|
SO your argument is essentially that definitions are harmful to communication? Because this is not a "new" vocabulary or "new" definitions. Skill mastery is a term that has been around forever. Optimization is a straight forward dictionary term. Maybe you have not seen them applied to D&D and by extension Pathfinder, but that should not render their meaning, context and definitions opaque.
Fair enough, I guess - but they didn't used to be required vernacular for talking about the game, and while they might not still be in an absolute sense, the most palpable effect (from my awareness) of their increasing prominence appears to have been to make free and coherent discussion of the game more difficult rather than less.
Knowing the words we find in the sourcebooks and introduced by publishers (be they TSR, Wizards of the Coast, or Paizo)? Important, but ignorance to begin with is no sin, and they are best learned at an individual pace. Read the books on your own time, or learn by doing (I've done both, and have been recognized as a superior "rules lawyer" for my efforts!).
Knowing the primordial sources of fantasy (folklore/mythology/fairy tales/literature)? VERY IMPORTANT, and this is even the one where I'd say people *ought* to be well-read in these fields (without there being any specific "required reading") PRIOR to getting into tabletop gaming. If one fails to meet the standards, they shouldn't feel "bad" or defensive, or be excluded, but they should approach it with a "junior partner" mentality relative to those who do meet those standards, and their specialized knowledge should be respected in this context, just as we respect all expertise and follow their lead when in their venue (as opposed to the profoundly vile, irrational, and pathetic "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" attack-defense). People can pick up these things as they go along, and in the meantime, they can play the highly-honorable role of "earnest everyman" - the star role in many movies, since it's what the majority of viewers are assumed to relate to!
Knowing the lingo that pops up *after the fact* strictly in response to the fruits of the first two knowledge/language bases? Almost always trivial, often harmless, but sometimes detractive to the point where it'd be better for everyone if it didn't exist.
What am I supposed to say? That's exactly what it's always looked like from where I've been standing...and I know that such things ARE a real and serious scourge upon Humanity.
Maybe it's because when *you* say it, you refer to other people's ideas with terms like "parasitic meme" or "evil mind-plague"? Do you think maybe that could be why you keep encountering conflict?
Maybe you'd have a better view if you came down from your high horse...
|
|
Maybe you'd have a better view if you came down from your high horse...
"Gifted" =/= "conceited." PLEASE grasp that. Being autistic, I've lived my whole life viewing Humanity from an outsider's perspective. It's definitely a double-edged privilege. Being Cassandra SUCKS, and I've found myself in that role more often than I care to count. I'm emphatically NOT the type who enjoys looking down on people. Since I'm strongly resistant (possibly even immune) to many of the ugly pitfalls to which normal people are vulnerable, I try to warn them when I see the danger of falling into a trap. Because I know how vastly superior people can be as long as they can stay free of those traps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Gifted" =/= "conceited." PLEASE grasp that. Being autistic, I've lived my whole life viewing Humanity from an outsider's perspective. It's definitely a double-edged privilege. Being Cassandra SUCKS, and I've found myself in that role more often than I care to count. I'm emphatically NOT the type who enjoys looking down on people. Since I'm strongly resistant (at the very least) to many of the ugly pitfalls to which normal people are vulnerable, I try to warn them when I see the danger of falling into a trap. Because I know how vastly superior people can be as long as they aren't taken down by those traps.
Maybe you'd have a better view if you came down from your high horse...
Closet, since you stated you're autistic, it explains a little. I have friends in the autism spectrum and I know understanding typical human behavior is difficult, so that's forgivable, but let me explain something:
People don't like it when you, or anyone really, refers to themselves in any way as gifted, superior, or otherwise above average. It's an unwritten social convention that when someone does that, they are also referring to others as below average. It strikes of arrogance. I understand sometimes stating a fact is only stating a fact, but you have to understand that most people are defensive creatures, and even the implications of mediocrity are an incredible insult to most people. Whether it is your intent or not, that is simply the message conveyed, and it would do you a lot of good to learn that.
Humility is a trait people appreciate in others. Arrogance is almost never appreciated, and yes, sadly the line between arrogance and confidence is thin, conveyed mostly through body language and tone of voice, but on textual medium those are luxuries we can't afford.
As someone who grew up gifted myself, it's a lesson I learned hard early on, and I hate to see someone else fall prey to it, especially if your condition makes the realization of that not as obvious as it might people who are not autistic.
You've always shown yourself to be intelligent. You have no need to point it out; it's obvious, and to do so will likely anger others.
On-Topic: I'm approaching this from a GM's perspective:
I have one player (of 5 or 6) who I would characterize as an optimizer or min/maxer, and, yes, he does offer to "teach" the other players how to do it, too, and does. The problem I have as GM is scaling encounters to the group. The problem player can just blast his way through most encounters (and they can't even touch him because of his astronomical AC), while the other characters mostly watch (he hasn't taught them to optimize as well as he, I guess) or risk death. I've talked to the player and explained how this makes the game less enjoyable for the others, and he understands, to a degree. He made the analogy to heroes of anime shows, the heroes being the most powerful characters in the show, so the show ends up being mostly about that character. Actually, my game has gotten better, because I'm learning to design the encounters better (multiple foes, scaled for particular "targets").
Here's a second consideration, and I have give it up to my min/max player for not creating a character that makes no sense but POWER. The character's abilities mesh well with the character's back stories and motivations. But I've always thought of the negativity with optimizing as being in opposition to "storytelling," like the Munckining that one poster linked to. Some of the powers, the stacking, the synergies, can become ridiculous through a narrative standpoint, and, as GM, I'm trying to tell a meaningful story.
What a GM wants, perhaps, are players who choose abilities according to character concepts and not one based solely on attack rolls, damage, and AC. Liane Merciel said something about this about her Isiem character in her novels -- and cringed -- saying she built him according to story and background and not according to play, which made him, in game terms, a poorly built character. So maybe this isn't what GMs really SHOULD want.
So I guess what I've done is to show how this GM doesn't like optimization and min/maxing because it makes my job harder. I've read the rules more and I've agonized over encounters more trying to figure out how to REASONABLY do anything that might make my player/s hurt just a little. Yes, I can conjure things out of thin air, I know, but I want to hold myself to the same line that I wish from my players. And for the most part they stay in line.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you'd have a better view if you came down from your high horse..."Gifted" =/= "conceited." PLEASE grasp that. Being autistic, I've lived my whole life viewing Humanity from an outsider's perspective. It's definitely a double-edged privilege. Being Cassandra SUCKS, and I've found myself in that role more often than I care to count. I'm emphatically NOT the type who enjoys looking down on people. Since I'm strongly resistant (possibly even immune) to many of the ugly pitfalls to which normal people are vulnerable, I try to warn them when I see the danger of falling into a trap. Because I know how vastly superior people can be as long as they can stay free of those traps.
Are you kidding me?
Your posts are often littered with condescending remarks and filled to the brim with holier-than-thou attitude. This whole thread carries an obvious condescending attitude towards those who play differently from you (players who you call "rollplayers")!
Hell! This very post of yours sounds incredibly arrogant! You just implied you're "vastly superior" to everyone else! "Looking down on people" is something I see you doing quite often around here.
|
On-Topic: I'm approaching this from a GM's perspective:
I have one player (of 5 or 6) who I would characterize as an optimizer or min/maxer, and, yes, he does offer to "teach" the other players how to do it, too, and does. The problem I have as GM is scaling encounters to the group. The problem player can just blast his way through most encounters (and they can't even touch him because of his astronomical AC), while the other characters mostly watch (he hasn't taught them to optimize as well as he, I guess) or risk death. I've talked to the player and explained how this makes the game less enjoyable for the others, and he understands, to a degree. He made the analogy to heroes of anime shows, the heroes being the most powerful characters in the show, so the show ends up being mostly about that character. Actually, my game has gotten better, because I'm learning to design the encounters better (multiple foes, scaled for particular "targets").
The big problem I always talk about that so few players (especially the ones who like the optimize to excess) seem to get. Scaling encounters for an imbalanced party is bloody difficult. Every player needs a chance to shine, there can be a face to the party for social encounters, there can be a tactical leader, there can even be a leader with authority (if the whole party is cool with that), but there should never ever be a single PC who is the unquestioned hero of the story.* Different people can have different roles, the healer obviously isn't going to focus on dealing damage. Even if there only one fighter it becomes an issue if the healer never needs to heal because the fighter is so over optimized that he never takes any substantial damage. And in this case if the GM scales to match the fighter, the healer might be put at unreasonable risk when needing to heal the fighter, thus forcing the GM into the delicate balancing act of scaling high enough to present a challenge to the fighter (and to create a need for the healer) without scaring the healer away from the fight (because there's too much risk for the healer, and thus there'd now be too great of risk for the fighter)
*Unless you have the incredibly unusual case where the entire party is totally happy with it.
Even the spells in the spellbane are not locked in. If it came up in a divination, he would simply set Source Severance in place of Greater Dispel Magic. Even if this was against the unmodified stat block the Source Severance would activate Arkalion's contingency teleporting him safely away. Finally, the worst case scenario is that he is suppressed and returns to the spirit jar that the solar is carrying. Arkalion simply possesses another body and proceeds from there.
Arkalion would use Mind Blank once he left his demiplane, but thanks to Mage's Private Demiplane and Permanency he has no need to blow 8th level slots prior to the actual fight.
|
|
@thegreenteagamer & Lemmy: "The nail that stands up gets hammered down" is a universally poisonous ethos. Just because it's the standing cultural norm doesn't mean it has any right to be, nor do we have any business accepting it when we could instead destroy it...and replace it with something like this:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
- Marianne Williamson (often misattributed to Nelson Mandela)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
@thegreenteagamer & Lemmy: "The nail that stands up gets hammered down" is a universally poisonous ethos. Just because it's the standing ethos doesn't mean it has any right to be...not when it could instead be this:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
- Marianne Williamson (often misattributed to Nelson Mandela)
Wait... are you seriously quoting that while simultaneously attacking optimization in Roleplaying games? If so the cognitive dissonance is staggering. If you haven't realized it yet (despite your outsider perspective), the one who is trying to "hammer down" the nails that stand up in this conversation is you. After all:
"We were born to make manifest the glory of Optimization that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've been warned. I tried kindness, he tried...the other approach. Yet you decided instead of listening to our words to squander them, and reveal further your character. Honestly it's so completely ignorant of everything that's being said, I'm almost certain this is simply masterful trolling taken to an extreme art form.
I can use quotes, as well.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
Proverbs 12:15
A smart person knows what to say, a wise person knows whether to say it or not.
Unknown
Perhaps you are smart, but you've revealed your wisdom score to be abysmal in ignoring counsel intended to assist you, in a dedicated insistence. Perhaps this will help, if numbers will succeed where words will not: What is statistically more likely? That everyone else is wrong, or that you might actually be displaying tenancies of arrogance and confrontation as so many have accused?
No...You're far too eloquent to simply ignore or have missed that probability. I'm going to stick with my hypothesis of trolling.
Did he just call me Nelson Mandela...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Fools often think themselves smarter than everyone else and will loudly proclaim it. They love to speak and hate to listen. Such fools are not worth my time. It saddens me that they share some of my hobbies, but knowing I'll never have them at my table fills me with joy."
Lemmy (often misattributed to Not Lemmy).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fool is just a person with low wisdom. You can be a genius and a fool or an idiot and wise...or neither idiot nor fool or both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fool is just a person with low wisdom. You can be a genius and a fool or an idiot and wise...or neither idiot nor fool or both.
True... But being a fool doesn't necessarilly means someone is smart either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't feed the bears!! - S.O.D.
Is that like German Stockholm syndrome...
|
|
Wait... are you seriously quoting that while simultaneously attacking optimization in Roleplaying games?
You'll recall that A) the focus of discussion has shifted significantly, so I'm certainly not doing anything "simultaneously," and B) My attacking optimization was, to begin with, based on a misunderstanding of what it was...caused, evidently, by other people's misunderstanding what it was. Apparently, I'm not anti-optimization, and neither is anyone else, but it also seems to have no bearing on anything on the chopping block at this juncture.
If so the cognitive dissonance is staggering. If you haven't realized it yet (despite your outsider perspective), the one who is trying to "hammer down" the nails that stand up in this conversation is you.
Um...No. Sorry, but that's just made up out of whole cloth.
You've been warned. I tried kindness, he tried...the other approach. Yet you decided instead of listening to our words to squander them, and reveal further your character. Honestly it's so completely ignorant of everything that's being said, I'm almost certain this is simply masterful trolling taken to an extreme art form.
It's called "disagreeing," if I'm not mistaken, I heard what you had to say, and I have chosen to reject it, as I have weighed it against other options and have bountiful reason to do so.
I can use quotes, as well.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William ShakespeareSee the avatar? When did I ever deny being a fool? I sometimes flirt with the possibility (without ever getting married to it) that wisdom and intelligence may actually be antagonistic faculties - one comes at the expense of the other.
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
Proverbs 12:15
I learned the HARD WAY that other people's advice does me more good than harm when it contradicts my own judgment. Yes, that makes me special - but I have the tragic track record by now to prove it (which I shouldn't need).
A smart person knows what to say, a wise person knows whether to say it or not.
Unknown
SITUATIONAL.
Perhaps you are smart, but you've revealed your wisdom score to be abysmal in ignoring counsel intended to assist you, in a dedicated insistence. Perhaps this will help, if numbers will succeed where words will not: What is statistically more likely? That everyone else is wrong, or that you might actually be displaying tenancies of arrogance and confrontation as so many have accused?No...You're far too eloquent to simply ignore or have missed that probability. I'm going to stick with my hypothesis of trolling.
Statistical probability doesn't apply to specific cases. I'm what you'd call an "outlier." We exist. Walk a mile in my shoes before you dare to judge me (like you're NOT being arrogant by making assumptions on an individual based on probability?).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Anyone who plays Class X when Class Y and Class Z exist is a fool" = Bad Attitude
"Anyone who chooses feats to increase die rolls rather than to fit a pre-written character back-story is a munchkin" = Bad Attitude
Don't try to bring the Pathfinder version of Pun-Pun to every game.
Don't try to bring a professional basket-weaver to a dungeon crawl.
Try to have some fun while you're playing a game.
The game is more fun for each player and the GM when nobody is trying to spoil anyone else's fun.
Personally on how i use the word "optimize" when i talk about my characters is that i make them combat viable and that they can use their "thing" to the best of their ability.
The idea of me making characters around a theme is also buildt on the idea that they arent totally useless in a fight or in a social setting while they can do their "thing" as well as it allows without sacrificing too much of the character.
Recent examples could be my Nine-Tail mystic characther which i based around on the usage of enchantment spells. A side bonus also have rather good combat setup due to the nature of the Sorcerer spell-list and the effectiviness of some of the enchantment spells, so with my combat worked out i also make up for social interactions by going as a diplomatic character with a sage familiar to cover knowledges.
Ofcourse i could make a more "optimized" character in general, but i like to make at least "effective" thematic characters.
Several of my characters tend to have some kind of a special gimmick for combat or social encounters, i guess its because i kinda like having that "thing" which makes the party remember them by?
|
|
"Anyone who plays Class X when Class Y and Class Z exist is a fool" = Bad Attitude
"Anyone who chooses feats to increase die rolls rather than to fit a pre-written character back-story is a munchkin" = Bad Attitude
Don't try to bring the Pathfinder version of Pun-Pun to every game.
Don't try to bring a professional basket-weaver to a dungeon crawl.Try to have some fun while you're playing a game.
The game is more fun for each player and the GM when nobody is trying to spoil anyone else's fun.
Fair enough; the game can be played different ways, BUT it works out poorly, if at all, if everyone at a given table ISN'T thinking about it the same way. It IS a game of the mind, and most of what goes on in the game goes on in the mind, even with dice and paper and figures and what all else, therefore there has to be a common consensus about what the game is, otherwise we're not playing the same game, and that doesn't work. Mystery Science Theater 3000, MXC, Rocky Horror, Apples to Apples/Cards Against Humanity, Planescape: Torment, TORG, World of Darkness, City of Heroes/Villains, RISUS, Might & Magic, Star Trek, Spaceballs, Harry Potter, the D'aulaires' mythology books, Freakazoid!, H. P. Lovecraft, Casablanca, Classical music, Weird Al Yankovic, Robot Chicken, Family Guy, Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, Twilight Imperium, Neuroshima Hex!, Indian Poker, roulette, Tetris, V for Vendetta, Avatar, Airplane!, improv theater games, I've enjoyed all these things to a greater or lesser degree in my time - but many of these involve assumptions, moods, mindsets, and ideas that I would NOT want to see transplanted into certain others among these things. The problem on here is that people are talking about what they THINK is the same game, but we really aren't talking about the same game, so conflict arises due to a lack of boundaries between antithetical mentalities that could nonetheless coexist fine if they didn't have to share a, for want of a better word "space."
|
|
Agreed. Figuring out which game type (attitude/flavor/mindset) works best for a particular group is important. It's one of the things that makes adding new players to an existing group (or replacing players who leave) tricky.
As far as message board conversations go, I consider both of the extreme examples I posted above to be less than useful. If I enjoy playing an archetype of some particular class, then the "you must be a fool to play that class" attitude isn't helpful to me. If I feel that I'm less effective in combat/social interaction/skills than the rest of my party, and I'm looking for help with feat choices that will improve my success rate, then the "you must be a munchkin" attitude isn't helpful.
|
|
As far as message board conversations go, I consider both of the extreme examples I posted above to be less than useful. If I enjoy playing an archetype of some particular class, then the "you must be a fool to play that class" attitude isn't helpful to me. If I feel that I'm less effective in combat/social interaction/skills than the rest of my party, and I'm looking for help with feat choices that will improve my success rate, then the "you must be a munchkin" attitude isn't helpful.
If the latter attitude is at all something that actually happens, I've never seen it - I've certainly never said it. I think that's a strawman for when people object to something completely different, namely a contemptuous/dismissive attitude toward anything that isn't number-crunching, which has nothing to do with "optimization" as this thread has now explained it to me. There ARE people who hold imagination in contempt and only want to build big numbers ("because that's what GROWN-UPS do! Make-believe's for KIDS, and kids are STOOPID! And actors! EWWWW I HATE actors they're all stupid sluts say did you seeThe Avengerswasn't that AWESOME brah...?"), and since "optimization" is one of the few features of the game that they care about, it might make sense that they'd make extensive use of that term to the point of those of us who weren't in the practice of using that word would come to associate it with them, and then there'd be an accidental tarring of innocent people with what surely you'll agree is a rightfully loathsome brush. So sorry about that, if that's the case. Misunderstanding.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, I'm not anti-optimization, and neither is anyone else...
...If I feel that I'm less effective in combat/social interaction/skills than the rest of my party, and I'm looking for help with feat choices that will improve my success rate, then the "you must be a munchkin" attitude isn't helpful.If the latter attitude is at all something that actually happens, I've never seen it - I've certainly never said it. I think that's a strawman for when people object to something completely different, namely a contemptuous/dismissive attitude toward anything that isn't number-crunching...
It's not a strawman; it does happen, and in fact happens so frequently in some communities that it contributed to my abandoning PFS organized play. For example, I watched a conversation in the PFS GM forum touch on the topic of PCs with a high armor class, and someone commented on the high AC of their own character. A multi-star PFS GM then declared—based solely on the knowledge of how high the character's armor class was—that the PC was "a spreadsheet, not a character", and said he would boot such a character from any table he was running without hesitation.
Things like that are/were actually so common that eventually someone started a thread titled "Not at MY table" to try and address the issue that multi-star PFS GMs (including plenty of Venture Officers) were frequently responding to discussions of well-performing builds (or elements of builds) with the declaration that they intended to violate PFS rules by banning it from their tables.
So it does happen, and plenty.
But you already know this, because you do it yourself. Heck, I've even watched you criticize people for making effective gameplay choices in games that aren't even role-playing games. I'm seriously considering saving a link to this post of yours, and then posting it every time you display anti-optimization attitudes and saying "This is what you said is a strawman that you've never seen happen."
And speaking of strawmen...
There ARE people who hold imagination in contempt and only want to build big numbers ("because that's what GROWN-UPS do! Make-believe's for KIDS, and kids are STOOPID! And actors! EWWWW I HATE actors they're all stupid sluts say did you seeThe Avengerswasn't that AWESOME brah...?")...
Though there are certainly people whose interests lie solely with building big numbers, your characterization of them as "hold[ing] imagination in contempt" and as seeing themselves as more grown-up/intelligent/sexually responsible than those who enjoy the play-acting part of RPGs is something you made up yourself.
That means that either (A) you're the one who's full of contempt, making things up in an attempt to demonize the people whose preferences you don't share; or (B) you saw people who seemed to only care about the numbers and somehow used that as a premise from which to draw the conclusion that all that other stuff must go with it, which is a truly monumental failure of reasoning.
This is why people don't trust you and you keep running into conflict. Do something different or expect to keep having the same experiences. As one of my professors back in college liked to say, "If you keep on doing what you're doing, you're going to keep on getting what you've got."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As attributed to Disraeli by Clemens -- "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Everyone optimizes. Everyone. The hitch by which so many of us choose to mudride with a trailer full of "baggage" is the expectation that the qualitative evaluation at which we have arrived in our own experiences *clearly* has more weight than such evaluations from other sources.
The matter has been addressed. The particulars have been explicated. There is no need for further vitriol.
TURN UNTHREAD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what the hell are you guys doing
what the hell are you guys doing
Bait smelled too good, apparently.
what the hell are you guys doingBait smelled too good, apparently.
*sigh* Feeding the trolls. I realized it eventually.
|
|
It's not a strawman; it does happen, and in fact happens so frequently in some communities that it contributed to my abandoning PFS organized play. For example, I watched a conversation in the PFS GM forum touch on the topic of PCs with a high armor class, and someone commented on the high AC of their own character. A multi-star PFS GM then declared—based solely on the knowledge of how high the character's armor class was—that the PC was "a spreadsheet, not a character", and said he would boot such a character from any table he was running without hesitation.Things like that are/were actually so common that eventually someone started a thread titled "Not at MY table" to try and address the issue that multi-star PFS GMs (including plenty of Venture Officers) were frequently responding to discussions of well-performing builds (or elements of builds) with the declaration that they intended to violate PFS rules by banning it from their tables.
So it does happen, and plenty.
Okay. I had reason to be skeptical, since I had an alternative explanation that made more sense whereas this behavior we agree makes none (except as gunshy paranoia - not right or fair, but deserves some sympathy). I'll take your word for it. News to me.
But you already know this, because you do it yourself. Heck, I've even watched you criticize people for making effective gameplay choices in games that aren't even role-playing games. I'm seriously considering saving a link to this post of yours, and then posting it every time you display...
No. I. Don't. You are now getting into "claiming you can read my mind" territory, which is one thing we should all agree is beyond the pale. I know what I do, and what I don't do. I also know that I am not always good at communication, and the increasing burden of cumulative unresolved confusion may drive me in desperation to tilt at windmills, and people often misinterpret me because of that, but that's their coming up short, not mine.
Though there are certainly people whose interests lie solely with building big numbers, your characterization of them as "hold[ing] imagination in contempt" and as seeing themselves as more grown-up/intelligent/sexually responsible than those who enjoy the play-acting part of RPGs is something you made up yourself.
No. It. Isn't. This is behavior I've repeatedly witnessed firsthand, and one of few things I would *never* have made up on my own.
That means that either (A) you're the one who's full of contempt, making things up in an attempt to demonize the people whose preferences you don't share; or (B) you saw people who seemed to only care about the numbers and somehow used that as a premise from which to draw the conclusion that all that other stuff must go with it, which is a truly monumental failure of reasoning.
Invalid. The behavior I've seen is, sadly, real. I had never seen the behavior you said existed but which I doubted, but then you gave concrete examples, so I accept that now. Okay - how about some reciprocity on that end rather than leaping to judgment while simultaneously standing your ground (hmm, now THAT sounds like a promising new feat for Hungry Ghost Monks)? You're making that crap up - nobody who knows me well (as opposed to people I've spoken to a handful of times on the Internet) would ever see me in any of what you're saying. Not Guilty.
This is why people don't trust you and you keep running into conflict. Do something different or expect to keep having the same experiences. As one of my professors back in college liked to say, "If you keep on doing what you're doing, you're going to keep on getting what you've got."
"People?" What, you mean "everybody?" Or just "people in the same boat as you?" Of all the things people have been known to say about me good or ill, "trustworthy" is actually one that I score pretty high on, even among some people who don't otherwise care for me.
The fact that you're trying to paint ME as belligerent, manipulative, and un-self-aware is pretty insulting when people like you seem frighteningly adept (and comfortable with) weird "guilty-until-proven-innocent" sucker-punch maneuvers that to even initially conceive of them as avenues to exploit, and to think that they're worthy of being exploited in this fashion, let alone level them against others, is wholly beyond my social repertoire. While my ability to do this productively and gracefully may be often obstructed when I get hopelessly confused, one thing you can take to the bank about me: I'm honest, and I fight fair, and I assume by default that others do as well, and I deserve those same basic respects shown me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me you need to step back and reread this thread, IHIYC.
Go through it and find the portions that make you seem arrogant or contemptuous of others. Find places where your choice of words were aggressive or condescending.
See if taking a break for a day and coming back to it allows you to do so with a more level attitude.
One of the best rules of the internet is never post angry. Although I admit to violating it occasionally, it is still very good advice.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, I've even watched you...You are now getting into "claiming you can read my mind" territory...
What? Noting what I've seen you do is claiming I can read your mind?
I am not always good at communication... and people often misinterpret me because of that, but that's their coming up short, not mine.
Huh? You admit to being unskilled in communication, but the resulting misinterpretations are other people's fault?
The fact that you're trying to paint ME as belligerent, manipulative, and un-self-aware
I didn't have to paint you as anything; simply referencing your own use of expressions like "evil mind-plague" is where descriptors like "belligerent" come from, and your bafflement (in this very thread, even) at the suggestion of communicating differently is the evidence of your lack of self-awareness.
If simply referencing your own actions feels like you're being painted in a negative light, then maybe it's your own actions that are doing the painting.
...people like you seem frighteningly adept (and comfortable with) weird "guilty-until-proven-innocent" sucker-punch maneuvers...
Referencing your own past behavior is not "guilty until proven innocent", it's "here's what this guy has done".
...one thing you can take to the bank about me: ...I fight fair
No, you don't. Fighting fair is when you demonstrate an understanding of someone else's idea, and then specifically and politely point out the issues you see. "Parasitic meme" and "evil mind-plague" are not fighting fair. I don't know where you got the idea that you "fight fair", but it sure wasn't from a careful review of your own actions. (See also: "trying to paint me as un-self-aware".)
As for your honesty that you keep touting, I'm trying my best to give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Those who have given up on your honesty are the ones talking about "feeding the troll". The fact that I'm still here bothering to talk to you shows that, despite the mistakes you've made, I'm still choosing to have faith that your words here might be earnest.
Unfortunately, your consistent use of self-contradictory and verifiably false assertions is quickly eroding that faith.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
Heck, I've even watched you...You are now getting into "claiming you can read my mind" territory...What? Noting what I've seen you do is claiming I can read your mind?
No, insisting I'm doing something I'm not, when I've told you I wasn't, is claiming you can read my mind. It's a miscommunication, but you seem to refuse to believe that.
I am not always good at communication... and people often misinterpret me because of that, but that's their coming up short, not mine.Huh? You admit to being unskilled in communication, but the resulting misinterpretations are other people's fault?
Yes. It's the individual's job to try to understand others, NOT to have to make themselves understood, which is a mind-destroying fool's errand which would force you to spend your entire life learning how EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD thought BUT YOU. That may be the way society works at present, but that doesn't make it okay; it's ass-backwards, and harmful to us all. People have a right to be understood on their own terms.
A European says: "I can't understand this, what's wrong with me?"
An American says: "I can't understand this, what's wrong with him?”
― Terry Pratchett
The fact that you're trying to paint ME as belligerent, manipulative, and un-self-awareI didn't have to paint you as anything; simply referencing your own use of expressions like "evil mind-plague" is where descriptors like "belligerent" come from, and your bafflement (in this very thread, even) at the suggestion of communicating differently is the evidence of your lack of self-awareness.
If simply referencing your own actions feels like you're being painted in a negative light, then maybe it's your own actions that are doing the painting.
That's not what you're doing, though - you talk like you're being supremely objective, and nothing could be further from the truth. You misinterpret what I say, reach a judgment, insist there's something wrong with me if I don't lie down and accept it, and refuse to listen when I say you don't understand.
...people like you seem frighteningly adept (and comfortable with) weird "guilty-until-proven-innocent" sucker-punch maneuvers...Referencing your own past behavior is not "guilty until proven innocent", it's "here's what this guy has done".
I think We're even further off the same page on here than elsewhere, so I won't even bother, save to say that much.
...one thing you can take to the bank about me: ...I fight fairNo, you don't. Fighting fair is when you demonstrate an understanding of someone else's idea, and then specifically and politely point out the issues you see.
A) You don't do this.
B) I find myself now in the same communication-killing nightmare miasma of I've found myself in many times before: How does one distinguish "I don't understand" from "I disagree?"
C) We've established that my communication skills aren't as good as my thinking/understanding skills - that means I deserve some slack. I'm trying my best on my end to wade through this until we get somewhere that makes sense, but you just keep piling on additional confusing detritus I'm forced to sort through.
"Parasitic meme" and "evil mind-plague" are not fighting fair. I don't know where you got the idea that you "fight fair", but it sure wasn't from a careful review of your own actions. (See also: "trying to paint me as un-self-aware".)
How is it not fighting fair? I'm stating my observations as best I understand them. As best I can tell, you're forcibly fusing "honest" with "polite," or something, which you should know is a non-starter. Can I control your mind? I cannot. May I control your mind? I may not. That being the case, how CAN your feelings be my fault if I have no power over them (if my intent was to hurt your feelings and I knew just how to do it, that would be different, but that's certainly not the case here)? The mere fact that what I have to say ruffles your feathers has no bearing on whether or not what I'm saying it's true. You can argue my claim by many means, but you can't claim that what I say is wrong, or that there's anything wrong with me, simply on the grounds of you not liking what I have to say. Facts =/= feelings. Both matter, but the former matters more, and seldom does the latter have any bearing on the former.
Unfortunately, your consistent use of self-contradictory and verifiably false assertions is quickly eroding that faith.
The long and short is: You don't understand, and you don't seem to be making any effort to do so - and as long as you expect the minds of those who are different from you to make sense in the rigid context of your own way of thinking ("otherwise something MUST be wrong with them!"), you never will.
My sides.
Orbit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...again...either every single person you've talked to is wrong or only you are.
(I'm speaking about your attitude, of course, not necessarily your original topic.)
My god! The popcorn sales alone!...I... words can not describe...
This thread can only end in tragedy.
|
|
...again...either every single person you've talked to is wrong or only you are.
Your definition of "every single person" is awfully narrow - I only see a few people arguing with me here. Common sense should inform you that there are others in my life who know me far better than you, and guess what? They'd be the first to say that I'm nothing like what you've been painting me as (first even before myself, in fact - I have to struggle to believe in myself, and this crap is no minor part of why).
Also, even if that were the dichotomy, it wouldn't prove anything. The idea that "the majority MUST be right, because it's the majority, and an individual who thinks differently cannot possibly be other than arrogant/stupid/whatever" is the veritable poster-child for "evil mind-plague." You, at least, should know better.
It should also be noted (as a continuation of the last bit of my previous post) that part of why not everything I say makes sense is because a lot of this doesn't make sense TO ME. I have to seriously flounder to figure out what's going on here and how it all fits together, so it's actually a big mistake on your part to take everything I've said and assume it adds up to a coherent, cohesive, meaningful, singular whole - I SAID THAT STUFF, and I'm telling you now that it DOESN'T, since most of it is analogous to trying to locate a piñata when I've got the full "blindfolded, spun 'till I'm dizzy, and the guy holding the piñata rope is being a borderline-dick about moving it around" suite going on.
That's just flat-out mean. I've been dead-serious about this every step of the way, and if you're just deliberately trying to confuse me after attacking me...WTF? I thought you were better than that.
I can't find an appropriate way to flag this entire thread so it ends. It's not inappropriate. Off topic?
We need a flag that just says "this is a trainwreck."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find an appropriate way to flag this entire thread so it ends. It's not inappropriate. Off topic?
We need a flag that just says "this is a trainwreck."
"Breaks Other Guidelines"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does one distinguish "I don't understand" from "I disagree?"
Easy, You need to acknowledge their view and show you understand why they might feel that way. Then you explain why you don't agree with that view and then share your own.
Like this.
I understand you feel it's the listeners job to understand what the speaker is saying and not the speakers job to communicate in a way that the listener will understand. It could seem like this is the case, why should you put forth extra work communicating when you're just wanting to share whats on your mind? The issue is, if one is just speaking and no one understands what they're saying than the speaker is not communicating. They are just making noise. Yes the listener needs to do their best to understand the speaker, thus why a good listener repeats back their understanding of what the speaker said to make sure they got it right, but then the speaker needs to either confirm it's correct or explain in a different way to show what the difference is between what they were wanting to share and what the listener received. Not all people are good listeners though, or respond politely when they repeat back their understanding of your view. But it's the speakers job to say their view, if they say something and people aren't understanding correctly you can't just tell them they are wrong and repeat what you had previously said. The listener can only take the shared words and try and make meaning of them. The speaker is the one that decides the words and can rephrase the words to get their point across.
If you care to point out reasons it's the listener's job I've failed to address or further clarify bringing in new points of why you think it's the listener's job then feel free to do so.
See, this is how you show you understand what what they are saying and disagree with it. Rather than saying, "No you're wrong, it's the listener's job!" Because that doesn't show understanding of what is being said.
BUT this only works if, you know, you're actually willing to make sure others are understanding what you're saying and that you're understanding what they are saying. Otherwise you're free to continue to not do anything and then, seemingly, get frustrated when the majority of forum posters say you're saying one thing when that's not what you're meaning to say.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of my forum health, I'm going to wade back into this before it gets locked. I don't think IHIYC is trolling, and frankly I don't like the dogpile of s#@+posting either.
I have maintained since the beginning [of our arguments months ago] that your idea of the optimizer, whatever term you want to use, is a straw man. Their position, as people who only value the numbers and spit on everyone who disagrees, is incomprehensible because it does not actually exist. The common phrase "you'd have to be stupid not to" (or whatever variants) are rarely meant to be taken at face value. The first page of this thread, Jiggy's phenomenal post in particular, should have made things perfectly clear.
Cut through the back-and-forth about who's being rude, and who started it, and it's the same old rollplay vs. roleplay argument. Only this time, it comes with overwrought histrionics from an autistic Bay-area androgyne (your words) that doomed the conversation from the start. You want to talk about extending understanding? I can't even begin to describe how arrogant it is to call yourself Cassandra because the majority doesn't think on your level because they're afflicted by brain parasites.