is that I have no fucking idea what exactly you're referring to.

What precisely do you think is: "a conclusion that appears to be in completely at odds with known reality"?

Your post was a vague summary dismissal of 'this thread' as 'Bizarro'.

If you're going to make a gesture towards philosophical rigour by appealing to "Occam's Razor" at least have the decency of explaining what exactly you find so 'strange' in this thread.

In short: excuse me for not having a clue what you're referring to if you're not willing to actually state it.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe third is that their experience of reality differs from your own, and the fourth is that you're using the language differently.  Which means that examples can help bridge the gap.

Or, y'know, they might just be a dumbass.  But it can be handy to *try*, if only to expose the dumbassery to a wider audience.

See, now you've gone and ruined the humor.  Look what you did!  

Seriously, this is literally the only time I have ever seen someone actually suggest that any form of Rolemaster, even MERP, was somehow "simpler" than D&D.  

If that were actually the case, maybe my friend's copy of MERP wouldn't have been relegated to being used for occasional source inspiration for D&D or Decipher LOTR.  Mostly as a joke, we did once use the critical failure tables in a game, complete with invisible turtle, but that was it for the mechanics.

On top of that, some of the criticisms levelled at D&D 3 here aren't even accurate.  Feats don't "break" or contradict any of the existing game rules.  All the feats in the core are built to offer additional benefits and bonuses.  A few of them do offer bonuses that effectively counter default penalties, like the Two-weapon fighting feats, but that's the closest you get to something like, say, WH40k style "special rules", which seems to be part of what Akrasia is implying in his/her complaints.  

I simply don't see it.  I've read MERP.  I've read, and played quite a bit of D&D.  MERP was more complicated by far.  I must admit a lack of play experience though, my group has never even seriously considered actually trying to play the game, simply because it was a complicated mess.  

I did bring it up with another online friend who has played quite a bit of both, and is quite a big fan of both RM and D&D, and she disagreed quite strongly with the assertion that RM was at all "simpler".  But well, some nameless other isn't much of an appeal to reason.  

Still, I made my initial comment because that's what it felt like.  I'd wandered into some wierd world where everything is backwards.  My experience, and the experiences of those I've conversed with in the past, and the things that I have read, suggest so utterly the opposite, as to be baffled by the assertion.

Quote from: Sosthenes... Personally I'd rather have honesty than politeness -- if both at the same time aren't possible.

I agree 100 percent.

Quote from: Sosthenes...
It's just that I get sick of adding smiley sometimes...

Yeah, I used to be annoyed by smileys.

But then I realised that it is rather hard to communicate irony, sarcasm, good-natured ribbing, etc., over the internet -- especially if you're dealing with people from different countries, cultures, and languages.

So I have since come to accept the smiley as a necessary device for internet communication.  

Quote from: Sosthenes...
I'd also like to add that I too think that RoleMaster is often wrongly accused of complexity.  

Thanks!  At last!

Quote from: Sosthenes...
In retrospect, it's rather interesting that D20 does away with any tables in its basic mechanics. Tweet really likes RuneQuest, Cook wrote for RoleMaster. Both systems had tables at their cores, if I'm not mistaken. Resistance Rolls and the Maneuver table? (Too lazy to look it up right now)

I too am puzzled by the hostility to charts and tables.  Jeeze, what's the big deal?

I don't know about AD&D1 vs RM2, but I would say that MERP is easier to pick up than Decipher LOTR. Neener-neener-neener

Quote from: SosthenesI don't know about AD&D1 vs RM2, but I would say that MERP is easier to pick up than Decipher LOTR. Neener-neener-neener

Yeah, but the problem there is not the mechanics.  It's the LOTR is one of the most boring books ever written.

Mechanically it's the same as Dec Trek, which is one of the best damn books and games ever, and if anything slightly simpler than D20 (on which is rather heavily based).

Quote from: AkrasiaThanks!  At last!

Hey, I only argued against the assumption that Monte Cook obviously got inspired to the D&D core mechanics by RM2, on the grounds that other people worked on the project, too, and that lots of other games had similar mechanisms. That's all. Without the added fluff of the companions, RM2 is a very nice game. The only thing that really annoys me is the amount of stuff a healer must learn/know. On the other hand, at least he knows what he's healing instead of the holistic blessing/luck/regeneration stuff a D&D Cure Wounds spell does...

Quote from: AkrasiaI too am puzzled by the hostility to charts and tables.  Jeeze, what's the big deal?

Well, with the core D&D mechanics as they are, a table is not really neccesary. I'm not saying that the RQ or RM mechanisms were that clunky, but one step less is a good thing.

What bothered me more about RM was adding and subtracting two-digit numbers. At the beginning that could get a little annoying. D20 has some vestiges of this, too, but to a lesser degree.

What really bothers me is adding up bunches of dice. I'm looking at you, Fireball and WEG D6

Quote from: AkrasiaI too am puzzled by the hostility to charts and tables.  Jeeze, what's the big deal?

I'll speak to that.

If I have to refence more than one chart during play, I won't run the game.  Simple as that.  They're boring, stutifying, aggravating, confining, and annoying.

Quote from: J Arcane... Seriously, this is literally the only time I have ever seen someone actually suggest that any form of Rolemaster, even MERP, was somehow "simpler" than D&D...

Your limited experience is hardly a reason to think that you've stumbled onto some sort of 'Bizarro world'.
 

Quote from: J Arcane...
If that were actually the case, maybe my friend's copy of MERP ...

Right, so you and your buddies are the basis of valid generalisations about games.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: J Arcane...
On top of that, some of the criticisms levelled at D&D 3 here aren't even accurate.  Feats don't "break" or contradict any of the existing game rules.  

Hey Occam, this is false.  For a fan of 3e you don't seem to know much about feats.

Feats allow PCs to minimize or ignore Attacks of Opportunity, increase critical ranges for attacks, ignore or reduce penalties for casting in armour, and so forth.

These feats 'break' the rules by permitting PCs to do things they would not otherwise be able to do (or do them at a reduced cost).

Time to hit the PHB again.

Quote from: J Arcane...
I simply don't see it.  I've read MERP.  I've read, and played quite a bit of D&D.  MERP was more complicated by far.  I must admit a lack of play experience though, my group has never even seriously considered actually trying to play the game, simply because it was a complicated mess.  

Yeah, well I have extensive experience with both systems.  I've run two 3e campaigns and many MERP campaigns.  And guess what, my experience differs from yours.

The fact that you haven't encountered people who have had similar experiences to my own doesn't mean that you've stumbled onto 'Bizarro World'.  My friends and I don't have square heads...

Quote from: J Arcane... My experience, and the experiences of those I've conversed with in the past, and the things that I have read, suggest so utterly the opposite, as to be baffled by the assertion.

Welcome to the world!

World: say 'hello' to 'J Arcane'! :cool:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'll speak to that.

If I have to refence more than one chart during play, I won't run the game.  Simple as that.  They're boring, stutifying, aggravating, confining, and annoying.

That's your preference, so fair enough.  But with respect to RM, I find the criticals so colourful that I quite enjoy referring to them.  They liven the game, and make it more interesting.

Same thing for the crit charts in WFRP.
 
YMMV obviously.