Can you even ever give a direct answer to a direct question?
No, that doesn’t allow for continuing to waste people’s time.
You know I interact on these forums with other people who are autistic. They don’t call themselves robots, in fact they argue AGAINST that stereotype. That and the way you only ever bring it up as an excuse for rude behavior or to excuse badgering someone in a constant barrage of questions about your preferred topic of D20 and the “secret style” makes me wonder if it is legitimate. You are a known liar who has been caught in multiple fabrications over the years. Why should we trust that you aren’t using negative stereotypes to give yourself cover to be rude?
Most people want acceptance and to feel accepted. I don't care about acceptance. I've got nothing but hatred and trouble from larger society, so I tell society to go shove it. I care about truth, accuracy, logic, knowledge. I want correct answers, not social acceptable answers.
I don't care about fitting in anywhere, therefore, I don't care about labels that will improve my acceptance by general society.
I do care about better communication that minimizes emotional bias, hence trying to get people to talk like they're talking to a robot.
Further, I work hard to avoid being rude, and as near as I can tell, I've done a stellar job of being polite. A few rare occasions come up, but certainly not a general rudeness. However, people like you hate me, and normal people tend to see people they hate in a very negative light, such as considering them rude regardless of whether they actually are.
Multiple people in this thread in the last week have given examples to you of games with unique play styles,
I'm saying that there is no one true wayism between styles and systems, and you think going "look! one true way systems!" is somehow evidence that I'm wrong. Maybe try proving in some way that systems can't be played in other ways.
It’s like all those posts in the PF2 Remaster thread where you lecture PF2e Infinite designers on the encounter math of PF2 and refused to acknowledge that they were telling you the encounter math in PF2 is NOT the same as in 3.X.
Clearly you did not understand what was being discussed. This was not about math. I was saying that encounters do not need to be balanced. Some encounters can be incredibly easy, make the players feel powerful by curb-stomping enemies that before where difficult, and some encounters can be so overwhelming that they can't possibly win by head on combat but need to either use diplomacy or find some alternative strategy to win or at least to grant sufficient advantage to make a head on attack at least feasible but preferably require research and preparation. Think players have fun now? Just wait till they beat a boss that would crit every strike it took against them but never had the chance to take.
No, it just proves 1. you don’t know what you’re talking about. Which happens when you try to speak with authority on topics you’ve not ever engaged with.
This topic is my life's work. I've been engaging with it for decades.
On these forums it would tend to be PF1 that would come up, but due to your fixation you always go back to 3.X.
Not much of a difference really. Only a few tweaks, a few DCs. But one difference that does exist is that pf1 is not focused on simulation like 3.x is. The math underlying 3.x is beautiful. PF1 marrs that beauty a bit. Not that I'm blaming paizo or anything, they just have different goals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My god you suck the joy and fun out of using forums on messageboards, like completely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further, I work hard to avoid being rude, and as near as I can tell, I've done a stellar job of being polite. A few rare occasions come up, but certainly not a general rudeness. However, people like you hate me, and normal people tend to see people they hate in a very negative light, such as considering them rude regardless of whether they actually are.
You called me “sick-minded” for politely asking you not to disparage my TTRPGs of choice today. That’s a “stellar job”?
Further, I work hard to avoid being rude, and as near as I can tell, I've done a stellar job of being polite. A few rare occasions come up, but certainly not a general rudeness. However, people like you hate me, and normal people tend to see people they hate in a very negative light, such as considering them rude regardless of whether they actually are.You called me “sick-minded” for politely asking you not to disparage my TTRPGs of choice today. That’s a “stellar job”?
I didn't disparage anything. I called it sick minded to consider classifying things a disparagement. It actually disgusts me that someone would consider it a disparagement.
Further, I work hard to avoid being rude, and as near as I can tell, I've done a stellar job of being polite.
You're rude all the time, to everyone. You can scroll back through this thread and find many examples of people telling you that your behavior was rude - and those are the posts that DIDN'T get moderated away.
However, people like you hate me, and normal people tend to see people they hate in a very negative light, such as considering them rude regardless of whether they actually are.
I don't hate you, I just don't have any patience for your BS.
I'm saying that there is no one true wayism between styles and systems, and you think going "look! one true way systems!" is somehow evidence that I'm wrong. Maybe try proving in some way that systems can't be played in other ways.
If you claim that there is no such thing as a game with a unique playstyle and multiple people come out of the woodwork to challenge that claim by referencing SPECIFIC games - you are arguing that their challenge lacks sufficient evidence? That your naked claim stands taller than their EXAMPLES? Is that logical?
Clearly you did not understand what was being discussed. This was not about math. I was saying that encounters do not need to be balanced. Some encounters can be incredibly easy, make the players feel powerful by curb-stomping enemies that before where difficult, and some encounters can be so overwhelming that they can't possibly win by head on combat but need to either use diplomacy or find some alternative strategy to win or at least to grant sufficient advantage to make a head on attack at least feasible but preferably require research and preparation. Think players have fun now? Just wait till they beat a boss that would crit every strike it took against them but never had the chance to take.
Clearly YOU did not understand what was being discussed. Because while you were suggesting that 3.X Encounter design works for PF2, PF2 players were explaining to you that PF2 uses tighter encounter math and that they default to incredibly balanced. You said that that was a myth, so PF2 players elaborated on the tight math once again and explained how quickly PF2 encounters can turn deadly on the players by just being a few levels above the party. You dismissed that claim by using 3.X encounter math to further elaborate on your examples. You didn't understand PF2 encounter design but you lectured them about it anyways.
This topic is my life's work. I've been engaging with it for decades.
I was specifically referencing that you have never engaged with Genesys and that is a justifiable reason to be wrong about said game. However, if this is your life's work - given the poor interactions with people defending your work in this thread and the reactions of people to your playtest thread for your system --- your life's work isn't going that well so far.
But one difference that does exist is that pf1 is not focused on simulation like 3.x is. The math underlying 3.x is beautiful.
Yeah, you don't have a fixation on 3.x, why would I have ever thought that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't disparage anything. I called it sick minded to consider classifying things a disparagement. It actually disgusts me that someone would consider it a disparagement.
Saying that you are disgusted by someones innocuous response to what YOU said to them is rude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
literally what's your problem, dude. go log off and do something outside. would you talk to your friends like this?
literally what's your problem, dude. go log off and do something outside. would you talk to your friends like this?
I literally see no problem with how I talk. I'm pretty sure people "read between the lines" and get some impression that is not intended.
For example, a poster earlier claimed that said something as a polite way way of telling me he wasn't interested in discussing it. For me to have understood that would have required me to read between the lines and infer he actual meaning and additionally infer that I should have discarded any meaning of the literal words he used. I can't do that. I literally can't do that. I can reread his statement and still I do not see how anyone is supposed to understand he was politely saying he didn't want to discuss it.
The same works in the other direction. If you all are trying to read between the lines and infer something that is different from the direct meaning of the words I'm using, then naturally you are going to infer stuff that I literally had no intention of conveying and no understanding of.
That is one possible avenue for how I can see it as polite and others not.
Brevity. Embrace it.
I didn't disparage anything. I called it sick minded to consider classifying things a disparagement. It actually disgusts me that someone would consider it a disparagement.Saying that you are disgusted by someones innocuous response to what YOU said to them is rude.
I'm disgusted by the concept, not the response.
Their claim is no different than saying that all cats should be called dogs because calling them cats is somehow disparaging and insulting.
The entire concept is ridiculous.
Further, they are the ones who are saying that I'm being rude because of reasons that are despicable, and yet it's rude for me to tell them off for it?
No.
The idea that classifying things into groups is disparaging towards one of the groups is just ridiculous. That is the idea I call sick minded.
There's a reason cats are not called dogs, and it's not to disparage dogs or cats. And reason we don't call card games board games, and it's not to mark one as inferior.
The entire concept that classification is an insult is evil.
I literally see no problem with how I talk. I'm pretty sure people "read between the lines" and get some impression that is not intended.
Given the frequency with which it happens you have to start considering that the problem is YOU.
Brevity. Embrace it.
I wish. Figuring out how to be concise is a skill very far beyond me, though I agree it's great when you can get it to work.
Given the frequency with which it happens you have to start considering that the problem is YOU.I literally see no problem with how I talk. I'm pretty sure people "read between the lines" and get some impression that is not intended.
Duh. That's why I say to talk to me like you're talking to a robot.
The majority of communication is built in, and those parts are not something that you can just pick up and learn. Mostly they rely on both sides sharing that built in stuff, a bit like an instinctive cypher. It can only be understood if you have a copy of the code book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm disgusted by the concept, not the response.
The response WAS the concept.
If you experience revulsion at that concept, then you might just be too much of a shrinking violet for public forums.
Their claim is no different than saying that all cats should be called dogs because calling them cats is somehow disparaging and insulting.
No it is QUITE different than that. Their claim was that you were classifying the TTRPG's they like as not actually being TTRPG's. You suggested that them calling you out for disparaging what they like is "disgusting."
Further, they are the ones who are saying that I'm being rude because of reasons that are despicable, and yet it's rude for me to tell them off for it?
Their claim that you were being dismissive of the games they enjoy is despicable? Dude grow up.
The idea that classifying things into groups is disparaging towards one of the groups is just ridiculous. That is the idea I call sick minded.
Except that is what you ARE doing. Classifying TTRPG's into two groups. The ones you like which you claim ARE TTRPG's and the ones you don't like which you claim ARE NOT.
The idea that it is somehow "sick" to believe that was what you were doing is just not a normal way of looking at things.
There's a reason cats are not called dogs, and it's not to disparage dogs or cats. And reason we don't call card games board games, and it's not to mark one as inferior.
The games they were discussing are called Tabletop Roleplaying Games, the only one claiming they are in fact NOT TTRPG'S is you. You are not an authority that determines classification for the hobby. Therefore their claims about your behavior are correct.
The entire concept that classification is an insult is evil.
Now it's evil?
If that is evil then:
Intentionally misleading people by claiming to hold a baccalaureate degree that you never earned is evil.
Duh. That's why I say to talk to me like you're talking to a robot.
If you recognize that you are the problem, then maybe your first reaction when challenged should not be to double down on accusing others of mistreating you.
If you claim that there is no such thing as a game with a unique playstyle and multiple people come out of the woodwork to challenge that claim by referencing SPECIFIC games - you are arguing that their challenge lacks sufficient evidence? That your naked claim stands taller than their EXAMPLES? Is that logical?
Problem, not a single reference is to a game with a unique playstyle. Claiming that a game has a unique playstyle does not mean that the game actually has a unique playstyle.
Further, this particular argument is basically just repeating the claim.
You are claiming that a playstyle can be limited to a single system and that a single system has a single playstyle, a single allowable way to play. I'm saying that concept is wrong.
Bringing in more systems doesn't add to your claim at all, nor does it expand anything. My claim is that no system has only one playstyle.
Your examples of systems don't hold up. They are not limited to just one style and therefore they do not prove systems are limited to just one style.
If you want to contend that those systems are limited, you need to actually demonstrate that they are limited, not merely claim they are limited.
PF2 players were explaining to you that PF2 uses tighter encounter math
The point you insist on missing is that the math is irrelevant to my point. It literal doesn't matter how tight the math is when claiming that there is value in having encounters that are very easy and very hard. The math just dictates how to identify which encounters would be easy, but does nothing for ascribing value to having easy encounters.
encounters can turn deadly
A valuable thing to include. Doesn't matter how many levels you need to add to achieve it.
I was specifically referencing that you have never engaged with Genesys and that is a justifiable reason to be wrong about said game.
To use a car analogy, a lifelong mechanic and car designer can encounter a brand new car they've never seen before and know a lot about the fundamentals that new car's design has to be built around, and will be able to assess a great deal from a quick glance and far more from a visual inspection. Sure, there will be minor details and things, but that lifelong mechanic will still immediately understand a lot more than the average driver. Even more than that is that the mechanic will understand general principles that every car must be built around and know that a car they've never seen must deal with those same universal principles.
The same applies here. My life's work is understanding rpgs, and there are universal truths that apply to all rpgs, even systems I've never seen.
Duh. That's why I say to talk to me like you're talking to a robot.If you recognize that you are the problem, then maybe your first reaction when challenged should not be to double down on accusing others of mistreating you.
I generally don't say they mistreat me. I say they don't understand. Very different.
You being one of the exceptions, because you often go out of your way to say I'm in the wrong even when you really don't need to, even when you claim to not want to be part of the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Duh. That's why I say to talk to me like you're talking to a robot.
You ever see how Han talked to 3PO? This is gonna be fun.
Problem, not a single reference is to a game with a unique playstyle. Claiming that a game has a unique playstyle does not mean that the game actually has a unique playstyle.Further, this particular argument is basically just repeating the claim.
Which is exactly what YOU'RE doing. You're just repeating the claim that there is no such thing.
You are claiming that a playstyle can be limited to a single system and that a single system has a single playstyle, a single allowable way to play. I'm saying that concept is wrong.
And providing no evidence to back up that claim while demanding that I provide evidence to disprove your claim. That makes you a hypocrite.
Bringing in more systems doesn't add to your claim at all, nor does it expand anything. My claim is that no system has only one playstyle.
And you've provide not one shred of evidence to your claim.
If you want to contend that those systems are limited, you need to actually demonstrate that they are limited, not merely claim they are limited.
If you want to contend that those systems are limitless, you need to actually demonstrate that they are limitless, not merely claim they are limitless.
The point you insist on missing is that the math is irrelevant to my point.
That math is DIRECTLY RELEVANT when your point was telling them that the argument of encounters of a particular level being deadly was a myth. They were making a statement BASED ON THE MATH and you claimed it was false
It literal doesn't matter how tight the math is when claiming that there is value in having encounters that are very easy and very hard. The math just dictates how to identify which encounters would be easy, but does nothing for ascribing value to having easy encounters.
The GM guidance in the PF2e core book presents the value of each type of encounter and an encounter budget that allows for the creation of that kind of encounter. People literally told you as much.
encounters can turn deadlyA valuable thing to include. Doesn't matter how many levels you need to add to achieve it.
It does matter when you are telling people that the point at which they are saying the encounters become deadly is just a myth and then lecturing them on how encounters work in a DIFFERENT GAME.
I was specifically referencing that you have never engaged with Genesys and that is a justifiable reason to be wrong about said game.
To use a car analogy, a lifelong mechanic and car designer can encounter a brand new car they've never seen before and know a lot about the fundamentals that new car's design has to be built around
To continue the analogy, you've never worked on a car in your life.
Adding some really poorly balanced house rules to 3.X doesn't make you a designer or give you special insight into the design of other games. Reading that Alexandrian doesn't make you a games scholar.
More importantly to the analogy YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT GENESYS! Your entire appraisal of it was based upon reading my comment about it.
I'm not going to moderate my responses to him. It has been half a decade of exchanges like this. He's long since worn out all of his good will with me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am also autistic. I also have a passion for tabletop game design, and have for ~15 years now. I’ve published several works of my own, including a Gold Best-Seller on the DM’s Guild and an indie game with over 20,000 downloads; I say this not to brag, but to show you my credentials on this thread’s topic.
I do not call people or their sentiments “sick-minded.” I rarely say that the opinions of others are “disgusting,” especially in the casual context of an online forum about playing pretend. I do try not to speak on things I haven’t personally read.
Somehow, people do not interpret me as rude, or see my comments as insulting - and it’s not because they’ve arbitrarily decided to hate just one of us.
DLH, you want to present yourself as a perfectly rational master of everything you speak on… but the other day, you didn’t recognize a pretty core Pathfinder creature (which you instead dismissed as anime-adjacent slang), and here you’re talking very authoritatively about games you clearly have never cracked open. When you don’t consider the facts of the conversation, or the feelings of the people you’re having it with, you are being inconsiderate.
