The Gaming Den

I just realized I hadn't seen a Shadzar post in weeks.

Isnt the term you are searching for, Hallelujia.

He does that every now and then.

I've noticed that as well, sad to say that discussion has yet to improve noticeably, just one less distraction. Course I guess at least other people who generally have an idea of what they're saying, compared to...well the nothingness that Shadzar represents.

In short, Hallejuah!

Just don't say his name three times while looking into a mirror.

I never see them anyway.

This thread is petty and pointless. Ignore is there for a reason.

Josh_Kablack wrote:This thread is petty and pointless.

As if the majority of posts on this forum aren't.

A lot of the older posts and discussions about new ideas are interesting. Like the WoF thread was interesting despite my disagreeing with Lago over it being the best shit for RPGs ever.

I'm sure most of you have better things to do with your time than.... rejoice that a poster isn't here. Any seconds you spend being hating are seconds you can't spend becoming.

As for shadzar, honestly, they'll get back when they can. If they have new content, good, if they want to give dissenting opinions, better.

The Gaming Den thrives on competing opinions that sharpen the arguments and ideas posited here. I do not have to be liked by someone in order for me to urge them to continue writing content, nor do I have to like someone in order to use their criticisms in fine tuning my own work.

The Gaming Den does no thrive on groupthink. Groupthink is what makes Paizo fail, RPGnet idiocy, and WoTC shamefulness. Noise, instead of signal. Groupthink is rot, not growth. Conflict and compromise creates content, not blind consent.

The fact that some of the newer posters are for group think in any way, shape, or form, is very wrong and goes completely counter to how ideas and most importantly, content, are developed here.

If anything, you want more people who are going to disagree with you and show you where you are wrong in your current prejudices with facts and math. Hopefully, helping you to become a better person as you self-confront your own hang-ups.

What a thoroughly eloquent and important post. A point to you Judging Eagle

Honestly, while Frank Trollman and K(ieth) are the two cornerstones here, TGD would be much less without dissenting opinions such as Random Casualty and Phonelobster over the years.

Posters such as Shadzar and Elennsar are good at crystallizing thesis into singular points. While Elennsar's own silly ideas never coalesed, they did allow people to begin good and formative replacement work for Pendragon, in the form of Dux Artorius.

While I may not necessarily find Phonelobsters material useful for my own work, his mechanics are too specific for their personal experiences story narration editor style of game running. They give themselves excellent timing and framework systems since they can determine the details on their own, because they are an experienced story narrator.

Unfortunately for me, I'm trying to create a narrator agnostic system, something that a stupid computer could conceivably use to create stories. Most likely something along the lines of a complicated compy-rpg that looks more like Dominions 3 than World of Warcraft.

It also means that I need to have my timing planned out well, ideally "excellent timing", because "perfect" timing is impossible.

Shadzar isn't in the same category as PhoneLobster or, I guess, Elennsar. His posts are actually incomprehensible. Like the Time Cube guy, it's worth a shot to try and figure out what he means, but once it's become clear that it's gibberish, there's not much point in paying attention any further. The signal to noise ratio is weighed too far towards noise to make listening to him worth anyone's time.

JE is pretty similar.

I thought Shadzar WAS Elennsar.

Is this thread all about slagging off people we don't like, now? Because boy, do I have a list!

Koumei wrote:Is this thread all about slagging off people we don't like, now? Because boy, do I have a list!

Let's see it. It has to be more interesting than JE's posts.

They have different obsessions, Elennsar wants stories that are contradictorly impossible in terms of probability Shadzar wants... some sort of obscure 2e game system, based on their own personal gaming, and nothing else allowed.

I'm, anxious and obsessive-compulsive; there isn't one thing that I want in my story narration systems at the cost of all other things. There are instead many, and they all need to be well planned out and should try to help outline stories that people actually read and tell. I'm crazy because I'm constantly shifting how I want to achieve my goals, while still trying to keep my eyes on the prize(s).

There's a good reason tgd doesn't hand out bans; conflict is the catalyst for just about all worthwhile progression. While they eventually got banal as hell, shadzar and Elennsar at least provided an easy way of maintaining a dialectic with The Wrong, a constant reminder of what not to do and how to address it.

A already pointed out, maybe Elenssar did, I wouldn't know, because I ignored him, but shadzar definitely didn't. He was too fucking incomprehensibly retarded to be able to understand what he was even saying, so you couldn't carry on any actual conversation with him at all.

I give you major props, J_E. Dissenting opinions, even if they are infuriating, are the cause of growth.

Ravengm wrote:Dissenting opinions, even if they are infuriating, are the cause of growth.

I second this.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

Ravengm wrote:Dissenting opinions, even if they are infuriating, are the cause of growth.

I second this.

I don't!

Dissenting opinions aren't the foundation of growth on their own. The more hostile the environment is, the less likely it becomes that anyone will back down from a position they've begun defending, even if they don't have any strong arguments left for it (or even any valid arguments at all).

It's probably easier to understand if you don't live under a two-party system, but it's actually possible to have dissent and still not listen to the crazy. If you're forced to give even the show of consideration to the crazy viewpoint, it's too easy to carry the crossed-arms, fixed-smile, head-nodding, ears-closed position into the conversation with those who have different ideas from you.