Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:26 pm

Zak is a good artist and an imaginative setting person with a fondness for old-school random tables which goes well with his creative personality. He is also, as we've shown, argumentative as shit, terrible at arguments, and prone to call anyone who disagrees with him a worthless human being and "evil." He's a hypocrite and one of the few people I would never work with. But by all accounts he's a good boyfriend, and he has stuck with his girlfriend through some really tough times and medical issues. So he may be an asshole, but he's not a complete shitheel.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:37 pm

He's come up with a number of decent ideas. They just need serious editing or filtering. The real issue is that he rejects any claim that his rules aren't perfect, which makes the whole thing a farce.

You could do far worse than to listen carefully to the things he says, pick out the good parts, and ignore everything else. The whole musical instrument thing, for example, was him trying to explain WW-style stunting. He ran into exactly the same problems Exalted does, had exactly the same "fixes" that 90% of Exalted MCs do, and was insisting that this was good (spoiler: it isn't good. It is trivially fixable though). It really wasn't a bad idea, but the entire flamewar follow-on was stupid and pointless.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:40 pm

Yeaaaah, I was poking the bear on that one. I like to think it's because he refuses to learn any better - he really is stuck in some old school shit, and you had to pick and choose that because nobody could play it as written.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:47 pm

The thing that makes sexism sexism isn't the -ism part, it's the sex- part. Here, let me show you: rapistism. Do you suddenly feel the need to defend rapists as the equals of non-rapists? If you want to have a discussion about what behaviors are and aren't appropriate with respect to a particular condition, that discussion will not be agnostic with respect to what the condition in question actually is. Being a woman is fundamentally different than being blind, and what constitutes discrimination against the blind is not a round of word substitution away from from what constitutes discrimination against women. Suggesting that being a woman is inferior to being a man is very obviously discrimination, but suggesting that being blind is inferior to not being blind just as obviously isn't any sort of discrimination. Being blind fucking sucks. My eyes work, and I know it sucks; if your eyes don't work, you know it sucks even better than I do. Using negative traits negatively isn't discrimination, it's... what negative means.

There are conceivably issues you could drop under an ableist label. For example, the refusal to provide government documents in braille would be disciminatory, disenfranchising, and completely unjustifiable. I still wouldn't use the term ableist, because that well has already been thoroughly poisoned by idiots who don't understand the natural distinctions between sexism and 'ableism,' but if you really really wanted to it would technically be accurate.

In practice, ableism is another one of those "rape jokes are never funny" causes. It's an attempt to bubblewrap language and culture in order to protect victims from being exposed to acts of expression that will cause them discomfort due to their victimhood - we shouldn't talk about rape lightly because rape victims exist, and we shouldn't talk about disabilities lightly because the disabled exist. It's sympathy-induced stupidity that causes more harm than good merely by existing to be used as a strawman against more legitimate causes.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:56 pm

I think (speculating freely) that the biggest driver is that Cops & Robbers works just fine if all you're doing is riffing with friends. Freeform collaborative storytelling is not evil, and it's not like he's extorting money from people for the few rules he needs to make his home game work.

I don't think confronting him on it is especially useful either. If I absolutely had to convince him that crunchy was better, I would do it by sharing competing experiences, where crunchy had empirically had better results. I would talk about friends' Hunter stories, about Sanderson's Laws, etc. I would go that way, because I expect a soft approach would work.
But I don't have to do that.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:00 am

Zak doesn't believe in empiricism, least not so far as I can find. You try to compare games, he'll just say "well, that doesn't apply because it's not my table."

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:14 am

Strictly speaking, that would be consistent with (capital E) Empiricism, since he wouldn't have the relevant sense data.

Strictly speaking.

animea90 · Post by **animea90** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:35 am

FrankTrollman wrote:I actually don't know if Shitmuffin is transphobic. I do know that Shitmuffin is an absolutely insane asshole to everyone who disagrees with him and engages in "splitting" behavior where he decides that everything about a person has to be bad if he disagrees with some aspect of their person or views.

So there's pretty much no chance of Shitmuffin having gone through life without going off on unhinged personal attacks that seem transphobic. As soon as he's on the other side of an argument with someone, he acts as if every facet of their being is bad - and that's got to include their gender identity. Which is not to excuse his behavior, but merely to explain it. I rather suspect that Shitmuffin does not consider himself transphobic and in abstract is quite supportive of the trans community. But, and this is a big "but," he's so immature and aggressive in all disputes about absolutely everything that it's difficult for me to imagine him not pouncing on sensitive gender topics if he thought someone was "vulnerable" on that issue.

Tarnowski of course, is a monstrous and unrepentant asshole. While he makes no bones whatsoever about being aggressively transphobic, this is actually a minor facet of his character. After all, being unrepentantly racist, misogynistic, and frankly most other "-ists" that you can imagine, the fact that he is discriminatory and dismissive of the trans community is honestly just a rounding error of the people he deliberately offends on a regular basis. It's kind of like calling attention to the fact that the KKK promulgates negative stereotypes of Pacific Islanders.

Yeah this is fairly common. Its the same with racism. Lots of people will use racist slurs to get a rise out of someone even if they aren't racist.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:42 am

BTW, some numbnuts from G+ is linking to this. I meant to address this early, but please don't call Mandy a "fuckbag" or the like. It's rude, misogynistic, and unlike Zak she's never done anything to us to deserve ill treatment.

animea90 · Post by **animea90** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:47 am

Ancient History wrote:BTW, some numbnuts from G+ is linking to this. I meant to address this early, but please don't call Mandy a "fuckbag" or the like. It's rude, misogynistic, and unlike Zak she's never done anything to us to deserve ill treatment.

How is calling her a fuckbag misogynistic?

You can insult girls without being a misogynist.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:50 am

This is true. But you're insulting her specifically because of who she's fucking, and implying that her only value is for fucking because she's a woman. That's misogynistic.

Neurosis · Post by **Neurosis** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:06 am

I don't think I've ever heard ANYONE be called a fuckbag before.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:09 am

animea90 wrote:How is calling her a fuckbag misogynistic?

This is so deliciously unselfaware it could be some sort of sleeping old one, biding for the proper alignment of stars that shall herald its squamous awakening.

Soon.

Soon.

[edit: and goddammit, I just noticed it was Rawbeard who said it originally. Dunno why animea is coming to the defend that hill, but an overdue 'shut the fuck up and watch your fucking tone' to ya Rawbeard. Contemplate animea90's koan above and roll it around in your head until you attain a higher level of consciousness.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:58 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Of course, if I had special thanks in a D&D edition, I'd probably be presenting an olive branch to the 4e people rather than calling them swine and pig fuckers, so there's that.

-Username17

I would be curious as to how you would go about this.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:30 am

I think some people see the problem with "retard" as an insult is the implication that these people chose to be retarded, and that you're implying some sort of moral failing. The problem with that view is of course that it's fucking bullshit. One of my uncles has a broken neck, and has no use of basically "his body". He is lame/disabled. And obviously he would prefer not to be (particularly as a former athlete and independent person). It is obviously bad to have no use of your arms and legs. But it is not a moral failing or anything.

FrankTrollman wrote:Of course, if I had special thanks in a D&D edition, I'd probably be presenting an olive branch to the 4e people rather than calling them swine and pig fuckers, so there's that.

How would you do that? I mean, "not calling them swine and pig fuckers" is easy to understand, if difficult to do, because they invite insults. But how would you extend an olive branch while actually making a game that is worth playing? They have made it clear that the game they want to play is "More of 4E", and so any game that is better will be seen as firing mortars upon them. Because they're fucking morons. Shit, it really is hard not to insult them.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:44 am

Ancient History wrote:Zak doesn't believe in empiricism, least not so far as I can find. You try to compare games, he'll just say "well, that doesn't apply because it's not my table."

I haven't seen anyone try. No-one has offered up specific data (ha) or anecdotes.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:11 am

But how would you extend an olive branch while actually making a game that is worth playing?

Actually I think it might be really easy, assuming you actually can make a good game.

4E was almost defined by "ambitious/good mission/motherhood statements it totally failed to deliver on". So if you want to extend olive branches while making something good all you need to do is re-iterate a few lofty 4E goals and actually deliver on them instead of 4E's strategy of the direct reverse.

edit: Pretty sure this post briefly proved quote tags can still fuck up. Indeed even multiple attempts to fix it didn't work as it kept appending a quote start to the front by itself. Until I removed the name attribution from the quote, that the site generated itself from "quote post".

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:23 am

Ah, so start with a sort of "We still believe in the ideals we put forward with 4E, but we acknowledge that we let you down. Well now you can actually HAVE (math that works, an end to the Christmas Tree effect, characters that are balanced while feeling different, an end to the game just shutting down because people argue about what X means)"?

That might actually work. Obviously, "not starting with videos about how everything they like is shit and they have to convert" would also be up there. And I suppose having a core product that lets them more or less take their existing 4E characters and transfer them if that's what they want to do (insofar as races, classes and the same basic ideas of design like "I am a half-elf warlock who draws power from the fey, my mum, and can enchant people to dance and fall asleep", not "I have 73 HP and my Fort Save is +12").

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:24 am

Zak doesn't believe in empiricism, least not so far as I can find. You try to compare games, he'll just say "well, that doesn't apply because it's not my table."
I haven't seen anyone try. No-one has offered up specific data (ha) or anecdotes.

Dude - there was a ~30-page clusterfuck where I'm pretty sure this was attempted several times. Ancient History actually deserves a medal or a goddamn Nobel Peace Prize for the way he handled Shitmuffin; and, if memory serves, he actually tried the empiricism track several times (along with whoever else)

*at least I think it was AH. I could be wrong*

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:45 am

... but we acknowledge that we let you down...

Tone down acknowledgement of 4E failure. No need to talk up imagined 4E successes. Just state some goals that are obviously inspired/identical to 4E motherhood statements then deliver a good product.

And if someone asks if it's a 4E reference (you want them to ask) you say "Why yes we are directly referring to the excellent aspirations of 4E's noble goals." And you still don't need to talk about actual outcomes fail or success wise.

It would be a good olive branch and in no way dishonest or morally reprehensible.

Including/playing up the "4E failed you" angle in anything other than "it failed you by not continuing" is not an olive branch. Talking up 4E like it had actual successful outcomes is also undesirable because it would alienate the people who hated 4E. But the thing is 4E's motherhood statements are, well, motherhood statements. No one is supposed to complain about you re-iterating your dedication to motherhood statements.

edit The quote bug hates it when I try to attribute quotes to Koumei.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:48 am

It seems a few people have had problems when quoting people and leaving the name in. Yet I have not had that problem (see above). It's weird.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:05 am

Of course, if I had special thanks in a D&D edition, I'd probably be presenting an olive branch to the 4e people rather than calling them swine and pig fuckers, so there's that.
How would you do that? I mean, "not calling them swine and pig fuckers" is easy to understand, if difficult to do, because they invite insults. But how would you extend an olive branch while actually making a game that is worth playing? They have made it clear that the game they want to play is "More of 4E", and so any game that is better will be seen as firing mortars upon them. Because they're fucking morons. Shit, it really is hard not to insult them.

As PL said, a lot of 4e is bad because it's either a perfectly decent idea with a half- or even quarter-assed implementation, or a noble and fine mission statement that they absolutely fail to deliver on. That means that there is plenty of space to say "Learning from where 4e got things right, we've decided to do X..."

Let's take Skill Challenges. They actually aren't a bad idea. As pointed out in the original Anatomy of Failed Design thread, making them work to do their intended thing would be as simple as making them go three rounds and counting total hits for the party. Now as it happened, Skill Challenges were fucked up so many times by Mearls that the 4e players don't even want a fixed Skill Challenge anymore, but a lot of 4e was like that. A reasonably decent idea that is fairly trivial to implement in a decent manner that nevertheless wasn't.

Honestly, about the number one complaint of 4e players against 3rd edition is the Warrior/Caster disparity. If you acknowledged that and said you intended to make warriors and casters balanced at all levels of play, that would be a huge bone to throw to the 4e players to make them cautiously optimistic.

There are also a number of pieces of fluff that 4e throws around which in isolation aren't bad. I'm not saying that you should have Lamias be Elvish skin suits full of spirit insects (because seriously: wtf?), but you could declare Succubi to be Devils and no one who wasn't a 4e player would care.

4e players also like formal language. We make jokes about how that's because 4e is a board game, and there's some truth to that. But asking for clarity is not unreasonable or bad. One of the biggest things that pisses the 4e community off with the D&DNext shit is the incoherent action economy shit. Actions you can take alongside other actions and shit. Having a well defined action economy is simply a good idea. There's no pressing need to call your basic actions something other than "Move, Minor, and Standard" so that's obviously what you should do. It would make the 4e players feel loved and the players of other editions wouldn't notice or care.

Edit: So the scripts, and not my code are fucking up. When I leave the names in, it keeps adding two additional open quote tags to the front and fucking everything up.

-Username17

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:30 am

Edit: So the scripts, and not my code are fucking up. When I leave the names in, it keeps adding two additional open quote tags to the front and fucking everything up.

-Username17

I realized what happened and sent a mail with the fix for Zherog.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:56 am

BTW, some numbnuts from G+ is linking to this.

Allright then, I'll justify myself:

I have no issue with Zak S being a porn actor, or playing D&D with porn stars.

I have no problem with the women in his group; I hardly know anything about them.

I don't think his art is all that hot, really. I'm also pretty sure his wrote his own wikipedia page.

My problem is entirely with how Zak S treats arguing, debate, and critical thought and his inability to do any of those things with a shred of intellectual integrity. I put him in my signature after I saw his statement that being wrong is as bad as lying. I no longer consider myself bound to give any argument of his a fair hearing, like I do with most other people. This doesn't mean I'll ignore him completely, but it means he no longer has the respect I normally afford to another person.

He shows up through Google Alerts and googling himself. Well, the shitbird's going to get a lot to look at if he tries to google himself in the Den. Deploy the Googlechaff! Long may it rain.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:37 am

An olive branch to 4th edition.

For a solid fan base that earned us a steady profit despite some support issues on our part. For a design team that gave us a good impression of how many classic D&D mechanics can be distorted for better or worse. For challenging our cannon of mythology from around the world that took us 30 years to build up with some new ideas they put together in record time.

Oh, wait. Being nice. For showing us what D&D is like without all the peril and strange challenges, for reminding us that mechanics do matter, for trying so hard to fix every little thing all the time (and then fix it again), for ... oh, who am I kidding. You know, if a few less people had bought 4th edition, we could have dropped it earlier and tried to fix up 3e instead. Beaten you-know-who to the punch back in 2009. Still been the #1 RPG company in the world by a huge margin, rather than #4 in 2013. Stuck with the OGL. But no, people kept buying just enough to give us hope, and telling us how great it all was. Bah! Wrong!