Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[wotmaniac]

That is demonstrably a narcissistic delusion. The amount of narcissism required to think that was even a thing that could be seriously suggested in discussion is genuinely pathological. My suggestion, my serious suggestion, as a doctor, is to get psychological help. There is no magical cure that makes narcissistic personality disorder go away, but some patients do better taking anti-anxiety or anti-psychotic medications.

-Username17

Funny you should mention this, Frank. Because I happen to have been reading a particular psychology article earlier today; and, apparently, those involved with the adult film industry are especially prone to the Dark Triad (I'm sure that the chicken-egg relationship could be argued both ways -- personally, I lean towards the Triad being the precursor, and then further perpetuated) .... which, if my understanding is even remotely resembling accurate, is what we are witnessing here.

Thoughts?

[Dean]

Since when are my rules the SRD?

You are hilarious.

You have given no such rule that 1 is an automatic failure.

I don't but D&D does. Jesus: what game have you been playing all these years?

So were you lying then or are you lying now.

[Zak S]

Since when are my rules the SRD?

You are hilarious.

You have given no such rule that 1 is an automatic failure.

I don't but D&D does. Jesus: what game have you been playing all these years?

So were you lying then or are you lying now.

D&D does not equal the D20 SRD. If dipshit doesn't know about autofails I'm not gonna go and dig up which book they come from. He can go find it.

[Kaelik]

Can we call that a violation of the threads that make you laugh/cry PR/Roy Rule?

D&D does not equal the D20 SRD. If dipshit doesn't know about autofails I'm not gonna go and dig up which book they come from. He can go find it.

This would be less funny if they hadn't already given you a page citation. But luckily they did.

[Zak S]

That is demonstrably a narcissistic delusion. The amount of narcissism required to think that was even a thing that could be seriously suggested in discussion is genuinely pathological. My suggestion, my serious suggestion, as a doctor, is to get psychological help. There is no magical cure that makes narcissistic personality disorder go away, but some patients do better taking anti-anxiety or anti-psychotic medications.

-Username17

Funny you should mention this, Frank. Because I happen to have been reading a particular psychology article earlier today; and, apparently, those involved with the adult film industry are especially prone to the Dark Triad (I'm sure that the chicken-egg relationship could be argued both ways) .... which, if my understanding is even remotely resembling accurate, is what we are witnessing here.

Thoughts?

Oh, if you want to go there then you should ask psychologists what conclusions they've come to about anonymous troll virgins with cartoons for avatars who lose their shit about other peoples' D&D rules on the internet.

But you probably don't, because it's not really germane.

[wotmaniac]

Goddammit -- what edition of what game do you use as a baseline? You've never clarified this.

[Kaelik]

Goddammit -- what edition of what game do you use as a baseline? You've never clarified this.

If he clarified, someone might look up the actual rules, and point out that he is full of shit. But instead he made a rule for a system he refuses to name, thus making it not whatever is being criticized.

[Zak S]

Goddammit -- what edition of what game do you use as a baseline? You've never clarified this.

We don't use much in the way of baseline. Spells, saves and to-hit and bonuses for sunday come out of 3.5 mostly (heavily modified) and spells, saves and to hit for monday come out of AD&D mostly (heavily modified), but everything is house-ruled as it comes up or is requested and comes from all over the place.

But the smart thing to do when confused about a rule is ask and the dumb thing to do is to pretend that (despite the fact I run D&D all the time) I am creating an imaginary game to fuck with you.

[Kaelik]

Oh, if you want to go there then you should ask psychologists what conclusions they've come to about anonymous troll virgins with cartoons for avatars who lose their shit about other peoples' D&D rules on the internet.

I'm extremely disappointed Zak S. You used to at least aim your criticisms in the general direction of the people you were talking to. You called me an asshole, and PL a strawman fabricator, and stuff, and it made me feel like you cared.

But this, this is pathetic, now you have just resorted to your stock list of insults that you throw at everyone who disagrees with you. I mean of all the pointless meaningless attacks to make, that has got to be the most pathetic you have made yet.

[Dean]

OMG the part where he told us everyone -really- think he's cool is amazing! This is easily the best thread ever. When you hurt Zak S's feelings he fights back with


That's so funny I'll ignore him saying he's running D&D but it's not D&D but virgil needs to look up the rules to D&D if he wants to correct Zak on the D&D rules Zak was incorrect about.

[DSMatticus]

Ancient History, you have the patience of a saint, but I think you should consider the possibility that the person you're talking to doesn't deserve your patience. You're not going to get meaningful discussion out of him, no matter how civil you are, no matter how much you indulge his tangents, no matter how much you try to guide him back from his red herrings. He is stupid, deceitful, and conceited, and... honestly, watching the exchange I just feel fucking sorry for you. Like a parent stuck dealing with the unruliest and brattiest child I've ever seen. But he's not your kid - you can dump him in the nearest metaphorical dumpster and be done with it!

I mean, fucking seriously; just look at his response to Frank. He didn't even pretend to address the content. The whole post is just "we argued before you and you walked away from me that means I won neener neener neener don't talk to me loser." Holy fuck.

And then there's this line of exchange:

You have given no such rule that 1 is an automatic failure.

I don't but D&D does. Jesus: what game have you been playing all these years?

3rd edition and later got rid of nat 1's and nat 20's on ability checks and skill checks. You could have been playing D&D for fourteen years at this point and not have ever played a game in which, by the rules, charisma checks had nat 1's. Now, I can understand why you made the mistake, since you to seem to prefer older editions. But it's a mistake nonetheless. Perhaps you should be more precise or less conceited?

#1: I would like for Zak S to comment on his being factually wrong that 1's are auto-failures on ability and skill checks. Zak since you have access to the internet, can check the SRD, and are very keen on people apologizing when incorrect I wonder if you would like to comment on you using factually incorrect information in your defense.

Since when are my rules the SRD?

I don't but D&D does. Jesus: what game have you been playing all these years?

So were you lying then or are you lying now.

D&D does not equal the D20 SRD. If dipshit doesn't know about autofails I'm not gonna go and dig up which book they come from. He can go find it.

So either Zak S is totally full of shit and moving goalposts, or he was taunting virgil for not playing the same edition of D&D as him. Or, worst case: taunting virgil for not playing his house rules of D&D. Which makes zero fucking sense.

Also, minor quibble: every edition of D&D that has roll-under ability checks I'm aware of had failures on nat 20's, not nat 1's. Because on roll-under, 1 is the exact opposite of very bad. So it's not like we can't call you wrong for that, anyways.

[Zak S]

For anyone keeping score at home, Deanruel87's last actual on-topic post was on page one:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55 ... sc&start=0

Where he rewrote the rule I wrote worse, then critiqued his own new, dumb rule. I then pointed out he had done that. He then claimed he had to because he couldn't understand it. I then explained that my task was to invent a working rule not to be sure that deanruel87 could understand it. He made no response to that and has, since then, simply posted opportunistically.

So if deanruel87 has any actual objections to the written rule he either doesn't know it (because he can't understand it) or is keeping them under his hat in favor of trolling.

[wotmaniac]

We don't use much in the way of baseline. Spells, saves and to-hit and bonuses for sunday come out of 3.5 mostly (heavily modified) and spells, saves and to hit for monday come out of AD&D mostly (heavily modified), but everything is house-ruled as it comes up or is requested and comes from all over the place.

But the smart thing to do when confused about a rule is ask and the dumb thing to do is to pretend that (despite the fact I run D&D all the time) I am creating an imaginary game to fuck with you.

Am I the only one here that sees the ZOMFGWTF doublethink here?

Oh, if you want to go there then you should ask psychologists what conclusions they've come to about anonymous troll virgins with cartoons for avatars who lose their shit about other peoples' D&D rules on the internet.

Oh, sorry -- that wasn't for you. That was me trying to have an aside with Frank.
Now, go back to your regular bullshit -- grown folks is trying to talk here.

[Kaelik]

Am I the only one here that sees the ZOMFGWTF doublethink here?

No, but we have all had sufficient dealings with Zak S that we are not even surprised, and actually expected such a stupid fucking answer that completely undermines his entire point.

Also I noticed that he couldn't exclusively be playing older editions earlier, because in the Master/Apprentice thing he called it Base Attack Bonus.

How he is playing a 3.5 based game even remotely in which bonuses cannot exceed +10 is of course, completely beyond my reckoning. (Well I mean, obviously the actual answer is because he doesn't know the rules to 3.5 very well at all and just makes up whatever he wants whenever he wants, but you know what I mean.)

[Zak S]

You're not going to get meaningful discussion out of him, no matter how civil you are...

For those keeping score, the last time DSMatticus was on-topic he claimed my disarm rule "causes all swordfights to devolve into slapfights". Which is easy to disprove because if it did there would be zero swordfights recorded in my game that didn't involve both combatants being disarmed. Since there are swordfights recorded and they don't begin or end this way, DSMatticus is demonstrably wrong. i.e. he's either lying or negligent in his research.

Either way, he is too stupid. So there's that. Never trust DSMatticus on anything.

[Gnorman]

For those keeping score

Nobody is keeping score except you. Everything's made up and the points don't matter.

[Kaelik]

Oh look, Zak S is claiming that people are not allowed to talk about the subject at all until he is satisfied with their responses to some previous topic... while ignoring what I have said about a wide variety of topics that he has not responded to.

I wonder if he will be able to make the connection that people stop talking about a subject for reasons besides admitting they are wrong when he is literally doing it himself concurrently with complaining that no one else can do it.

I'm kidding of course, I don't wonder at all.

[wotmaniac]

Am I the only one here that sees the ZOMFGWTF doublethink here?

No, but we have all had sufficient dealings with Zak S that we are not even surprised, and actually expected such a stupid fucking answer that completely undermines his entire point.

B-b-b-b-but it 2 consecutive sentences that completely cancel each other out -- 2 CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES!!!.
It's like a black hole full of train wrecks. The world's worse parody of a parody is better than this.

How he is playing a 3.5 based game even remotely in which bonuses cannot exceed +10 is of course, completely beyond my reckoning.

It's existence doesn't bother me all that much ... it's simply a hamfistedly novice reaction to "ZOMG, these #s are too big".

[PhoneLobster]

the threads that make you laugh/cry PR/Roy Rule?

We should really call that "The first law of Psycho Robotics" or something snappier.

[DSMatticus]

For everyone watching at home, Zak S has gone full-on ad hominem. And I don't mean that in the sense that he is saying mean things about people on the internet, I mean that it is an actual argumentum ad hominem full-blown logical fallacy - he is attempting to discredit criticisms against him by digging up wholly irrelevant facts about the people making those criticisms.

Now, his ad hominem attacks are also fucking weird. He is claiming to have "won" any argument people walk away from, and his ad hominem of choice is "I have vanquished you already, begone!" Now, the fact is that Zak S is himself a gish galloping fuckwit and constantly tries to change the topic, and making one-sided demands that people engage him on all points or not be allowed to be engage him at all is deeply dishonest. You don't get to shit all over the walls and demand people clean it up for you before you admit you did something wrong. But also: I wonder if Zak S is really so fucking delusional that he thinks when people walk away from him it's because he's "won," as opposed to people getting fed up with his incorrigible stupidity and insufferable (and much undeserved) arrogance.

[wotmaniac]

Does the fact that I actually miss PR make me a bad person?

[Username17]

That is demonstrably a narcissistic delusion. The amount of narcissism required to think that was even a thing that could be seriously suggested in discussion is genuinely pathological. My suggestion, my serious suggestion, as a doctor, is to get psychological help. There is no magical cure that makes narcissistic personality disorder go away, but some patients do better taking anti-anxiety or anti-psychotic medications.

-Username17

Funny you should mention this, Frank. Because I happen to have been reading a particular psychology article earlier today; and, apparently, those involved with the adult film industry are especially prone to the Dark Triad (I'm sure that the chicken-egg relationship could be argued both ways -- personally, I lean towards the Triad being the precursor, and then further perpetuated) .... which, if my understanding is even remotely resembling accurate, is what we are witnessing here.

Thoughts?

Narcissism is really common in performers in general. As is, ironically, poor self esteem. It wouldn't surprise at all if those traits were even more common among performers who took their clothes off during performances. As for chicken v egg, I wouldn't actually know for sure. But I would suspect that the personality traits exist before the performances, and then repeated exposure to audiences and reviews (both good and bad) reinforces that.

Keep in mind, I'm a doctor, but I'm not a psychiatrist. The idea that people who have poor self esteem seize negative and neutral reviews to reinforce their unhealthy self image while narcissists seize positive and neutral reviews to reinforce their unhealthy self image makes sense to me - but I won't say that's a medically informed opinion. Certainly, Zak's bizarre claims that people have agreed with him every time they wandered away from an argument in disgust would fit that narrative. But Zak's pathological behavior is so extreme that I'm guessing it could be made to fit a lot of narratives.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

I wonder if he will be able to make the connection that people stop talking about a subject for reasons besides admitting they are wrong

I'm no longer confident he can even recognize when people stop talking about a topic or even what topic people are talking about at any given time PERIOD. Let alone something as very far over his head as the why of it all.

It certainly helps account for his incessant bleating "I won every argument 100% up until this very moment" thing far better than the walk away theory. He just isn't meaningfully interacting with anything at all. There are these mysterious words floating around in his general vicinity. He doesn't understand them. He declares victory. The end... Until he does it again.

[Zak S]

Zak's bizarre claims that people have agreed with him every time they wandered away from an argument in disgust would fit that narrative.

Frank's made another drastic mistake. To refresh, here's the last thing about Frank:

The last interaction about the rule with Frank was:

Frank: "This rule looks like it wouldn't reward altruistic PCs."

Zak: "Nope, here's an example" (the OP has examples in it)

Frank: (nothing)

Whether or not you think the rule is bad, there's no denying it rewards altruistic and selfish PCs alike. Or at least there's an example of that happening that Frank is just letting sit out there and not addressing--and neither is anyone else.
So the fact that Frank is reading this thread but not admitting that he made a mistake there is intensely intellectually dishonest. I don't really see how anybody could think Frank has any credibility. He's just covering the fact that he made a huge mistake by hurling invective and speaking in abstractions.

Perceptive observers will note I did not accuse Frank of agreeing with me (how could I know? He is not forthcoming with his ideas, if he has any) I am accusing Frank of being intellectually dishonest by walking away in the middle of a debate when he was found (or accused) of being in error.

The only intellectually honest things for Frank to do here would be:

A) Admit he's wrong (which, yes, would be agreeing with me)
or (more likely for Frank, being so intellectually invested in me being wrong he couldn't possibly back down)
B) Address the objection. Quote it or refer to it and make a counter-argument.

Frank failed to do either, which is terrible. There is no point to talking on the internet about an idea if you're not going to fucking talk about it. Even more terrible is he's likely about to do it again. He said I made "bizarre claims that people have agreed with him every time they wandered away" and I just corrected him and chances are he is not going to:

[] admit his mistake
or
[]explain why he thinks it wasn't a mistake

…so Frank, again, has no credibility. When he gets caught in a lie or a fuck up, he just flees.

[Maxus]

What I find pitiable is Zak S has been posting in this argument, pretty much constantly, for over twelve hours now.

Seriously, the largest gap in his posting for the past day was two hours.