Someone explain the appeal of Old Man Henderson?

[PhoneLobster]

So. Really intent on pulling the Zak S defense then.

[virgil]

It's not a Zak S defense when you make up the fact it's a railroad, arbitrarily say it's bad (because you can't actually find a reason?), and have earlier said that my players are not having fun despite explicit evidence to the contrary. Oh, and I'm not even doing the Zak defense in saying that stuff couldn't be improved; my argument is that Bleak CoC can be a valid, fun option. I include evidence toward that statement with personal experience and pointing at genre/literary conventions that can be recreated with rules in a game. YOU are the one going 'nuh uh'.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Reinforcing the fact that your players have fun, regardless of relevance, IS the Zak S defense. I'd probably "have fun" playing Synnibarr if I was surrounded by the babes Zak S invites in from his profession life.

[virgil]

Reinforcing the fact that your players have fun, regardless of relevance, IS the Zak S defense.

It's only reinforced because his vapid arguments have no other relevance. I'm not saying that the specific execution/goal of Bleak CoC can't be improved; it can and I endeavor to do so. PL says that Scooby>Bleak, with the only reason being personal preference and that it specifically applies to my players; which I have already disproved by having run both versions of CoC with them.

EDIT: Let us not forget the other part of his strawman of my position. I have originally stated from the beginning that survival chances were low, but not impossible and loosely correlated at best to the number of bullets used, but PL's been disingenuously reiterating it as "no chance."

[DSMatticus]

I can totally talk to more than one person and about more than one thing at once. It's definitely allowed. I'm pretty damn sure of it.

It doesn't really matter if you're allowed to or not when you very clearly lack the ability to do so in the first place.

Hey, if everyone's down for it, sounds like fun.

I had gotten the impression that you were supposed to play CoC like characters in the books, people with more curiosity than is deemed healthy, and a profound lack of understanding of what you're up against. Like, you're supposed to lose, it's one of those "It's the journey"games where creating an interesting story to tell everyone at the store next time you go pick up your pullbox was more important than actually saving the world.

Pretty much this. All of my players enjoyed the games of CoC that were relatively bleak, and merely surviving was the win state, except that fun death stories were good as well.

But what the fuck makes you think that rules out shooting things, setting fire to things and exploding things I don't know.

I want you to reread that exchange very closely. I'm pretty sure when most sane people read that they wonder how the fuck PL determined that virgil's games do not include combat. There is a giant missing link, and if you told us what that missing link was, I promise you it would turn out to be something stupid like "crazy joke DM antagonizing characters like Old Man Henderson have a monopoly on violence" or "bleak grimness is incompatible with violence." Or you don't even have a link and will be completely unable to retrace the steps that lead to your original rant. I'm betting on the latter, and that your natural state is wandering from one incoherent rant to the next unprovoked.

But the core confusion here is you've set up a false dichotomy between "freakishly well-armed scooby gang solves supernatural problems with action hero sequences" and "pacifists get chucked into a meat grinder." Unsurprisingly, when people reject the former they are not actually doing so in favor of the latter.

Also, you cannot actually throw around the "Zak S defense" accusation here. Zak S defended mechanics (which can be objectively evaluated against certain design goals) with anecdotes of enjoyment. Virgil is defending a genre with anecdotes of enjoyment. I guess we could start a big argument about which genre is objectively best, but I'm going to have to go shove a stick up my ass first.

Also, looking forward to another visit, Zak. PL stop fucking saying his name. The horse is dead; stop beating it. RIP in peace.

[virgil]

Thank you for being more eloquent than I.

I need to remember to look more critically at whatever PL first says in response to me, since this is a growing trend with him.

[RadiantPhoenix]

RIP in peace.

Does the "RIP" in "RIP in peace" stand for "RIP in peace"?

[darkmaster]

Yes, RIP stands for Rest In Peace, so telling someone to RIP in peace is the same as telling them to Rest In Peace in peace.

[virgil]

Much like ATM machines and PIN numbers; but I suspect it's intentional.

[RadiantPhoenix]

"RIP in peace" can be a recursive acronym.

"ATM machine" and "PIN number" would need an extra word in the middle.

[Grek]

It falls down, hard, however the moment you actually consider what the players actually will have to go and do. What they have to do next? Go and get a cure, presumably by interacting with evil cultists and monsters, in a situation with life or death stakes AND on a time limit no less.

The basic plan for that storyline is "Exposition previously posted!", into "Read the magic tome in order to figure out what's going on", into "Oh shit, there's like a dozen rituals in here, better check the building for clues to figure out which one." into, "How do you banish a Shantak from a plumbing system, then?" into, "Get your wire cutters, we're breaking into the municipal water purification plant to summon a Nightgaunt." into either successfully breaking the curse or "Oh God, it's eating us!" depending on whether the investigators did the correct binding ritual or not.

[brized]

There is already too much shit to wade through looking for such gems.

Uhh...that whole Kill it with Fire tirade was the gem of this whole thread.

[DSMatticus]

RIP in peace.

Does the "RIP" in "RIP in peace" stand for "RIP in peace"?

Wherever Xzibit is right now, he has a hard-on and he does not know why.

Also, yes, it's deliberate. It's a meme. Just like the above. I am not above dated, unfunny internet references.

[PhoneLobster]

[Completely misrepresents Virgils posts and positions]

Just stop it OK.

I don't know why you want to be so fucking dishonest or confused but it's pretty clear Virgil is saying sometimes he specifically runs "Bleak" games from the get go specifically segregating those from the games where he supposedly is totally cool and lets people do the kill it with fire routine that is, basically what players try and do.

HE has drawn a distinction between play styles and claimed there is a completely viable totally "Bleak" play style made of failure and humiliation. He damn well better fucking outline it. In detail.

And thankfully he finally has presented one tiny shit filled example. With his lame "fuck you fucking players on a fucking boat, lulz" scenario. I don't need a fucking strawman. I don't need your exceptionally tortured attempt to call this a "false dichotomy" I have Virgil and his fuck you on a boat scenario to point at and call a pile of shit.

Now. Do YOU want to defend his "Fuck you players on a fucking boat" scenario?

Possibly with something other than "Trust me. Players like it. I said so."? Will you? CAN you?

No? Then shut the fuck up. You aren't defending the Virgil we have, you are defending the Virgil you wish you had.

[DSMatticus]

I don't know why you want to be so fucking dishonest or confused but it's pretty clear Virgil is saying sometimes he specifically runs "Bleak" games from the get go specifically segregating those from the games where he supposedly is totally cool and lets people do the kill it with fire routine that is, basically what players try and do.

No. The thing that is very clear is that the distinction between "bleak games" and "games where people kill things with fire" is a false distinction you made and then falsely attributed to virgil out of thin air. Every single one of virgil's responses to you on that topic has been to refute the notion that such a distinction can be attributed to him, or even exists. Even the fucking boat example is one in which the only solution seems to be kill it with fire, and you are somehow bandying it about as a defense when it actually pisses spitefully in your face.

Again, I quoted virgil's posts in this thread before this argument in their entirety. It's seriously just the fucking one. I even grabbed the quote he was agreeing with in its entirety. The snippet where you go off on virgil about how by bleak games he super-secretly means "killing it with fire is off the table" is from your first response. The burden on you is very simple: justify your first response by finding the part where virgil or desdan super-secretly mean "killing it with fire is never an option" by "I always thought CoC was about failing, fucking up, losing, and dying." Because anyone with fucking eyes can just go read how they actually said the latter, and yet your assertion is that they said the former and that this caused you to go off on them. Fill in the gaps. Explain the workings of your broken mind to us.

[Red_Rob]

PL, do you only enjoy films where the PoV characters 'win'? Do you think The Descent (original British ending, not that saccharine US recut bullshit) is a bad movie because the main character never escapes?

It is plainly obvious that everyone in Virgil's game entered knowing that the game they were playing was not "heroic fantasy" but "horror movie". Now before you go off about player agency, that doesn't mean that players can't achieve things or that the plots are railroaded, it simply means the basic genre emulation assumptions are different. It is assumed that character death is on the table, that the odds are stacked against you, and that the win state is often "survive and escape" rather than "kill the bad guy and bring his head back for a reward".

If I'd been playing in Virgil's game and the creepy old man we rescued hadn't woken up and tried to murder me I'd have been kind of disappointed. And the game ending on a fade to black as the last character realizes they made a terrible mistake would totally satisfy me as the ending to the story we'd been crafting.

[PhoneLobster]

No. The thing that is very clear is that the distinction between "bleak games" and "games where people kill things with fire" is a false distinction you made and then falsely attributed to virgil out of thin air.

I ran both Bleak CoC and in games where it was Scooby CoC

The end. Back the fuck off and shut up.

[PhoneLobster]

It is plainly obvious that everyone in Virgil's game entered knowing that the game they were playing was not "heroic fantasy" but "horror movie".

The entire Henderson story is a flat out example of people "signing up for it" that, quite frankly hated the stupid mortality. But that is largely irrelevant.

It is assumed that character death is on the table, that the odds are stacked against you

You can't stack the odds against the players meeting your win state in an RPG game. That is the most stupid and directly contradictory clash of design goals possible.

and that the win state is often "survive and escape" rather than "kill the bad guy and bring his head back for a reward".

You just said the odds were stacked in favor of death and then said the win state is "survive and escape" do you see the problem there?

Also by defining survive and escape as the win state you just placed Virgils lame ass "fuck you on a boat" in a LOSE state. Because Only one player even came CLOSE and still got kicked in the nuts and failed.

If I'd been playing in Virgil's game and the creepy old man we rescued hadn't woken up and tried to murder me I'd have been kind of disappointed.

If I were playing in Virgils game or any human player I have EVER encountered I would be flabbergasted that the PCs hadn't pegged the soul crazy survivor as an utterly obvious (and lame) jump scare the fucking second they met him.

I'd be down right amazed if they let him on their escape boat.

And the game ending on a fade to black as the last character realizes they made a terrible mistake would totally satisfy me

Fades to black with "threat still out there" or "next time" or whatever. OK, if you insist. It's a bit hackneyed but whatever.

But Virgils "bleak fun" was NOT a fade to black it was...

... and destroys the last PC.

Not even fucking "kills" not, "brawls to the death and manages to kill". Not even "starts casting a spell and they fight valiantly and nearly club him". Nothing. Just destroyed. Utterly outclassed, just "fuck you loser the old man destroys you now!".

EVEN THE LANGUAGE HE USES. The very wording "destroys", is one of humiliation, defeat and utter power tripping fucking bullshit.

Fade to black my ass.

We can all sit down and re imagine Virgil's "fuck you on a boat" into a vaguely functional gaming story. But stop trying to pretend it is something it isn't.

[DSMatticus]

No. The thing that is very clear is that the distinction between "bleak games" and "games where people kill things with fire" is a false distinction you made and then falsely attributed to virgil out of thin air.

I ran both Bleak CoC and in games where it was Scooby CoC

The end. Back the fuck off and shut up.

Unless you are arguing that the exhaustive list of possible differences between "scooby gangs with dynamite" and "grimderp everybody dies" is the dynamite, you have offered evidence that is only evidence if the conclusion it's supposed to be evidence of is already true.

Beyond that, the post you are quoting from comes after your post. Are you are about to tell us that we all have cause and effect backwards, or that you are secretly a time traveller?

But hey, you know what? Thank you for making arguments which are both concise and deeply flawed. It makes it much easier for people to call you out on your bullshit.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I thought we established on Page 1 that the Henderson story was made up so people would call the writer clever?

[PhoneLobster]

Beyond that, the post you are quoting from comes after your post. Are you are about to tell...

I'm telling you his claim that there is a different type of "Bleak" game play that he totally claims he runs with awesome success is very simple and consistent all the way through and you have to be spectacularly stubborn to fail to read it to the degree that you are attempting to.

I just picked the quote that was most directly embarrassing for you. I COULD have elaborated the whole fucking post it came from, as the context of it is him further explaining in fucking slow words the exact fucking opposite position to that which you are now attributing him.

[virgil]

It is assumed that character death is on the table, that the odds are stacked against you

You can't stack the odds against the players meeting your win state in an RPG game.

You can't stack the odds in a game that uses dice for resolution and have survival be objectively difficult? PL doesn't understand how math works, news at 11.

Also by defining survive and escape as the win state you just placed Virgils lame ass "fuck you on a boat" in a LOSE state. Because Only one player even came CLOSE and still got kicked in the nuts and failed.

Because they lost that means the game was on rails and failure was the only option? Because they lost, they didn't have fun? Check your cognitive biases at the door.

If I were playing in Virgils game or any human player I have EVER encountered I would be flabbergasted that the PCs hadn't pegged the soul crazy survivor

Seeing as how this involved a plurality of real people, that means it is possible. Or is your experience the sole guideline of human behavior?

[DSMatticus]

Beyond that, the post you are quoting from comes after your post. Are you are about to tell...

I'm telling you his claim that there is a different type of "Bleak" game play that he totally claims he runs with awesome success is very simple and consistent all the way through and you have to be spectacularly stubborn to fail to read it to the degree that you are attempting to.

I just picked the quote that was most directly embarrassing for you. I COULD have elaborated the whole fucking post it came from, as the context of it is him further explaining in fucking slow words the exact fucking opposite position to that which you are now attributing him.

You addressed neither point. You are still insisting on replacing what people say with what you want them to have said, and you are still insisting that causality flows backwards and you routinely rant (apparently justifiably) at people for things they have not said yet. Have another go at it, preferably one that isn't buttfuck retarded at first glance: walk everyone through the reasoning that lead you to call virgil out for the dichotomy you are attributing to him. Explain how you knew by "bleak" that virgil super-secretly meant "killing it with fire is off the table." The post you have picked won't help you because it does not say what you want it to and because it comes after you started ranting out of your ass, both pretty fucking solid disqualifiers to any legitimacy it might provide.

[Zaranthan]

Calling PL on his arguments is like fighting off a hornet with a water pistol. It makes you look silly and you get stung anyway.

[PhoneLobster]

Explain how you knew by "bleak"

Seriously. You're entire argument now is "Sure I'm fucking wrong about what Virgil was saying BUT HOW DID YOU KNOW SO QUICKLY????"

I really don't like having to explain in detail and repeatedly the things other people have said for you on the fucking record one page ago in plain fucking English.

And fuck you, I don't even need to. Because the conversation is there. Just go back and look at it. I pegged Virgil's position pretty fucking accurately, I pushed him to clarify his position and to the limited degree he has the really simple and limited things I suggested he was implying seems to have actually been pretty fucking accurate.

You don't get to scream and whine about me DARING to be right about predicting just how fucking stupid Virgil's position is. Because I was fucking right.

In fact even now you have Virgil right here on this thread, spouting nothing but insults and image macros ALREADY. And you COULD just flat out ask him what the fuck he is talking about for these "different" "Bleak" games he keeps talking about. But you DON'T why not? Afraid the answer from the actual source won't hold up well with your "I'm sure Virgil just means his Bleak games are almost exactly like Scooby Explosions only with tiny incremental and negligible differences in numbers of explosions and he never disagreed with anything ever!" bullshit?

Because you know what would be totally dynamite for your argument. Virgil just saying "Killing it with fire antics are totally a thing in my supposedly Bleak games that players do all the time, frequently successfully. As Such I do not run Bleak Games that are in any way meaningfully different from the Scooby games I previously mistakenly differentiated." It would also mean he just agreed with my entire kill it with fire routine and I'd be pretty happy with him backing down like that. But good fucking luck.