The Gaming Den

Leress wrote:

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:(Incidentally, 'The customer is always right' is not the mantra of good and successful businessmen anyway, it's the mantra of spoiled and entitled jackholes who are trying to scam something they don't deserve out of a business owner. But that's hardly germane to this conversation)

Actually it that is the mantra of successful business men, because they know that with out customers there is no business.

I have worked in plenty of places where the customer was not always right. So far as I know, they are all still in business.

Game On,
fbmf

DSMatticus wrote:

Leress wrote:If they want free shit, they are not a customer.

Replace free with absurdly small denomination of cash.

Then you need to at least look at what their actual complaint is about the product/service that they feel that they are paying too much.

Or, if you have customers lined up and waiting, tell problem customer to go fuck themselves and move on.

The customer is not always right. Especially when you have a large customer base.

Game On,
fbmf

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is a difference between catering to a customer's needs in a professional manner, and giving any meth-addled hick who can roll out of the "hollers" free stuff because they can scream real loud. The customer is most certainly not always right.

Preach it, brother!

Game On,
fbmf

I honestly think that shadzar, unable to address any of my points, is...wait, seriously...trying to say I'm wrong because I'm not linking from sites he wants me to link to.

...seriously.

That's really incredible.

PS: I already linked an image to this rulebook, but shadzar missed it, due to his poor vision. Once more:

shadzar wrote:

fbmf wrote:And as a bonafide "D&D customer, I hereby do ordain and establish 3E and (oh, what the hell) 4E as official D&D, or at least just as official as the previous editions. Because I say it is, and I am a customer.

Game On,
fbmf


* - or is it just a guideline?

you are still missing the point. you are focusing on legality not acceptance.

I don't care about legality. As a customer, I am telling you I accept 3E and 4E as real D&D. I have voted with my dollars, and I accept 3E/4E as real D&D.

Game On,
fbmf

Guys, if you are going to feed the trolls at least feed the good ones.

Leress wrote:

DSMatticus wrote:

Leress wrote:If they want free shit, they are not a customer.

Replace free with absurdly small denomination of cash.

Then you need to at least look at what their actual complaint is about the product/service that they feel that they are paying too much.

I've worked shitty, low-end retail jobs for (off and on) 12 years now. I have a different perspective on this than you.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Leress wrote:

DSMatticus wrote: Replace free with absurdly small denomination of cash.

Then you need to at least look at what their actual complaint is about the product/service that they feel that they are paying too much.

I've worked shitty, low-end retail jobs for (off and on) 12 years now. I have a different perspective on this than you.

You are right I was looking at this in more of an owner perspective.

Oberoni wrote:I honestly think that shadzar, unable to address any of my points,

you had no real points, other than OMG i see the word rules so it must be the case.

did you read that book you link a picture of? or are you just.....judging a book by its cover?

how about answering the question and tell me IF i am right or not in my hypothesis. you never played an edition prior to at least 3rd edition, and your fallacy came about during the RAW v RAI arguments dealing with 3rd edition?

also respond to the previous post with your 3 terms broken down..consistency, loophole, mechanics...where they dont always apply as you stated, outside of the realm of the rules being law.

again making your fallacy appear to be an arguing point for RAW in the fight of RAW v RAI.

if that is the case, and you so strongly think RAW is correct, and nothing else can be, then you will not be able to understand how your fallacy is flawed, if trying to apply it to the whole, because your understanding of the game itself is flawed.

you MAY choose to play RAW, but that is not the game or its purpose. you have shifted the goalpost of the game to begin with so that your fallacy CAN exist.

look at it from this point if you cant completely back away from RAW...

"the rules are rules, except where they are not rules."

maybe that concept is too surreal for you?

Shadzar wrote:actually it does, it shows itself as a fallacy based in claiming 3rd edition, as it was the one and only one he seems to know at the time of its creation, to the the ONE TRUE D&D.

No, seriously, it doesn't. There are plenty of reasons as to why he would pick one website over another to display an image. I'm going to invoke Occam's Razor and go with, "Because it was the first image that showed up when he google searched for it."

Otherwise, I agree with you. D&D may refer to its Rules as Rules, but I've always considered that a misnomer because (outside of the RPGA) there's actually nothing in system that forces me to adhere to any of them beyond my players abandoning me or my own sense of integrity.
In fact, I am "within my rights" as a DM to make changes to the game as I deem necessary to make for a better gaming/storytelling experience. Personally, I have issues with rules and regulations when I find out that they're mutable... doubly so when I'm the one that possesses the power to change them.

But that doesn't change how Oberoni's Fallacy works. The very second I decide to change any part of the system (whether you label it a rule or a guideline), I am implicitly defining the system as being faulty. That's all there is to it.

Ooo fuck. I just clicked on one of Shat's posts I normally have on ignore and it hurt my brain. Can we get a super ignore but that prevents us from ever looking at the posters post no matter how our curiousness is itching?

I think it could read as such:

You have added this person to your SUPER Ignore List. Your brain in a moment of wisdom has decided to save it self from any future suffering so you cannot ever view this post.

It would also have to cover all the masochists quoting him.

Wrathzog wrote:But that doesn't change how Oberoni's Fallacy works. The very second I decide to change any part of the system (whether you label it a rule or a guideline), I am implicitly defining the system as being faulty. That's all there is to it.

IF he looked for images and took the first one, then that only further shows his google-fu is strong, but knowledge of those things he was looking for images of was weak.....

now you are making a logical fallacy.

your decision to change something does not prove it didnt work the way it was.

you arent talking about broken in the sense of power and balance, nor in the sense of non-functioning.. all you are talking about is personal preference.

nothing can be attested to be of the personal preference of everyone at the same time.

your ability to paint your toenails plaid, doesnt mean they were faulty to begin with.

which is probably the type of thing the Oberoni came from...but only speaks of personal bias, rather than an unbiased view of the thing.

if Oberoni is so steeped in bias, then THAT is what i am saying is wrong with it.

Monopoly has (or had since my version is from early 80s and they may have added it in the rules as an option...) no rule stating that landing on free parking gets you the money paid by others as taxes or whatever. not having it does not make the game faulty, just that you wish to do something with it outside of its initial design.

there is nothign wrong with doing so, but it doesnt mean the game was at fault for not having it, just it is something YOU wanted to do, while others do not play that way.

it is like high v low magic D&D. neither is right or wrong, but a preference of play.

there is no rule, contrary to WotC belief, on how quickly you should gain levels through hours of real-time play, in game time, or anything else.

it is all based in how you approach the game. again my signature provides two axis in that.. playing the game, or playing the rules.

Gary Gygax wrote:~it is the spirit of the rules not the letter of them....~

maybe just so many people cannot get out of the "rules are rules and must be followed" concept of traditional games, just as they cannot leave the "players are competing with each other when playing the game" concept to fully understand what D&D is meant for.

though each edition does explain that D&D isnt the games you are familiar with playing. you have to approach it with an open mind and look at the way you play games anew.

"ones lack of understand something, does not make that thing inherently flawed, JUST because some cannot understand it."

I nominate Shadzar King of the Gaming Den. My god that post was hilarious.

shadzar wrote:-latest nonsensical rant

Shadzar, here you go again, exemplifying what we're all throwing our hands up in the air about; you misread what he says, and then make up the definition of a word and go on a rant based on that potent combination of misinformation and misplaced creativity, and somehow you still managed to wind up in the same place, about how D&D was meant to be a free-form, cooperative adventure game, implying somehow that 3.X and later games are not, which defies all logic in and of itself.

EDIT: Out of genuine curiosity, is English your first language?

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I nominate Shadzar King of the Gaming Den. My god that post was hilarious.

Nice try, but I'm not falling for it.

Solidarity Josh.

Stubbazubba wrote:

shadzar wrote:-latest nonsensical rant

Shadzar, here you go again, exemplifying what we're all throwing our hands up in the air about; you misread what he says, and then make up the definition of a word and go on a rant based on that potent combination of misinformation and misplaced creativity, and somehow you still managed to wind up in the same place, about how D&D was meant to be a free-form, cooperative adventure game, implying somehow that 3.X and later games are not, which defies all logic in and of itself.

EDIT: Out of genuine curiosity, is English your first language?

I think this is appropriate to describe Shad's rants.

Shadzar wrote:Stuff

Seriously, dude, why do you post here? As far as I can tell, half the forum has you on ignore and they jump into your conversations with the sole purpose of insulting you.
What is your purpose, Shadzar?
(Please give me an answer condensed down to three sentences)

Stubbazubba wrote:

shadzar wrote:-latest nonsensical rant

Shadzar, here you go again, exemplifying what we're all throwing our hands up in the air about; you misread what he says, and then make up the definition of a word and go on a rant based on that potent combination of misinformation and misplaced creativity, and somehow you still managed to wind up in the same place, about how D&D was meant to be a free-form, cooperative adventure game, implying somehow that 3.X and later games are not, which defies all logic in and of itself.

EDIT: Out of genuine curiosity, is English your first language?

is english your first language, cause you surely dont read well if you read those words in what i said. rather you inferred those words, because that is the stance you want me to have, so you can defend against it, because you cannot defend against what i actually said.

trying reading the post again and pay attention to it this time, and you might learn something....like what i actually said versus what you wanted me to say.

i will even help you! look for where i said edition X doesnt do this, and look where i say people are fucking up. like you fucking up reading my posts, so to did many fuck up reading the DMG...or maybe like you, failed to read it (post/DMG) in the first place.

Shadzar, most of us are fucking up reading your posts because you don't make any sense. Are you Deaf? I ask because I've known some Deaf people and they have a similar sentence structure that makes it hard for outsiders to read. (Note: The capital "D" is relevant in this usage, it signifies someone who can't hear, but chooses not to learn to read lips or speak verbally and communicates entirely through signing).

Stubbazubba wrote:EDIT: Out of genuine curiosity, is English your first language?

I have occasionally wondered if shadzar is a dyslexia sufferer, given his propensity to mix up words and letters. http://www.dyslexia.com/library/symptoms.htm has a list of writing/spelling related symptoms of dyslexia sufferers, which includes the following:

dyslexia.com wrote:- Confused by letters, numbers, words, sequences, or verbal explanations.
- Reading or writing shows repetitions, additions, transpositions, omissions, substitutions, and reversals in letters, numbers and/or words.
- Reads and rereads with little comprehension.
- Spells phonetically and inconsistently.

Incidentally, I think folks are devoting an awful lot of time to getting into scraps with shadzar - I count no fewer than 4 threads out of the top 10 on this forum that have either gotten sidetracked into argument with him, or had that as their focus from the outset. I'd like to politely suggest that we move on.

echo

I nominate Shadzar King of the Gaming Den. My god that post was hilarious.

fuck you

you made me look

fuck you

IF he looked for images and took the first one, then that only further shows his google-fu is strong, but knowledge of those things he was looking for images of was weak.....

now you are making a logical fallacy.

what

Ok, while trying to undestand that text wall of wut probably hurts my brain, let me see if I get it:

"Since the DM can modify rules, well written rules aren't neccesary".

To what I say: Fuck that noise. On the ass. Nobody is paying 40$ or so per book for the pretty pictures, specially on the Internet age. If the rules on a paid TTRPG aren't well written, why should I buy it instead of grabing one of the -equaly shitty- free .pdfs around?

BTW, shadzar, you should try to get your mouth out of Gary Gygax rotten dick, because it obviously makes you even more stupid.