The Gaming Den

Zak S wrote:

wotmaniac wrote:A creature/object burns until it is out of hit points. That was stated in the original example.

You see, hit points are a complete abstraction….

Wotmaniac hasn't explained why he's saying any of this or talking about it.

Well, probably because of this, you dipshit:

Zak S wrote:But when do they stop burning? Or does a single torch destroy a whole city every time?

And how long would, say, a giant burn if they were too busy fighting to put themselves out--forever or would the wind do some work?

Ask, and you shall recieve.

Zak S wrote:

As to the "more oil" issue -- no, pouring more oil on a thing doesn't necessarily make a thing burn faster.

If there's more accelerant thrown on a monster on fire, the chances of the fire spreading to more hit=point-reducing areas is often increased. So you use chances and increased die rolls to represent it. More oil on you, more places where flame might be, more combat stress expressed as the abstraction called hit points. Your mistake.

Zak S wrote:I consider more oil not causing more damage a bad outcome (and a situation that'd comes up a lot).

Evidently, you have not even an elementary understanding of how fire works. Furthermore, you seem to have misunderstood that part of my post. All you have to do is ask for clarification, and I will give it.

Zak S wrote:
When I wanted to know the assumptions behind your oil rule I asked questions--I didn't assume you had a secret plot to hide how it works.

Actually, that's explicitly what you did. Like, literally.:

Zak S wrote:
You can't generally throw them all in one round unless you set a trap.

What does that even mean? What are you talking about? I explicitly assumed you had a plot? Where? Quote me?

WTF is that? You've snipped completely noncongruent sections of that conversation. Jesus Tap-dancing Christ! This is literally an unparsable word salad.

Re: carrying stuff--quoting the SRD isn't an argument.

Well, since you are apparently such a complete fucking dolt as to not be able to figure out what I was getting at, let me spell it out for -- in very simple sentences:
You dismissed a given supply load-out because of encumbrance concerns.
I showed you the rules for encumbrance and obtaining mounts + mount-related gear. There are 2 reasons I did this:
1) To demonstrate that such a carrying capacity actually was well within the basic expectations of the game -and-
2) In the event that a given character could indeed not shoulder that load, it is also trivially cheap, easy, and all-round feasible to obtain methods of carrying that load -- again, all well within the basic expectations of the game. (also, do Bags of Holding exist in you games?)

Anyway if you want encumbrance rules, go read LOTFP. It's a free download. That's one set GMs I play with use. There are lots. Then there's how that effects dex checks.

Alright, this is too far, even for you. Now, not only do you expect me to go research some obscure-as-fuck indie game; but you didn't think to bother to mention something as significant as this when you were first blathering about the topic?
WTF kind of Frankensteined rule set like that could ever possibly result in anything resembling functional gaming?!

The alleged reason nobody burns monsters to death is because they secretly don't want to.

Now you are actually changing significant words. I said "universe". I'll burn the fuck out of a monster.

No: people just don't have that much oil to easily bring to bear all at once conveniently what with all the hassle involved. Believe me: I try to burn the biggest monster I can every week, 4 or 5 times. It isn't as easy as it looks, what with dodging traps and smoke and people magic missiling your bulging backpack full of oil and all that.

Well, then that just means that you're doing it wrong.
Besides, who the fuck uses magic missile? (well, unless they're using it in style, of course)

It doesn't have to be realistic,it just has to work in a game

One advantage of my way is it's shorter and requires less looking stuff up.

Your shit doesn't even resemble casual plausibility. That's the kind of gonzo shit you're supposed to outgrow by time you finish middle school.

Why do I--who am composing a rule for my game have to worry about the tastes of some other gamer never seen at my table?

No. Just no. Fuck you. Fuck you hard, and fuck you long, and fuck you to the depths of your non-existent soul.
You do NOT get to get away with injecting this bullshit anywhere in this thread. YOU issued the originating challenge. PhoneLobster met the call. YOU went out of your way put it on display here. You do NOT get to try to wiggle out from underneath this. This whole thing started with YOU coming HERE and trying to ram down our throats the awesomeness of your rules-making abilities. That means that this rule is for this forum, and thus our input is what matters.
Get a fucking clue, you disgusting piece of trash.

Zak S wrote: Luckily I don't even have to address this because someone else already did:

Judging by the grammar style and a few reoccurring phrases, I'm forced to conclude that this is the work of your sock puppet; albeit, a kinder, gentler approach than your usual display.



Whatever, jagoff.

wotmaniac wrote:

Zak S wrote: Luckily I don't even have to address this because someone else already did:

Judging by the grammar style and a few reoccurring phrases, I'm forced to conclude that this is the work of your sock puppet; albeit, a kinder, gentler approach than your usual display.

Whatever, jagoff.

How much are you willing to gamble on that crazy guess?

That's a really neat trick, that whole ignoring the substantive post.

But to answer your question: internet gambling is against federal law -- so you just attempted to solicit me in to engaging in criminal activity.
But if it were legal, I'd probably ante up with your liver, and be prepared to raise you your CNS.
Besides which, it's an exercise in stupidity, since whatever claim you make is neither provable nor disprovable.

wotmaniac wrote: But to answer your question: internet gambling is against federal law -- so you just attempted to solicit me in to engaging in criminal activity.
But if it were legal, I'd probably ante up with your liver, and be prepared to raise you your CNS.
.

man, you guys really are rules lawyers.

wotmaniac wrote:That's a really neat trick, that whole ignoring the substantive post. :bored:

1. Do not post a non-substantive post if you don't want it responded to
2. Doin' stuff, I'll get to all this alphabet soup you guys posted in a while

But to answer your question: internet gambling is against federal law -- so you just attempted to solicit me in to engaging in criminal activity.
But if it were legal, I'd probably ante up with your liver, and be prepared to raise you your CNS.
Besides which, it's an exercise in stupidity, since whatever claim you make is neither provable nor disprovable.

3. Oh, not gamble for money or anything, just, like if you lose the bet you do something embarrassing. (And theoretically vice versa but I can't lose the bet).

You just claimed I wrote that, not Doyle: so if we formalize terms and I provide the necessary evidence to prove you're wrong, what'll you give me?

I mean: do you have the courage of your dumb convictions or not?

Zak S wrote:3. Oh, not gamble for money or anything, just, like if you lose the bet you do something embarrassing. (And theoretically vice versa but I can't lose the bet).

Oh look, another arbitrary challenge issued in bad faith. That is new.

I mean, it's not like you did that twice already.

chonz wrote:man, you guys really are rules lawyers.

The law. Following it now only for rules lawyers.

Zak S wrote:You just claimed I wrote that, not Doyle: so if we formalize terms and I provide the necessary evidence to prove you're wrong, what'll you give me?

You have already challenged me to a rules fight. And soundly lost.

You challenged Kaelik to a GMing fight. And it fell through before you even got it past a concept phase because you couldn't even figure out clearly what or how you were going to go about doing that.

And on top of that you so deeply delusional and dishonest you still constantly whine and complain that everyone other than you is wrong and fuck reality because you totally won because everyone else cheated and are also poo poo heads somehow.

So, NOW you are pulling a "I double dog dare you with STAKES like um... EMBARRASSING THINGS!"

Are you fucking FOUR? What the hell is wrong with you? What's next? Will it be "My dad can beat up your dad?". Just how many playground fuck ups caused entirely by your own petulance and mental inadequacy will it take before you stop trying to do it again? I mean right here in a thread which is literally just page on page of you having failed to learn the last life lesson directly related to this behaviors right here you are trying to smere feces on your face and declare yourself a perfect victor AGAIN.

And why the hell do you think anyone would take your challenge as remotely honest after your deeply shameful and hilariously laughable behavior over your previous attempts?

I mean fuck we all know its going to be some bullshit where you fall flat on your face, everyone laughs and points, THEN you demand everyone apologizes and declare you victor for no reason before you throw yet another petulant multiple month long tantrum over it and start issuing even more challenges.

Kaelik wrote:

Zak S wrote:3. Oh, not gamble for money or anything, just, like if you lose the bet you do something embarrassing. (And theoretically vice versa but I can't lose the bet).

Oh look, another arbitrary challenge issued in bad faith. That is new.

I mean, it's not like you did that twice already.

When you say "in bad faith" are you saying you also believe I didn't write it? Because then I ask you too: What will you give me if I prove you wrong?

Or….are you suddenly not so sure?

PhoneLobster wrote: I mean fuck we all know its going to be some bullshit where you fall flat on your face,...

So…you'll get "I Love Labyrinth Lord" tattooed across your face if you turn out to be wrong? And post pictures? Because you suddenly sound really confident about this. Like you sound like you really really really do believe I wrote that myself.

Or are you just trolling?

Zak S wrote:blah blah blah, verbal diorrhea, blah blah blah.

I haven't bothered to post to The Den in close to a year. I still felt the need to sort through the massive list of log in info to various sites so that I could comment on your batshit lunacy. I'm curious about this world you live in. Are there fairies there? Are you their king? Or have they also realized that you are completely clownfuck insane as well?

Zak S wrote:When you say "in bad faith" are you saying you also believe I didn't write it? Because then I ask you too: What will you give me if I prove you wrong?

Or….are you suddenly not so sure?

So just to be clear, you won't address any substantive rules comments. You won't address any of the clear demonstrations of your hypocrisy. But you will suddenly respond in order to attempt issue another challenge that doesn't matter.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with the "What are you, fucking four?" line of questioning. You stupid excuse for ignoring everyone who demonstrates you are wrong while pretending that you are still right is one thing. That is just something any dishonest bad faith arguer would do.

But your strange commitment to challenges with the goal of embarrassing people on the internet is just weirdly juvenile.

Kaelik wrote: But your strange commitment to challenges with the goal of embarrassing people on the internet is just weirdly juvenile.

The important thing is not to embarrass you, it is to figure out who has a rational thing they want to say about games and who is just being a dick because they are a dick.

Embarrassment is just a side-effect of discovering the former. So when you say "I don't believe xxxx" and then someone offers to prove it and you back down… then that establishes you're just being a dick to be a dick and you are embarrassed and we all know your ideas don't matter.

Now, again: I'll deal with the alphabet soup y'all made of this thread later, I got stuff to do. In the mean time, anyone else who thinks I wrote that letter and Doyle didn't should post that in the thread along with what they'll do if they're wrong, so we can sort out the evil from the merely misguided.

So, here's the deal .....
Whatever this "evidence" is, it doesn't matter -- because it's guaranteed to actually be neither provable nor disprovable; thus making this whole thing a farce. I know it; you know it; PL knows it; Kaelik knows it; hell, even yellow dog know it.
But even if this happened to not be a farce (which it is), I've already stated my terms -- yes, I'm dead fucking serious about that.

"But wotmaniac, what evidence do you have?", you might say.
To which I would reply: you and "Doyle" share uncannily similar grammar patterns and share a few reoccurring phrases.
Now, while I may not be a formal linguistics expert, I am a reader. And I'm pretty good at noticing patterns. And I know verbal masturbation when I see it.
I'm not saying that there isn't a member over there called Doyle. I'm not denying the idea that blather might have been generated from Doyle's account. I'm saying that unless Doyle is also one of your RL buddies that you physically hang-out with, then it definitely is a sock puppet. In either of those cases, the concept of Doyle being a neutral bystander is not even a potential consideration ..... which means that that whole thing means absolutely dick. A dick that you can suck until it can't be sucked any more.

Finally, if you have something to prove, then just man-up and prove it. You don't need any of these mind-numbingly childish charades -- just fucking put up or shut up, already.
Either way, nobody really cares.

Zak S wrote:So when you say "I don't believe xxxx" and then someone offers to prove it and you back down

I'm going to have to reiterate: You are really bad at figuring out what constitutes proof. As evidenced by both of the challenges you offered previously.

(This one you have been super vague about what proof you think will prove anything, so it hasn't gone one way or the other, but I can't imagine you could provide me anything that would be convincing, because even formal discovery in the law relies on some significant degree of trust that the other party is not a lying shitbag, and I have no such trust when it comes to you.)

Zak S wrote:Now, again: I'll deal with the alphabet soup y'all made of this thread later, I got stuff to do.

Well actually, you have demonstrated that you won't. You have demonstrated that when someone posts something about a topic, you will claim they posted something about a different topic in the past, that you responded, and then lie that they didn't respond, even though they in fact did, and then say that therefore you will not address their current comment about this subject.

With the exception of course, of me, where you will just pretend my posts don't exist.

@Kaelik:
I think he's trying to say that a rpg.net member named "Doyle" wrote that, not him.

However, I've theorized that if that is indeed the case, then either "Doyle" is a sock puppet account; or it's a real account, but it's one of his RL gaming buddies. Either way, it's fucking meaningless.

wotmaniac wrote:@Kaelik:
I think he's trying to say that a rpg.net member named "Doyle" wrote that, not him.

However, either "Doyle" is a sock puppet account; or it's a real account, but it's one of his RL gaming buddies. Either way, it's fucking meaningless.

Yeah, I keep him on ignore, so it was harder for me to follow that side of the conversation than I wanted. I am now clear though.

EDIT: I actually still can't find this supposed Doyle letter, can you give me a post number?

EDIT2: I also blame his response to me:

Zak S wrote:

Kaelik wrote:

Zak S wrote:3. Oh, not gamble for money or anything, just, like if you lose the bet you do something embarrassing. (And theoretically vice versa but I can't lose the bet).

Oh look, another arbitrary challenge issued in bad faith. That is new.

I mean, it's not like you did that twice already.

When you say "in bad faith" are you saying you also believe I didn't write it? Because then I ask you too: What will you give me if I prove you wrong?

Or….are you suddenly not so sure?

Where he typoed/Freudian slipped the authorship.

wotmaniac wrote:So, here's the deal .....
Whatever this "evidence" is, it doesn't matter -- because it's guaranteed to actually be neither provable nor disprovable; thus making this whole thing a farce. I know it; you know it; PL knows it; Kaelik knows it; hell, even yellow dog know it.
But even if this happened to not be a farce (which it is), I've already stated my terms -- yes, I'm dead fucking serious about that.

"But wotmaniac, what evidence do you have?", you might say.
To which I would reply: you and "Doyle" share uncannily similar grammar patterns and share a few reoccurring phrases.
Now, while I may not be a formal linguistics expert, I am a reader. And I'm pretty good at noticing patterns. And I know verbal masturbation when I see it.
I'm not saying that there isn't a member over there called Doyle. I'm not denying the idea that blather might have been generated from Doyle's account. I'm saying that unless Doyle is also one of your RL buddies that you physically hang-out with, then it definitely is a sock puppet.

Fascinating.
So if, for example, I show you the ( Google + date stamped) conversation where I first saw Doyle's letter (Doyle goes something like "I sent the mods this" I go something like "Oh that's cool, I didn't know" and it was months ago) and you were in a live Google + videochat with Doyle and me simultaneously and he said he wrote it and we've never met in real life (only for games on G+), you would still maintain that I had written this letter?

And you'd then maintain that, I guess we'd either hacked Google to add you into a false conversation or staged a fake conversation months ago (with other people in it) in order to fool you, in the future, about a thing that I didn't bring up--you did? but I somehow tricked you into bringing up? (Plus also invented a fake RPGnet account and email history for Doyle, I guess, and given it a convincing "legend" as they call it in the spy business by retroactively inserting him into conversations there, so he could pass his letter to the mods.)

Have I got that right?

Zak S wrote:

PhoneLobster wrote: I mean fuck we all know its going to be some bullshit where you fall flat on your face,...

So…you'll ...[fight my metaphorical dad!]

You missed the second half of that sentence. The one where you will be a whiny bitch and it wouldn't matter what the fuck the actual outcome would be.

Because you would still call ANYTHING victory. Because you would whine about anyone calling it anything else for months on end. Because that's how you operate.

I mean hell, you still bleatingly claim won your own ridiculous instant perfect ruling challenge thing. The stakes for that were merely being wrong on the internet and you are too much of a whiny cry baby coward to so much as take that obviously fair cop and simply admit you messed it up and lost like nobody had ever imagined was even possible.

I'd just like to point out that Zak has been posting in this thread for sixteen and a half hours as of right now. That's just today. The biggest time gap I can see on a cursory lookever was a little more than an hour. Maybe he had to go take a dump; if he tried, it didn't work because he's still full of shit.

That's neither here nor there. He spent a whole Saturday arguing in circles with good folks like Ancient History, PhoneLobster, wotcmaniac, deanruel, and Kaelik and I've probably forgotten someone.

Keep in mind that a little organization could set up a shift rota, so Zak can be kept pinned here to the Den while other people enjoy their weekends.

Maxus wrote:He spent a whole Saturday arguing in circles with good folks like Ancient History, PhoneLobster, wotcmaniac, deanruel, and Kaelik and I've probably forgotten someone.

I don't think he really spent any appreciable part of Saturday arguing with me though, after all, I am inhuman trash that should die.

Zak S wrote: Fascinating.
So if, for example, I show you the ( Google + date stamped) conversation where I first saw Doyle's letter (Doyle goes something like "I sent the mods this" I go something like "Oh that's cool, I didn't know" and it was months ago) and you were in a live Google + videochat with Doyle and me simultaneously and he said he wrote it and we've never met in real life (only for games on G+), you would still maintain that I had written this letter?

And you'd then maintain that, I guess we'd either hacked Google to add you into a false conversation or staged a fake conversation months ago (with other people in it) in order to fool you, in the future, about a thing that I didn't bring up--you did? but I somehow tricked you into bringing up? (Plus also invented a fake RPGnet account and email history for Doyle, I guess, and given it a convincing "legend" as they call it in the spy business by retroactively inserting him into conversations there, so he could pass his letter to the mods.)

Have I got that right?

Whatever, jackoff.

Maxus wrote:I'd just like to point out that Zak has been posting in this thread for sixteen and a half hours as of right now. That's just today. The biggest time gap I can see on a cursory lookever was a little more than an hour.

Could people stop doing shit like this please. It adds nothing, and just makes you look like an arsehole.

Kaelik wrote: EDIT: I actually still can't find this supposed Doyle letter, can you give me a post number?

Here you go.

EDIT2: I also blame his response to me:

Zak S wrote:

Kaelik wrote:
Oh look, another arbitrary challenge issued in bad faith. That is new.

I mean, it's not like you did that twice already.

When you say "in bad faith" are you saying you also believe I didn't write it? Because then I ask you too: What will you give me if I prove you wrong?

Or….are you suddenly not so sure?

Where he typoed/Freudian slipped the authorship.

Ooh, good catch.

Kaelik wrote: after all, I am inhuman trash that should die.

I'm glad to see you finally being honest with yourself.
(sorry, had to be done)

Maxus wrote:Keep in mind that a little organization could set up a shift rota, so Zak can be kept pinned here to the Den while other people enjoy their weekends.

meh -- I'm still recovering from surgery, so I've got no place to go.
(well, I guess I do need to sleep sometime)

---

@Zak:
Dude, you're missing the point -- you're a fucking joke. You're a parody of a parody. You've got 30 pages of bat-shit insane bullshit, making it impossible for anyone to even pretend to take you seriously (well, except AH .... I'm still trying to figure out his end-game. and if there is no end-game, then I call bullshit on his claim of chemical abstinence).

Over the last 3 years, I've had some enormous Den-shits dumped on my head for some shit that jumped off my keyboard; and through all that, no one has even hinted that I should be a candidate for banning (let alone explicitly stated); nor has my name, at any point, been turned in to a derogatory meme. Point being -- you done fucked up big.

As much as you probably don't want to admit it (at least not out-loud), you really are a sick, sad, little man. You're nothing more than yet another fucktarded imbecile who happens to have a computer and an internet connection. There is absolutely nothing special about you (well, maybe "special", but only in a euphemistic way).

You are by far the dumbest, most pathetic piece of maggot eating shit that has every slid from a human being's hairy ass.
You're an emotional fucking cripple. Your soul is dog shit. Every single fucking thing about you is ugly.

wotmaniac wrote:
@Zak:
Dude, you're missing the point -- you're a fucking joke. You're a parody of a parody. You've got 30 pages of bat-shit insane bullshit, making it impossible for anyone to even pretend to take you seriously (well, except AH .... I'm still trying to figure out his end-game. and if there is no end-game, then I call bullshit on his claim of chemical abstinence).

Over the last 3 years, I've had some enormous Den-shits dumped on my head for some shit that jumped off my keyboard; and through all that, no one has even hinted that I should be a candidate for banning (let alone explicitly stated); nor has my name, at any point, been turned in to a derogatory meme. Point being -- you done fucked up big.

As much as you probably don't want to admit it (at least not out-loud), you really are a sick, sad, little man. You're nothing more than yet another fucktarded imbecile who happens to have a computer and an internet connection. There is absolutely nothing special about you (well, maybe "special", but only in a euphemistic way).

You are by far the dumbest, most pathetic piece of maggot eating shit that has every slid from a human being's hairy ass.
You're an emotional fucking cripple. Your soul is dog shit. Every single fucking thing about you is ugly.

I accept your gracious request to be permitted to back down from your bet.