Your Rule Sucks: The Zak S Social Currency Edition

[Zak S]

Keep it in mind that not all games are happy-go-lucky pull-it-out-of-my-arse-as-necessary affairs. Some people like to play actual game modules, though ghost along knows why, which have a defined plot (choo! choo!) and probably an adventure path. Some gamemasters like to spend quite a bit of work developing their campaign worlds and adventures and don't account for major NPCs expiring by rude surprise. And it's not up to you to say "oh well, that sounds like fucking fun to me, let's go!" Just because that shit would fly at your table doesn't mean it'll work at anyone else's.

Sure---it won't work for everyone. So then answer the Left-Handed Scissors argument. Instead of dodging it like Rob did.

[Zak S]

Quote:
53. Do you agree that a competent GM is essential equipment, like dice?

No. .

Then we play a different game, with different assumptions. Anybody who agrees with this should not ever again construe anything my blog as directed at you or about the game you play.

[Zak S]

Quote:
55. Again in case you missed it: Are you trying to prove "abusability period"? or "a subjective level of abusability Ancient History considers unacceptable"?

I think we covered objective, inarguable abusability back on page 1, post 1. Your rule has the potential to give an overwhelming bonus. That can be abused.

That isn't an answer to the question: does every D&D rule contain the possibility for abuse: yes or no?

[Zak S]

55. Are you saying that you assume all NPCs are infinitely malleable?

I'm saying that NPCs need not have rote responses.

Not an answer. Yes or no: do you assume infinitely malleable NPCs who can be (without magic) persuaded to do anything?

[Kaelik]

Now Zak has decided to post literally a hundred posts of one liners, because he wasn't happy with the amount of space he was taking up with his one line then double enter monsters.

Do not complain when men serve you as you serve them.

[Zak S]

Quote:
61. Are you saying that when I get attacked and called names, that attempting to address that attack is "changing the subject"?

If you address that attack instead of addressing the subject then...yeah.

Oh no--I always do both, sooner or later. Kaelik's post contained nothing other than an attack, did you read it?

This is Kaelik's entire post:

So just to be clear, playing a rulings not rules game is substantially superior to all those shitty bad people who play games that are tactically challenging while focusing on player agency?

See, this is why I hate whiny shits who talk about "to each their own" without fail you always actually mean "don't criticize me, but actually, yeah, the way you play the game is shitty and you are a loser."

[Grek]

I would like to request that people A] not quadruple-post and B] not do giant line-by-line quotation arguments with people. I am (obviously) not a moderator, so this request has absolutely no weight behind it, but it's obnoxious as fuck and I've love to see this thread be made readable again.

[Zak S]

You're choosing an arbitrary point after which you think can insult me freely and ignore what I say because I used "shitting fit" to describe you without asking for clarification first; given that, do you think it would be unfair if I used the exact same logic to ignore and belittle you at will after you got belligerent and insulting first?

Why are you on Kaelik's side at that point?--he posts a disgusting pointless insult (the entire content of his post) and then I respond and you blame _me_ and not him? I do not understand.

[Kaelik]

Why are you on Kaelik's side at that point?--he posts a disgusting pointless insult (the entire content of his post) and then I respond and you blame _me_ and not him? I do not understand.

Because I am not a hypocrite, and do not refuse to address substantive points when people insult me. Whereas you, in fact, hypocritically insult everyone tons, including when they don't insult you first, like Ancient History, and then use the fact that you were insulted as express reason to not address substantive points you don't want to address.

If I had to guess, Ancient History cares more about your blatant hypocrisy than your blatant assery.

[Mistborn]

Why are you on Kaelik's side at that point?--he posts a disgusting pointless insult (the entire content of his post) and then I respond and you blame _me_ and not him? I do not understand.

He said mean things about you on the internet!? That scoundrel! That fiend! How dare he!?

What the fuck is wrong with you? You argue in bad faith, tell people their human rights should be stripped away, and worst of all fail to use paragraphs properly. Do you really have no idea why this is upseting? Have you no sense of decency?

[Zak S]

Why are you on Kaelik's side at that point?--he posts a disgusting pointless insult (the entire content of his post) and then I respond and you blame _me_ and not him? I do not understand.

He said mean things about you on the internet!? That scoundrel! That fiend! How dare he!?

What the fuck is wrong with you? You argue in bad faith, tell people their human rights should be stripped away, and worst of all fail to use paragraphs properly. Do you really have no idea why this is upseting? Have you no sense of decency?

People are allowed to say mean things on the internet (like Kaelik did) with no prompting. They are not, thereafter, allowed to complain about anything bad that happens to them as a result.

If he had remained civil, then I would not have been forced to the conclusion he is a moron. Starting an uncivil conversation (and there is no-one here arguing that I was the first person to be mean) and then demanding civility is hypocrisy.

Take a look at the original thread:
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54 ... sc&start=0

Page one:
I'm nice
Page two:
I call "Magical Tea Party" a "desperately silly" phrase.
Page three-- I say RAW games are "With training wheels" (again: if you want me to see "Magical Tea Party" as a judgment-free neutral term, you have to accept "training wheels" as judgment-free neutral term. If this is impolite, then so is "Magical Tea Party" and you threw the first rock.)
Now later on page three, Kaelik opens up with his crazy, evil bullshit attack that no-one in their right mind could possibly mistake for reasonable in any way and that has no possible nonstupid interpretation, introducing incivility into the conversation:

So just to be clear, playing a rulings not rules game is substantially superior to all those shitty bad people who play games that are tactically challenging while focusing on player agency?

See, this is why I hate whiny shits who talk about "to each their own" without fail you always actually mean "don't criticize me, but actually, yeah, the way you play the game is shitty and you are a loser."

Then I respond to this declaration of total stupidity with shocking restraint:

Not at all in any way even a little. You seem to have not read what I typed. I repeatedly refused to make a judgment call about what style of game was better, I merely stated that there needs to be different games that handle both ways of playing.

Though I think "games that are tactically challenging in a way facilitated by rules mastery and on character customizability" would be a better way to describe the kind of play that would beat at odds with my preferred Rulings-not-rules method.


I will assume you are not trolling: please re-read my comments up to this point and if you do not see where I say that, ask a question and I will clarify.
__
Also, in order to make sure you are sane, I need to know whether you're capable of grasping the idea that a suit made to be altered is not worthless.

If you understand that, please type words to that effect.

If you do not, ask questions.

If you do neither, I will have to assume you are not a real person and therefore any attempt to talk to you would be pointless.

Which someone said was "changing the subject" (from what I don't know?)

And nobody comes and goes "Kaelik: you're a total fuck and need to get off the internet for doing that, you've ruined everything."

And not only that, but Ancient History--who claims that this response of mine was so far over the line that it is what made him decide it was ok to be a dick in his own posts to me doesn't mention it, doesn't bring it up, doesn't call me out for it, doesn't ask about it and--instead--the only communication I get from him (days later) is he private messages me and asks me to read his blog and give me his opinion on it. Twice.

Then the next time he appears, months later, he asks civil questions for a few pages--I am nice to him--then BAM insults me. On what grounds? Apparently he's been nursing this secret grudge about poor Kaelik.

And now, apparently you guys are either surprised that you cannot be douchebags without consequences or trolling.

[CapnTthePirateG]

So after 18 pages of dick waving, did we actually get rules for giving apples to the herald so he can speak on your behalf like PhoneLobster wanted?

[erik]

No

[Zak S]

So after 18 pages of dick waving, did we actually get rules for giving apples to the herald so he can speak on your behalf like PhoneLobster wanted?

I said this already: if the NPC believes the herald represents you, they get the bonus. That's it.

I'm curious, since this is obviously and provably wrong:

No

Do you guys go "Oh no! Erik lied or was too lazy to fact-check before he talked smack! Erik is a jerk" or is that just a thing with no consequences for you guys?

[DSMatticus]

Zak, if you do not have the time to write and format one post that actually turns out vaguely readable (with quotes inside of quote tags, preferably even fucking marked with the poster's name, use quote=) and contains all of the things you have to say at that time, shove it in a fucking text document and come back to expand it later (at least you seem to have stopped, though maybe the thread's just slow right now?). The internet isn't going anywhere. You do not have to and absolutely should not fire this bullshit out like a machinegun if the result is an unreadable pile of ass or a multipost extravaganza. Unless you have some master plan to drive everyone out of the thread and declare yourself ultimate winrar through torture, please fucking stop. And if it is your actual master plan to torture us into walking away with supremely terrible formatting, save everyone the time and headache and just say so. I am 99.99% sure everyone will preemptively walk away in order to avoid being further covered in this horrendous shitspray if you threaten further escalation.

I called "stupid" or a "liar" and you doubt my evidence--ask for it and you'll get it

Okay. You've accused me of being stupid. Give me some provable evidence that doesn't equate to "AH disagrees with what I said."

"Shitting fit"--saying that proves you are stupid. You could have had a conversation with me without insults and you chose (first) to have one with insults. Do not complain when men serve you as you serve them.

Hahaha, what? No, really, what the fuck? Grasping at straws in order to take offense at Ancient History's incredibly civil and patient treatment of you so as to justify being a complete and total dickbag to him just makes you look like a petty brat. And what sort of retarded leap of not-thought is "anyone who isn't nice to me is clearly stupid." That's... something else.

And further; you are repeatedly demanding that people can't say anything vaguely insulting to you until they've convinced you that they are right to do so and you've given them permission or whatever bullshit impossible standards you're holding them to ("you can't be mean to me until I admit I'm wrong! If you do you lose na-na na-na boo-boo!"). Meanwhile, you are being the aforementioned complete and total dickbag all the same. No. That's not how it works. We're all grown ups here, and if you want to say mean things on the internet knock yourself out. But if you're going to say mean things on the internet while hiding behind falsely held standards of civility you don't even bother to pretend apply to you, you're just a fucking scumbag. The only one demanding civility here is you, because we pretty much don't care if we're kind of dicks to eachother. We are just very amused by your deeply hypocritical demands for civility.

And final point:
1) P->Q
2) P
3) Zak is a dumbass.
C) Q
That is not a logical fallacy. Q's truthfulness depends in no way on 3, so while 3 is extraneous to the argument (and also happens to be mean - gasp!), its presence is not actually grounds for dismissing the argument. You can, obviously, choose to walk away from an argument at any time - there's no burden or obligation whatsoever to put up with shit you don't want to. But any claims that you are justified in ignoring an argument because the author is also saying mean things about you is patently false. That is not how it works. 2+2=4, you shithead. It's darker at night, you scrotum. The moon revolves around the earth, you twaaaaat.

SING IT WITH ME NOW

two plus two is four
(you shithead)
it's daaarker aaat niiight
(you scrotum)
and the moon, yeeeeeaaaaah
(wait for it)
it revolves around the earth!
(oh you silly twat you)

If anyone actually finds a way to sing that in a way that doesn't sound like total ass, I will give you... absolutely nothing. It's a waste of time, really. At least I'm being honest with you.

I'm curious, since this is obviously and provably wrong:

No

Do you guys go "Oh no! Erik lied or was too lazy to fact-check before he talked smack! Erik is a jerk" or is that just a thing with no consequences for you guys?

If you acknowledge that modifying a rule after the fact to account for criticism is not the same as having written it correctly the first time and admit you totally dropped the ball on square one (as opposed to your usual bullshit excuse of "you can't claim I failed the challenge until you tell me the ways I failed the challenge and let me fix them - my shitty, incomplete rules are your burden, not mine!") I will personally harass erik across this forum until he apologizes, even if erik refuses and fbmf banhammers me for relentlessly harassing him (no pressure or anything, erik ).

But before I give a fuck whether or not erik is keeping up with the latest set of goalposts, you have to admit you're moving them.

[infected slut princess]

Ok really, is this all about some dumb rule some guy made up in two minutes?

[A Man In Black]

Not an answer. Yes or no: do you assume infinitely malleable NPCs who can be (without magic) persuaded to do anything?

Here's an answer:

Whatever, jackoff.

[Kaelik]

People are allowed to say mean things on the internet (like Kaelik did) with no prompting. They are not, thereafter, allowed to complain about anything bad that happens to them as a result.

Acutally, that is wrong on two counts. First off, you gave prompting. Second off, they are still allowed to complain if someone murders them, or hits them, or steals from them, or puts them in jail. Because saying mean thing is not a crime. Just something you subjectively don't like.

Starting an uncivil conversation [/i] (and there is no-one here arguing that I was the first person to be mean) and then demanding civility is hypocrisy.

I don't suppose you could quote any instance in which I demanded civility? I mean, that would be hypocrisy, but since I'm pretty sure anyone else would have called bullshit on me for demanding civility when I am civil to no one on here, and it doesn't sound like me. Pretty sure this falls under one of those: Zak S blatantly lies about the events that have unfolded things.

Now later on page three, Kaelik opens up with his crazy, evil bullshit attack that no-one in their right mind could possibly mistake for reasonable in any way and that has no possible nonstupid interpretation, introducing incivility into the conversation:

That sounds a lot like and incorrect interpretation. Since at least on way someone could consider it reasonable is how I accurately predicted nearly the exact thing you would later say, to whit:

without fail you always actually mean "don't criticize me, but actually, yeah, the way you play the game is shitty and you are a loser."

And here is what you said:

in order for any tabletop RPG to not be shit, it include and must require the creation of new material.

And any game session without original material will always be shit. At least for any audience worth playing with. (Note: you may be too stupid to be in that kind of audience.)

I think being right counts for a lot when it comes to what is reasonable.

Then I respond to this declaration of total stupidity with shocking restraint:

Also, in order to make sure you are sane, I need to know whether you're capable of grasping the idea that a suit made to be altered is not worthless.

If you understand that, please type words to that effect.

If you do not, ask questions.

If you do neither, I will have to assume you are not a real person and therefore any attempt to talk to you would be pointless.

If you genuinely think that constitutes restraint you should see a fucking doctor.

And nobody comes and goes "Kaelik: you're a total fuck and need to get off the internet for doing that, you've ruined everything."

Presumably because they do not think that saying mean things (that turn out to be correct) or being a dick constitutes "ruining everything" or "needing to get off the internet." Perhaps instead, as you were told by other people with links to other threads and in many many posts, saying a mean thing does not constitute the negation of the universe itself, and in fact does not interfere with constructive debate, if you still address the substance. In this case, the substance being how you think other gaming styles are shitty and for stupid losers, and that therefore it is hypocritical of you to claim that no one can say that your gaming style is bad.

in order for any tabletop RPG to not be shit, it include and must require the creation of new material.

And any game session without original material will always be shit. At least for any audience worth playing with. (Note: you may be too stupid to be in that kind of audience.)

[erik]

I do fully admit that I have only clicked to read a trace amount of Zak's posts and that was too many. I still feel comfortable in the answer I provided.

Due to the caveat at the end of the question "like PhoneLobster wanted?", I stand by my "No", as it is my understanding that PhoneLobster, among others, are to date unsatisfied with Zak's offering(s).

[Zak S]

the substance being how you think other gaming styles are shitty and for stupid losers, and that therefore it is hypocritical of you to claim that no one can say that your gaming style is bad.

Zak S wrote:
in order for any tabletop RPG to not be shit, it include and must require the creation of new material.

And any game session without original material will always be shit. At least for any audience worth playing with. (Note: you may be too stupid to be in that kind of audience.)

I did not know your gaming style required or involved "no original material". Is that so?

I mean, don't get me wrong, if so: it is shit. (Do you therefore pick you characters' names off a list like Dungeon World? ) But when I made this remark I did not realize it applied to you, or anyone here.

[Zak S]

I do fully admit that I have only clicked to read a trace amount of Zak's posts and that was too many. I still feel comfortable in the answer I provided.

Due to the caveat at the end of the question "like PhoneLobster wanted?", I stand by my "No", as it is my understanding that PhoneLobster, among others, are to date unsatisfied with Zak's offering(s).

Kind of begs the question: Did phonelobster express his requirements fully int he challenge? Because I keep seeing people complaining that I didn't meet requirements I knew nothing about ("Why doesn't this system work for a group with a shit GM?" "Because PhoneLobster was challenging me by saying I never made rules that bit me on the ass, not that I never made rules that shit GMs read off my blog and bit them on the ass".

The "transferable to the Herald" thing seemed obvious and not worth saying. It wasn't an alteration, it was a clarification offered to the confused who didn't make the (to me obvious) assumption.

[Kaelik]

I did not know your gaming style required or involved "no original material". Is that so?

I mean, don't get me wrong, if so: it is shit. (Do you therefore pick you characters' names off a list like Dungeon World? ) But when I made this remark I did not realize it applied to you, or anyone here.

It doesn't matter that my games have original content. It matters that some people do, and you proclaim relativism, but decry such games as shit. It seems that by any actual non-hypocritical standard, you would admit that if you can classify a gaming style that other people like as shit, we could classify your gaming style as shit even though you like it. And then everything is just an argument about what makes a game shitty. An argument you have steadfastly deflected by claiming that nothing could be shitty which works for you.

[Zak S]

If there is a criticism I haven't addressed, say that. So far as I know, I am actively talking about every part of the rule that has been criticized

... he was asked for a social currency system and produced something wasn't a social currency system at all. We can discuss whether it was terrible, and indeed pretty much everyone who has read it has determined that it is, in fact, extremely bad. But everyone should be able to see that if the design goal is "make a social currency system" and you produce something that is not a social currency system and walk away, that you very definitely didn't complete the task.

I asked Frank what he meant by "social currency system" and how that was different than what I gave and his answer was not forthcoming--so I can't address the idea that it's not a "social currency system". There's social things in it and currency (in the form of bonuses in it).

It's as unfair to ask me to address "this rule is not a (piece of jargon whose meaning is different than what those 2 words normally imply combined in an unrevealed way) despite meeting the stated requirements" .

So fuck off with that.

[MGuy]

Dude. THE CRITICISMS OF YOUR RULE WERE LAID OUT RIGHT AFTER YOU MADE IT. You CANNOT go on saying that you don't know what he means because yo seriously just have to go back and read what he said about it over the pages that follows you making the damn rule! What fucking world do you live in? The reasons why it doesn't work AND what it was supposed to do were posted and REPOSTED. You are NOT ALLOWED to be that dense!

[PhoneLobster]

Ok really, is this all about some dumb rule some guy made up in two minutes?

Well yeah. Only he said it was going to be a two minute rule, it took longer than that.

So it's actually about some dumb rule some guy made up in over seven hours.