Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1110496No, "Most People", some might even say the MAJORITY, REALLY did not understand you.  Note the replies you got.





And rest assured they spoke for others.  I also had absolutely no clue what you were prattering on about or what you thought you were demonstrating with your posts, which were objectively wrong.  You clearly got plurality confused with majority, which is fine, but my god, you have kept digging relentlessly since finding yourself in that hole.  Note that literally NO ONE had your back or said 'oh yeah my conception of a majority is the same'.  

Sorry but the "appealing to the imagined majority", taking the presumption that your viewpoint is the majority one as a means of bolstering its supposed merit, especially when you have no evidence to support such a position, is one of my biggest pet peeves.  Combine that with the fact that you were so wildly and demonstrably wrong in this, and I was a little irked.  I don't mean to offend, but dude, you should have quit while you were ahead, or way less behind than you are now.

You haven't been here for long, but you are also amusing me greatly with this. Knowing that you got "a little irked" over my colloquial use of the word is a great way for me to wake up in the morning.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3922[/ATTACH]

As far as millennials only playing D&D 5E, meh. Instead, I'd like to point out the reactions I am getting for my use of the word "majority" because the ones most offended by it are demonstrating the exact behavior that I find loathsome at the game table. These are the rules lawyers who will suck the fun out of a game over what is a "5 foot step, or a "sideslip" or how a spell works, or why the game isn't medieval enough fantasy. They understood what I was saying, but got hung up on and hyper focused on a single word until that word has become the message as far as they are concerned. This isn't just a millennial thing or a generational thing, it is a specific type of Player personality thing.

Quote from: The_Shadow;1110179What about Pathfinder? Is that dead these days?

I helped run a gaming convention in Dallas. It was attached to an anime convention, so getting hard numbers on who just played games would be tough - but I can speak about numbers of tables filled. We allocated 16 tables each to Pathfinder and 5e, and while the 5e tables filled their room, Pathfinder filled at peak 9 tables, and generally ran at about 7 tables playing to capacity.

Let me note that this is far from dead - at our four day convention, Pathfinder ran an order of magnitude more games than GURPS or Savage Worlds, for example, or even OSR D&D.

Quote from: jeff37923;1110603As far as millennials only playing D&D 5E, meh. Instead, I'd like to point out the reactions I am getting for my use of the word "majority" because the ones most offended by it are demonstrating the exact behavior that I find loathsome at the game table. These are the rules lawyers who will suck the fun out of a game over what is a "5 foot step, or a "sideslip" or how a spell works, or why the game isn't medieval enough fantasy. They understood what I was saying, but got hung up on and hyper focused on a single word until that word has become the message as far as they are concerned. This isn't just a millennial thing or a generational thing, it is a specific type of Player personality thing.

Personally as a player if something is occurring which is different from my understanding of how it should be based on the rules, I roll with whatever the DM says is happening, accept the results being whatever they are, and then after the session is over or before the next session begins, ask for clarity regarding whether the intent is for things to be as described during the session, if I have a misunderstanding regarding the "default" rules, or if it was perhaps just an in-the-moment mistake, as we're all human.  Whatever the answer is, I accept it, and update my expectations internally so I am better prepared moving forward.  I do, however, greatly prefer that things have consistency, and the rules that we play by don't change on a session by session basis.  I ask that my players handle any discrepancies the same, as any inconsistencies on my part are not intentional barring unusual circumstances.  This way we make sure we're on the same page, but we don't interrupt the flow of the game.

For example, my homebrew world is flat, and has a top and bottom.  A hole (at least one the players are aware of) runs all the way through it, and when going down that hole gravity shifts, going from "down" being perpendicular to the plane of the disc, to "down" being towards the center of the disc, to "down" being the opposite of what it was, and being "correct" for the other side.  When the players are fighting enemies while in that hole, it calls for rather unusual rules and a completely custom set of falling behavior which don't apply elsewhere.  Such situations arise in fantasy environments, and when they do it is to be expected there may be incongruencies between them and what one might expect based on "standard" rules.  It's also perfectly acceptable for a GM to decide they want to change how they run scenarios, or to realize they've been running things "wrong" and want to correct behavior moving forward, or to need to adjust balance.  The only thing I have qualms with is if the behavior is changing from session to session seemingly without consistency or rationale.  It certainly isn't what I shoot for as a GM.

If this is not the behavior you exhibit or expect, in what way does it differ from your play / GM style?  From your standpoint do the rules not matter at all, and folks shouldn't bother to clarify any discrepancies which may exist?  Should we not strive for intellectual consistency in setting or effect?  Is asking about something, in your eyes, the same as criticizing it?  Does an RPG need to be "protected" in your eyes from examination lest the 'fantasy' all fall apart?  I'm legitimately very curious on your viewpoint regarding this sort of thing, and I am looking forward to your response.

Quote from: jeff37923;1110603Instead, I'd like to point out the reactions I am getting for my use of the word "majority" because the ones most offended by it are demonstrating the exact behavior that I find loathsome at the game table.

This is an online discussion forum, not a gaming table.

If, in the course of a discussion about B/X you reference something applicable to BECMI, you should expect that people ask for clarification or, if they think you're wrong, bring it to your attention.  

It certainly would surprise me if you, of all people, would turn out to be unable to handle being corrected (and/or ridiculed) when you have done exactly that - even in cases where you were incorrect.

Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1110609Personally as a player if something is occurring which is different from my understanding of how it should be based on the rules, I roll with whatever the DM says is happening, accept the results being whatever they are, and then after the session is over or before the next session begins, ask for clarity regarding whether the intent is for things to be as described during the session, if I have a misunderstanding regarding the "default" rules, or if it was perhaps just an in-the-moment mistake, as we're all human.  Whatever the answer is, I accept it, and update my expectations internally so I am better prepared moving forward.  I do, however, greatly prefer that things have consistency, and the rules that we play by don't change on a session by session basis.  I ask that my players handle any discrepancies the same, as any inconsistencies on my part are not intentional barring unusual circumstances.  This way we make sure we're on the same page, but we don't interrupt the flow of the game.

For example, my homebrew world is flat, and has a top and bottom.  A hole (at least one the players are aware of) runs all the way through it, and when going down that hole gravity shifts, going from "down" being perpendicular to the plane of the disc, to "down" being towards the center of the disc, to "down" being the opposite of what it was, and being "correct" for the other side.  When the players are fighting enemies while in that hole, it calls for rather unusual rules and a completely custom set of falling behavior which don't apply elsewhere.  Such situations arise in fantasy environments, and when they do it is to be expected there may be incongruencies between them and what one might expect based on "standard" rules.  It's also perfectly acceptable for a GM to decide they want to change how they run scenarios, or to realize they've been running things "wrong" and want to correct behavior moving forward, or to need to adjust balance.  The only thing I have qualms with is if the behavior is changing from session to session seemingly without consistency or rationale.  It certainly isn't what I shoot for as a GM.

If this is not the behavior you exhibit or expect, in what way does it differ from your play / GM style?  From your standpoint do the rules not matter at all, and folks shouldn't bother to clarify any discrepancies which may exist?  Should we not strive for intellectual consistency in setting or effect?  Is asking about something, in your eyes, the same as criticizing it?  Does an RPG need to be "protected" in your eyes from examination lest the 'fantasy' all fall apart?  I'm legitimately very curious on your viewpoint regarding this sort of thing, and I am looking forward to your response.

Thanks for demonstrating the behavior. You make an excellent example.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1110621This is an online discussion forum, not a gaming table.

If, in the course of a discussion about B/X you reference something applicable to BECMI, you should expect that people ask for clarification or, if they think you're wrong, bring it to your attention.  

It certainly would surprise me if you, of all people, would turn out to be unable to handle being corrected (and/or ridiculed) when you have done exactly that - even in cases where you were incorrect.

I'm still laughing about the Australian Space Academy......But good try.

Quote from: jeff37923;1110632Thanks for demonstrating the behavior. You make an excellent example.

Cool, so you're someone who hates discussion, or anyone disagreeing with him, and perceives questions as challenges.  Good to know.  That makes it unproductive to attempt to engage you in conversation, which is fine because so far from everything I've seen you have nothing useful or interesting to say.  Duly noted.  Not sure why you're on a discussion forum then, but hey, you do you.

So the original poster here seemed like he did a great job in Trolling folks, he's only got 4 posts total so far and he spawned a 10 page discussion with people arguing over the definitions of majority, what millennials are, and if we are as bad as Boomers and Gen X say we are. And he hasn't posted in this thread since he started it.

Excellent Troll post.

Quote from: Orphan81;1110654So the original poster here seemed like he did a great job in Trolling folks, he's only got 4 posts total so far and he spawned a 10 page discussion with people arguing over the definitions of majority, what millennials are, and if we are as bad as Boomers and Gen X say we are. And he hasn't posted in this thread since he started it.

Excellent Troll post.

^^This guy gets it!^^

Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1110609Personally as a player if something is occurring which is different from my understanding of how it should be based on the rules, I roll with whatever the DM says is happening, accept the results being whatever they are, and then after the session is over or before the next session begins, ask for clarity regarding whether the intent is for things to be as described during the session, if I have a misunderstanding regarding the "default" rules, or if it was perhaps just an in-the-moment mistake, as we're all human.  Whatever the answer is, I accept it, and update my expectations internally so I am better prepared moving forward.  I do, however, greatly prefer that things have consistency, and the rules that we play by don't change on a session by session basis.  I ask that my players handle any discrepancies the same, as any inconsistencies on my part are not intentional barring unusual circumstances.  This way we make sure we're on the same page, but we don't interrupt the flow of the game.

For example, my homebrew world is flat, and has a top and bottom.  A hole (at least one the players are aware of) runs all the way through it, and when going down that hole gravity shifts, going from "down" being perpendicular to the plane of the disc, to "down" being towards the center of the disc, to "down" being the opposite of what it was, and being "correct" for the other side.  When the players are fighting enemies while in that hole, it calls for rather unusual rules and a completely custom set of falling behavior which don't apply elsewhere.  Such situations arise in fantasy environments, and when they do it is to be expected there may be incongruencies between them and what one might expect based on "standard" rules.  It's also perfectly acceptable for a GM to decide they want to change how they run scenarios, or to realize they've been running things "wrong" and want to correct behavior moving forward, or to need to adjust balance.  The only thing I have qualms with is if the behavior is changing from session to session seemingly without consistency or rationale.  It certainly isn't what I shoot for as a GM.

If this is not the behavior you exhibit or expect, in what way does it differ from your play / GM style?  From your standpoint do the rules not matter at all, and folks shouldn't bother to clarify any discrepancies which may exist?  Should we not strive for intellectual consistency in setting or effect?  Is asking about something, in your eyes, the same as criticizing it?  Does an RPG need to be "protected" in your eyes from examination lest the 'fantasy' all fall apart?  I'm legitimately very curious on your viewpoint regarding this sort of thing, and I am looking forward to your response.

Not who you asked, but in my view, rules are more like "suggestions". Something to help the DM get going with training wheels, but after that the DM should do what he thinks is best for the game and not treat it like a bible.

Quote from: jeff37923;1110658^^This guy gets it!^^

That is just because he is in the majority.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1110539@Octopodes: does this even matter? The topic is about 5e.

As for myself, I'm a millennial and 5e fan. I'm also into other games, but I prefer 5e because it's so lightweight it makes it easy to just take what I like from those other games and add it into 5e.

Does anyone do that, though? I trust you when you say that you add rules. But I think 5E is the least house-ruled game I have ever seen.

Quote from: Aglondir;1110676Does anyone do that, though? I trust you when you say that you add rules. But I think 5E is the least house-ruled game I have ever seen.

I see it a lot online. If you check around the dnd reddits you see people discuss various ones all the time. I don't know how much it is compared to previous versions though and there is a strong undercurrent of RAW-is-right. But they seem to be different subgroups.

I've basically been converting Diablo 1 and 2 into D&D and running it as a campaign. Tons of extra class features to make it feel like Diablo along with new system rules.

And then there's just regular tweaks here and there. It's less "house rules" and more "rules to fit the kind of specific game I want." And they are different per game.

Quote from: Shasarak;1110672That is just because he is in the majority.

I consider both he and you part of the 34%.