The Gaming Den

Koumei wrote:For most people I would assume that's what he meant - "You design D&D to be a game people will want to play, including any kind of minority. You don't try to design a game specifically for a minority, that is nearly always bad and either patronising or offensive. Hi, video game industry!"

Of course it's offensive. By doing that they claim that people of a specific minority have specific tastes. That type of thing comes from a racist, etc. mindset.

Pretty sure he just has Google alert him every time his name is mentioned, similar to Hastur and Candlejack. If he actually does add shitmuffin to the list, that just means he is acknowledging it as his name, and will actually answer to that name.

zugschef wrote:

darkmaster wrote:Did shadzar just get his stupid ass banned?

Tbh, I don't think that shadzar meant his comment in a racist way. He meant to say that he doesn't want a rpg designed for a special group of people, like in "this rpg is designed for bi-sexual midgets". I honestly don't think that shadzar has a problem with a black gay dude or a Mexican woman playing dnd.

I actually alluded to that earlier, but it was a racist comment even if he didn't intend it to be so intent is only part of language and it is, perhaps, more important to consider how what you say is perceived. It's a dumb and inefficient way to communicate. But it's what we have and it's really easy to be misunderstood, especially when you don't have the benefit of social cues.

GnomeWorks wrote:Does that happen often?

Oh, just every single time.

In case you missed it.

He was mentioned tangentially in passing in a thread about the obsession with fairy tea party as mechanics.

That summoned him to rant vehemently about how everyone misunderstood and misrepresented him and how we were all mean "one true wayism" rules lawyers or something something whatever. Which is marginally hilarious since it isn't even clear the limited initial tangential mention of his material was even critical.

His insane obsession rapidly escalated until he started claiming that every spontaneous ruling he ever made was literally perfect.

He then challenged himself to prove it with an example... and produced one of the most incredibly shit rules I for one have seen spontaneously produced. Then he defended, denied and attempted to rewrite history for countless pages ever since.

Including turning up in EVERY thread that has ever been mentioned him ever since (mostly in the context of "remember that ass, don't be that ass") to once again deny everything he himself has ever said and done to embarrass himself. For multiple pages.

It looks like he has now managed to restrain himself to something as minor as one "nuh ah, you are poopy heads!" per page of thread, but last time it was still reams of gibbering self contradictory insanity and it could still happen again.

PhoneLobster wrote:It looks like he has now managed to restrain himself to something as minor as one "nuh ah, you are poopy heads!" per page of thread, but last time it was still reams of gibbering self contradictory insanity and it could still happen again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0TPPmFU4VA

Gnomeworks wrote:Does that happen often? Because that seems somewhat odd. I'd assume that means he lurks here, but his attitude seems to suggest that that's not the case.

What are Google Alerts?

[quote="Frank Trollman]And in this particular instance, the solid example being replied to and agreed with is:
A cheap item gives a small but noticeable and real bonus to characters with high Dexterity scores.
Players whose characters have high Dexterity scores get that item for their characters and then use it for the bonus.
"These people are terrible."

Which is such a blatant example of crying wolf about power gamers that I would have felt uncomfortable using it as an example had not shitmuffin and Monte volunteered to use it themselves.[/quote]
Totally this. I can kind of understand how a games designer would get tired of people bringing up edge cases and unforeseen interactions in a complex ruleset, but this is literally offering a carrot to players and then berating them if they take it. Let's take a quote from a games designer I actually admire, Mark Rosewater:

"Players will do whatever the game incentivizes them to do whether or not that thing is fun. The goal of a game designer is to make the incentives move the players towards the parts of the game that are fun."

This is taken from his article on how MTG R&D realised the game was getting more complicated and what they could do to streamline things. That's how a good designer responds to a problem with their game, but I guess when you can't just throw your hands up and give in you actually have to find answers to problems instead.

PhoneLobster wrote:Oh, just every single time.

In case you missed it.

Only been around here for a bit, so yeah, I missed it.

That seems like... rather bizarre behavior, honestly.

He then challenged himself to prove it with an example... and produced one of the most incredibly shit rules I for one have seen spontaneously produced. Then he defended, denied and attempted to rewrite history for countless pages ever since.

Heh, yeah, I've seen and read that thread, as it does seem to get referenced with some regularity. An equally entertaining and perplexing read.

[...] last time it was still reams of gibbering self contradictory insanity and it could still happen again.

Hmm, I'm kind of looking forward to that happening again. It would be interesting to watch the reactions in real-time (ish), rather than reading an old thread.

zugschef wrote: Tbh, I don't think that shadzar meant his comment in a racist way. He meant to say that he doesn't want a rpg designed for a special group of people, like in "this rpg is designed for bi-sexual midgets". I honestly don't think that shadzar has a problem with a black gay dude or a Mexican woman playing dnd.

I would generally believe that but when he has said things like this:

i love playing D&D, but i won't play with just anyone, and you wouldnt see me playing "D&D with porn stars" because that isnt the type of person i would want to game with or spend time with. if that was my only choice. i would do without and wait until the proper group of people WAS found with similar minds of what they want out of the game. the "porn stars" and drunkards and druggies, can all have their games at their house, but NONE of them should influence the game design of those "sacred cows" so that the game is no longer D&D, an open gaming system that allows varying playstyles.

PhoneLobster wrote:If this shitmuffin naming scheme takes off he will just have to add Shitmuffin to his Google alert list

And you somehow don't know that that's wonderful? Does your heart not know love or joy?

When a man adds "Shitmuffin" to his google alert names to fill a narcissistic need to read everything said about him that is a wonderful day.

FrankTrollman wrote: Here's the thing: "rules exploitative behavior" is not a well defined term.

Yes, there are a great deal of words that aren't going to have codified definitions. It's hard to make exact definitions for being an asshole or disruptive to the game either, but they're things you don't want happening. For the most part, it's not a huge deal because a DM who isn't good at recognizing these things probably isn't a good DM for a variety of other reasons as well, so you probably wouldn't want to play with him. There's assholes on both sides of the screen.

But here's the thing: a lot of people complain about "rules exploits" for things that aren't like that at all. In fact, so many people complain about "rules exploits" the moment a player plays a class that specializes in buff spells and then casts buff spells on themselves or plays a class that specializes in minion summoning and then summons a bunch of minions or plays a class that specializes in battlefield control and then controls battlefields or whatever, that when someone complains of "rules exploits" without further explanation my assumption is that they are full of shit.

I don't see this stuff often called an exploit. People say the spells are imbalanced or overpowered, but they don't say it's immediately some kind of rules exploiting behavior. All the forums I've read seem to treat it that way. Granted once in a while you get some crazy poster making outrageous claims, but that's usually the minority. And it's generally fairly obvious the guy is a nut.

Exploiting the rules comes when you're using the rules in a way that the designers obviously never intended, all the while ignoring common sense, for the purpose of gaining purely mechanical benefits.

And in this particular instance, the solid example being replied to and agreed with is:

• A cheap item gives a small but noticeable and real bonus to characters with high Dexterity scores.
• Players whose characters have high Dexterity scores get that item for their characters and then use it for the bonus.
• "These people are terrible."

While this situation isn't all that bad as far as game breaking, it will tell you something about the kind of people you're playing with. First the bonus in question is very small. If you've got a +3 dexterity modifier, you'd still fail your DC 10-11 check a decent percentage of the time and take a penalty. The actual equivalent bonus to your charisma checks is going to be less than a +1 on average unless the person has a very high dexterity. So you're talking about a really minor benefit here.

So, if you've got a player who feels the need to equip every one of his characters with an instrument to take advantage of that very small bonus, ignoring character concept and playing that instrument in every single social encounter regardless of whether it fits the scene or not solely because the rulebook told him to... that's a pretty strong warning sign that you've got a problem player on your hands. I would be really surprised if a PC like that didn't cause problems down the road.

Obviously he won't break the game with that instrument, but it says something about his attitude towards the game.

July 1st, 2014. The day that shadzar was banned. The day that will go down in history.

Also, if we're going to rename Zak S so as to prevent him from derailing conversations, we should probably do it to a name he can't reasonably put on Google alerts. Anything that suffers from being fairly generic is therefore flawed, but anything that's very general (like, say, Jar Jar Binks) suffers from being confused with the actual character.

If you really want to keep He Who Shall Not Be Named out, someone just needs to put his name in their signature. *BAM*, hundreds of false positives from this site.

Of course, then you would miss out on his scintillating personality and insightful commentary...

Wikipedia wrote:The anus (...) is an opening at the opposite end of an animal's digestive tract from the mouth. Its function is to control the expulsion of (...) unwanted semi-solid matter produced during digestion, which (...) may include: matter which the animal cannot digest, (...) material after all the nutrients have been extracted, (...) ingested matter which would be toxic if it remained in the digestive tract(...)

I can't find the fault in Monte's logic. If he and other designers are the mouths in this metaphor, then of course the MCs and players that have to sort his shit(ty rules) out at the table are the assholes. That's what assholes do.

Perfectly reasonable deduction.

Cyberzombie wrote:Sometimes questions are just stupid. And I understand where Monte is coming from. No matter how much effort you put into writing the rules, (...)

(Emphasis mine)

I don't think you understand where Monte is coming from. I've just read Numenera, any effort put in those rules went into quantity, not quality or balance or closing obvious loopholes. He clearly wanted to get that part done so he could concentrate on the setting.

YMMV on whether or not that is ok, but calling those assholes that will spend effort to refine those rules for free is kinda off.

Koumei wrote:Pretty sure he just has Google alert him every time his name is mentioned,

Of course not, moron, you send traffic to my blogspot, I see the hit. Duh.

Zak S wrote:Of course not, moron, you send traffic to my blogspot, I see the hit. Duh.

So... any chance that you could offer a rebuttal to some of the more salient points posted here, in response to that thing from your blog?

I don't really expect you to offer a retort to most posts in the thread, but there were - I think - a number of good points brought up, and I'd be interested in hearing your response.

Cyberzombie wrote:While this situation isn't all that bad as far as game breaking, it will tell you something about the kind of people you're playing with. First the bonus in question is very small. If you've got a +3 dexterity modifier, you'd still fail your DC 10-11 check a decent percentage of the time and take a penalty. The actual equivalent bonus to your charisma checks is going to be less than a +1 on average unless the person has a very high dexterity. So you're talking about a really minor benefit here.

Go fuck yourself with a small instrument. You can't make up new rules for an example that contradict the original description and then claim it doesn't matter.

ishy wrote:You can't make up new rules for an example that contradict the original description and then claim it doesn't matter.

Why not? It's exactly what Justin Bieber* would do if he defended his creation and has done ad nauseam in the past.

*I can't bring myself to use Shitmuffin, even to refer to Justin Bieber**.

**Shitmuffin.

GnomeWorks wrote:

Zak S wrote:Of course not, moron, you send traffic to my blogspot, I see the hit. Duh.

So... any chance that you could offer a rebuttal to some of the more salient points posted here, in response to that thing from your blog?

I don't really expect you to offer a retort to most posts in the thread, but there were - I think - a number of good points brought up, and I'd be interested in hearing your response.

I'm not sure whether or not this is sarcasm.

Cyberzombie wrote:I don't see this stuff often called an exploit. People say the spells are imbalanced or overpowered, but they don't say it's immediately some kind of rules exploiting behavior. All the forums I've read seem to treat it that way.

This is just willful blindness on your part. The most famous example around these parts is when Benoist of the RPGsite went off on a rant about how playing a 2nd edition AD&D Priest of the god of war who used their prayers and knowledge of weapons to be a better front liner than the fighter was not only an exploit, but an exploit so egregious that he would physically attack the player with his actual hands completely out of game and then never play with that person again or allow them into his house regardless of past friendships. That's the most famous example here because it's so disproportionate and insane, but the truth is that CoDzilla has always caused the basket weaver contingent to completely flip their shit. Since before it was even called CoDzilla for that matter - lots of people on the WotC boards accused me of cheating when I presented the Cleric Archer build as part of an argument about Arcane Archers.

There has never been a time or a game board on which there haven't been vocal people insisting that every single use of character options for marginal improvement was underhanded treachery at best. You are named "Cyberzombie," do you seriously not remember the Dumpshock "Orbital Cow" meme?

-Username17

Wait, the relatively small traffic of the Den results in a spike on his blog traffic? Ouch, I guess that says something unfortunate about how many fans/readers he has.

Koumei wrote:Wait, the relatively small traffic of the Den results in a spike on his blog traffic? Ouch, I guess that says something unfortunate about how many fans/readers he has.

I didn't say it spiked you illiterate wad. I said I saw the hit coming in from the Den. Any links coming in just after midnight (when the new day starts and the first few came in) have the source listed.

MGuy wrote:I'm not sure whether or not this is sarcasm.

It wasn't. I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt, in general; very, very rarely have I decided that someone had nothing useful to say at all.

But now that he's popped in twice now, only to just toss insults about, I imagine getting something even vaguely resembling an honest conversation is probably out of the question. That's too bad; getting some degree of insight into why following the logical ramifications of rules makes someone an asshole seems like it might be useful.

Zak S wrote:I didn't say it spiked you illiterate wad.

The assumption that it was a spike is charitable compared to assuming you are a compulsive narcissist who obsesses over every last hit.

Also... either assumption doesn't explain how you on other occassions turn up to respond to people speaking your name without any links or even mentions of your site.

Nice new sig.
Too bad we "don't gots no beef" with the girls.

Kaelik wrote:

PhoneLobster wrote:you also demonstrate you are a surprisingly shitty GM.

Did it really surprise you? Seemed pretty predictable to me.

I'm still catching up (just started page 4).

There's all kinds of reasons that Shadzar shouldn't be tolerated, but his specific post was not bigoted - though considering how hard he is to understand I wouldn't fault anyone for missing that.

In Shadzar's mind, there are two types of people:
a) people who play D&D
b) people wo don't

Among people who play D&D, it is good that we're inclusive - women, gays, racial minorities, etc - as long as they play D&D then their opinion on D&D matters - not because of whatever group they self-identify with, but because they are players of the game.

Among people who don't play D&D, Shadzar doesn't think that their opinions matter. Changing D&D to accomodate a group that isn't interested in D&D doesn't make sense to him - it would fundamentally change D&D in a way that must necessarily make it worse.

But I can see how that wouldn't be immediately obvious.