name_here wrote:I would point out that I once played a game called Space Station 13, which is a multiplayer game where coming back from the dead is incredibly complicated and double-digit player bodycounts are not uncommon. And if your team loses the round, you lose the round.
But you know what? It's fun. It's fun taking up toolboxes to rush the armored guy with an energy sword, it's fun fiddling with explosives that may have a much larger blast radius than you want, it's fun trying to crowbar your way through doors when the power is cut, it's fun winning as the traitor, it's usually fun losing as the traitor, and it's fun having the post-round chat asking how the ever-living fuck people pulled X off. The only thing that's not fun is being dead when there's nothing interesting to watch.
I started playing SS13 in February. It's pretty interesting; and Rouge-like in it's levels of complication.
Also, "nintendo hard" is piddling compared to playing original Rogue. I cut my gaming teeth on Rogue; and games that are less entertaining than Rogue have to be pretty bad. The Dark Souls game is a game I consider less entertaining than Rogue.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
You guys have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The Zak S defense always involves quotes, facts and evidence. Whatever y'all are doing is the opposite.
Y'know that stereotype about virgin D&D nerds in their mom's basement? If you read something about me or the girls here, it's probably one of them trolling for our attention. For the straight story, come to: http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com and ask.
Zak S wrote:You guys have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The Zak S defense always involves quotes, facts and evidence. Whatever y'all are doing is the opposite.
Are.. you capable of anything besides self-parody?
Zak S wrote:You guys have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The Zak S defense always involves quotes, facts and evidence. Whatever y'all are doing is the opposite.
Are.. you capable of anything besides self-parody?
Since that's just you avoiding the issue, it's not real important to answer that. But here I am doing it any way because I'm really nice.
Whatever it is I'm capable of, you clearly prefer lumping it in as the same as the exploits of an imaginary me that you made up to…I guess prove that any rational argument against what you already think doesn't exist.
But that doesn't actually make it so: in the end you play a game and things either work or they don't. No amount of theorywanking can make it so things that don't work suddenly do or things that do work suddenly don't. If you want to make up an imaginary Zak that doesn't actually have a game that is ongoing and functioning like some weird failed gaming USSR that only exists in your mind you can do that. But at least be aware you're doing that.
Last edited by Zak S on Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
I've no dog in the fight, because I really haven't been following it, but I think he was pointing to the fact that you just popped into the thread referring to some posts a couple pages back without quoting them.
Ancient History wrote:I've no dog in the fight, because I really haven't been following it, but I think he was pointing to the fact that you just popped into the thread referring to some posts a couple pages back without quoting them.
People who weren't talking smack can just ignore this aside, and people who were likely haven't forgotten that they did it.
Is it too late for me to apologize to everyone on this thread for what it has become? i am truely sorry for your lots.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
The Zak S Defense™ isn't constrained to a single post. It's a synergistic multiply-linked entity spread across posts and threads, and within the entire gestalt of The Defense there will be quotes, facts, and evidence.
Last edited by John Magnum on Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
angelfromanotherpin wrote:Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said 'always,' not 'upon request.'
Let me check.
Zak S wrote:The Zak S defense always involves quotes, facts and evidence.
Huh. Must be my lying eyes.
Obviously I can't defend myself (or mount a defense) if I don't know what you're accusing me of. Just because I'm talking or writing doesn't mean I am mounting a defense.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:Is it too late for me to apologize to everyone on this thread for what it has become? i am truely sorry for your lots.
Get over yourself. These days, TGD offers little in the way of interesting discussion despite the pretense that "TGD IS SPECIAL AND MORE GOOD ABOUT GAMEZ DESIGNZ." Pretty much all the threads are shit, with idiots hating each other for being idiots. There is basically no interesting discussion or debate. People are better off going 60 pages back on the forum and reading old stuff.
Oh, then you are an idiot. Because infected slut princess has never posted anything worth reading at any time.
See, this is why no one takes you seriously. You're a goldfish. Remember the post you made? The one I have quoted several times now? I know you might have forgotten, it was a whole two hours ago, so here it is in its entirety.
Zak S wrote:You guys have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The Zak S defense always involves quotes, facts and evidence. Whatever y'all are doing is the opposite.
So, where are the quotes, facts and evidence supporting the Zak S defense being what you claim it is, and not being what the 'you guys' you were addressing here claim it is?
angelfromanotherpin wrote:See, this is why no one takes you seriously. You're a goldfish. Remember the post you made? The one I have quoted several times now? I know you might have forgotten, it was a whole two hours ago, so here it is in its entirety.
Zak S wrote:You guys have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The Zak S defense always involves quotes, facts and evidence. Whatever y'all are doing is the opposite.
So, where are the quotes, facts and evidence supporting the Zak S defense being what you claim it is, and not being what the 'you guys' you were addressing here claim it is?
Oh, you want it repeated again? I did not realize that you wanted it all repeated again.
In its simplest form, the refutation of the delusion that I said any of the crazy things I've been accused of saying things is here: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=370185
Note the oddity that the argument stops with the thread ending after someone apologizes.
In the more complex form the delusion that I say crazy stuff pretty much changes and grows to fill whatever container you put it in because it's not driven by logic by personal rancor or just a will-to-troll, but if you can name any specific part of it that, I can tell you where the specific mistake is.
So: specific accusations will be met with specific refutations. Random babbling and invective will be more difficult to parse.
John Magnum wrote:I told you. The alleged evidence might be in another topic entirely, but it's somewhere, and it's all part of The Defense™.
If you would prefer I just endlessly post the same facts people ignore over and over and over, you can type your request into the little box, using your computer or phone keyboard. I presume it's less intrusive to simply link to the same facts people ignore over and over and over.
Last edited by Zak S on Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zak S wrote:In its simplest form, the refutation of the delusion that I said any of the crazy things I've been accused of saying things is here: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=370185
... I don't even.
That isn't a quote. That is a link to a very long page of discussion, and it is not at all clear what part of it you are even referring to. But more significantly, it isn't a quote.
So you have just defended yourself without quoting. Again. The first time you did that, it falsified your assertion that the Zak S defense always includes quotes, facts and evidence. But repeatedly refuting yourself is good, too.
Zak S wrote:If you would prefer I just endlessly post the same facts people ignore over and over and over, you can type your request into the little box, using your computer or phone keyboard. I presume it's less intrusive to simply link to the same facts people ignore over and over and over.
Wait you have facts? That's news to me, aren't you the "that's like your opinion man" guy.
Zak S wrote:In its simplest form, the refutation of the delusion that I said any of the crazy things I've been accused of saying things is here: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=370185
... I don't even.
That isn't a quote. That is a link to a very long page of discussion, and it is not at all clear what part of it you are even referring to. But more significantly, it isn't a quote.
So you have just defended yourself without quoting. Again. The first time you did that, it falsified your assertion that the Zak S defense always includes quotes, facts and evidence. But repeatedly refuting yourself is good, too.
The link is not only to a bunch of quotes (that is: things people said) and includes within those quotes people quoting (that is: people citing other things people said) and links to yet other quotes (more things people said). I don't know what you think you're talking about.
There isn't much in forum discussions besides quotes. So if I refer you to an actual forum discussion I am quoting. Also, I just quoted you above, lying, in that big rectangle up there.
Last edited by Zak S on Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:13 am, edited 3 times in total.
Zak S wrote:There isn't much in forum discussions besides quotes. So if I refer you to an actual forum discussion I am quoting.
Linking is not quoting; not in any usage of English, common or academic.
Zak S wrote:Also, I just quoted you above, lying, in that big rectangle up there.
So, you count my argument against you as a quotation in your defense? Well, you can certainly try that, but I don't think it's going to make you any less of a laughingstock.
Zak no matter how many times you whine, cry and demand that we apologise you not going to change the past. This still happened.
Zak S wrote:So you're assuming, sight unseen, the rulings are bad.
That's not science.
That's just wishing.
PhoneLobster wrote:You are claiming to generate a complex formal precedence based rules set based entirely on spur of the moment decisions.
You do not get to say "I just get it perfect first time every time! I dare you to prove otherwise. YOU DON'T KNOW ME!".
Because that is a stupid thing to say. Only a very very very stupid person would honestly say that.
I mean the actual competency level to even BEGIN to run a game in that manner with even MARGINAL success requires someone with sufficient intelligence to actually honestly admit that fuck it, sometimes their spur of the moment rulings are not in fact fucking perfect.
I mean holy fuck man, the first step towards wisdom and all that.
Any GM who actually believes they make perfect rulings in that manner is an exceptionally incompetent one. So incompetent that I actually don't think you ARE that bad, if for no other reason than that level of stupidity being statistically unlikely to encounter in real life. You're just blowing far too hard on an internet forum and making a fool of yourself because you don't want to admit you are wrong and maybe even rather confused.
Zak S wrote:Let's test your theory, lobster.
Ask me for a rule.
That's what you actually said and it's clear from the context of the thread that you thought you would be able to awe PL with the brilliance of your on the spot ruling (because you are apparently just that out of touch). You failed to do that, your ruling failed beyond our wildest imagining. You deserve every bit of scorn you've received for that and then some.
You're creating a competitive party tabletop game centered around argument and debate. Write a rule to determine what does and does not constitute "evidence".
Judging__Eagle wrote:
Also, "nintendo hard" is piddling compared to playing original Rogue. I cut my gaming teeth on Rogue; and games that are less entertaining than Rogue have to be pretty bad. The Dark Souls game is a game I consider less entertaining than Rogue.
Rogue is turn based though, that's a different kind of game than the reflexes and pattern recognition of say, Ghouls n' Ghosts.
