Wednesday 8 May 2013

The Tao of WTF?



On May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM Alexis Smolensk said...
The debate is being repeatedly muddled by mixing "compulsions" and "circumstances." It is being argued that if a DM creates a circumstance (oncoming war, where the party starts at the beginning of a campaign, an authority figure giving the party an order, etc.) that this is the same as the DM defining what things the party will compelled to do. 
A "circumstance" is a fact or condition connected to an event or action, but it is not the event itself. Yes, the party must start somewhere. Yes, authority figures give orders. Creatures and the setting itself provide limitations to character agency continually. 
Nevertheless, parties who happen to find themselves subject to the orders of superiors, or who are caught in wars, or any other circumstance, must not feel that there is no other possible option to their action except to follow what the DM has determined is the best, most suitable, and ultimately 'expected' action. 
To make the DM world, one must, yes, create many, many circumstances, which are out of the player's control. Designating that something is out of the player's control does not dictate that the world is a railroad - though I've now seen that argument made about 30 times this last week, to say that therefore, every campaign MUST be a railroad because it is impossible to create a world that doesn't have things out of the player's control. 
The issue is not that the player has total control, it is that the player has FREE WILL. Regardless of the circumstances, the player must be free to do whatever they will. 
Of course, occasionally, ignorantly exercising that will at the wrong time and in the wrong circumstances will get the player killed. Having free will does not automatically exempt the player from the circumstances. 
BUT ... that free will MUST not be restricted by the DM's wishes for what the campaign ought to be, or what the game should be about tonight, or what the DM has 'prepared' and is ready to run. That free will means that the player deserves to follow his or her own agenda, and not merely to act as expected by the DM because the DM happens to have done a shitload of preparation, or because the DM has bought a fancy new booklet from a store. The player should be free to pursue the course of action that interests the player. 
I've said it, and I still haven't heard the argument against it. Free will, player agency, the sandbox campaign begins when the player says, "I don't want to do that," and the DM says, "Okay, what do YOU want to do." 
And everyone is happy.
To which I replied,
Frankly, if your blog posts had said what your last comment said (7 May 1:04 pm), that clearly, then you would not have had any argument from me.
Excepting, of course, that the player shouldn't be in a position where he has to say, "I don't want to do that" in the first place.
To which Alexis replied,
So, after eight or nine really badly stated comments on this blog, two really badly written posts on your blog, a lot of cheap shots against me in your comments field, attitude, etc., you admit you're wrong ... but not before making this all about me and my inability to say it in the kindergarten terms you require. Huh. Not to mention, how do you know when a player is going to say "I don't want to do that" ... magic? You're as annoying as a raven. I'll give you that.
Okay.  Let’s go from here.

There are a lot of things that I read on the InterWebs that I could quibble about and do not.  For example, I am willing to say that your meeting with Bob the Patriarch who sends you on a quest is not an “event”, for the purposes of a discussion only, in order to follow a line of reasoning, although I know, and most players know, that what is really being attempted is to delineate between different kinds of events.

So, while I could have quibbled over terminology, I would not have, because, until Alexis’ response, it would have served no purpose. 

I still quibble over whether or not the players should ever have to say “I don’t want to do that” because, even in the context of Alexis’ comment above, quibbling serves a purpose.  It doesn’t take any magic to figure out when players don't want to do something.  I don’t need the players to tell me what they do not want to do, because the players tell me what they do want to do.  It is not, ever, in my opinion, the GM’s job to say, “You do this”, so they never, under any circumstances, have to say, "But I want to do that".  

It is the GM’s job to say, “Here are the circumstances.  What do you do?”  The player never has to tell you that he doesn’t want to do X simply because you are never trying to force him to do X.  Clear, simple, and effective.

“You admit you’re wrong?”  About what, my dear Alexis?  I told you, repeatedly, that you were not listening.  I told you, repeatedly, that you were answering something I wasn’t saying.   I am not saying that I was wrong.  I am saying, aforementioned quibble aside, you finally got it right.

I suspect that has something to do with one of your former players posting about how hypocritical your posts on this topic has been.  Now, me, I was wondering, “Sour grapes or accurate assessment?” until you posted the bit above, which clarified the issue.  Accurate assessment.

You have said that you find these posts hard to follow.  Others do not.  I have received emails from a number of folks (which I wish would have appeared in the blog comments), including some which give me a clear idea of why you sift through comments to your own blog before posting them.  For a self-proclaimed genius, it would seem to be a failing that you cannot understand what so many others clearly do.

And, yes, that is personal.  It is not polite.   Politeness has gotten me nowhere with you.  Your head is so firmly lodged up your ass that politeness cannot help.  Besides, I’ve read your blog.  I know that you think politeness is crap anyway.   So let’s look at reality, out in the clear air, and not listen to the little voices in our colons, shall we?

I can hardly admit that I am “wrong” for arguing against player agency, when I have never argued against player agency.

Let’s look instead at what I said:
In this case I will have to disagree with you. There is really no difference between using a module to help fill in a region, and using a map from Google Earth or a portion of a book on spelunking to do the same. If I accepted that "someone else's dungeon is a 2nd-hand interpretation of knowledge they have about something you're not connected to" as a strong enough reason to not "read other person's interpretations", that would apply to using Google Maps or a book on spelunking as well. We all could "go find the hard data from scratch", but finding the hard data is what life is, and it would take a lifetime to find all of the hard data used in this game. Some of it, of course, is fantastic, and can never be found "from scratch". You rely upon data gathered by others. Your series on how you map demonstrates as much. We all do.
 And
"The only thing you can learn from them [modules] is how better to take away player agency."
Not in my experience. As you say, "There is more to data that where it comes from; it matters WHICH data is relied upon." If I include elements from The Keep on the Borderlands in my game, for example, I need not include a talking raven that pushes the PCs back on "the path", just as I do not have to leave the Castellan nameless. It is not simply a matter of where the information comes from; it is very much a matter of what you do with it. Nothing in your response indicates that what you are doing is more doing "the damn thing right" on the basis of what materials you are using to craft the work. Nowhere have you demonstrated that using Google maps is superior to using modules in terms of player freedom.
And
All the application of written history, geography, science, design, economics, etc., is not of the same level as a module....but the module may be of the same level as any give piece of said written history, geography, science, design, economics, etc. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But, a module is as valid a part as most others, depending upon the module, and depending upon the other source. I don't think that using modules can quite be delineated down to attempting to trap the players in a Dark Dungeon. Nor do I believe that the dungeon is "the principle problem of the game". YMMV, though.
And
I am even reasonably confident that, if you were as secure in your position as you are trying to appear, you would not have suggested that KotB "is NOT consistent with the vast majority of modules." The minute you have to say, in effect, "Well, of course we cannot use THAT module as an example" your argument begins to break down. Nor is it true that in KotB "each part is a combat formula for entering, hacking and hauling away the loot". I have, as I said, run this module many, many times, and with different results each time. Sometimes that meant negotiation. Once that meant a PC becoming the leader of an orc tribe. Creation does not occur in a vacuum. You are creative when you react to your players' desires. Your players are creative when they react to the milieu you present them with. As far as I know, only the Alpha and Omega claims to have been creative from nothing, and, frankly, I don't believe in that. You are a smart guy, and I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you have the blinders on here.
 And
You still aren't listening. You are still hearing something other than what is being said, and answering something other than the positions that are being presented.
You aren't stepping on toes for writing against the use of modules, or the use of dungeons. You are stepping on toes because you are parading a straw man to burn. And you are burning him without presenting even a smidgeon of reasoning that demonstrates why the straw man - let alone the actual positions of people actually using dungeons and/or modules - needs burning. When you do that, you take yourself (in any meaningful way) out of the conversation. You are coming across exactly like those people you speak about, who don't want to hear anything that takes effort to understand. It should be obvious at least that, if you believe that the DM is supposed to react to the players, you should also believe that he should react creatively. And, as an example, when you use the dice to discover that there is literally a potential gold mine on land the PCs are holding, they are reacting to information you are presenting. Hopefully, they are also reacting creatively to the information you are presenting. Because I am almost certain that over 99% of your readers know that presenting and destroying creativity are not the same thing. Likewise, the game is a volley of actions and reactions, from all sides, with both players and GM introducing ideas and reacting to the ideas of others - even if those ideas are no more than "wandering monsters....people needing brave souls to defend their villages" or strangers to make "either friends or piles of meat". All of which are, please note, presented by the GM by necessity for them to be introduced into play. Your readers all know this. I cannot understand why you do not.
What is interesting in this, to me, is that I repeatedly say, in various ways, "You do not seem to understand how people use modules" and you seem to think I am saying "Make your players dance for your amusement."

Lets look at some things Alexis did say:
But I cannot help but point out that the principles behind the 'contest' per se represent one of the saddest elements in the gaming community ... the idea that somehow, competing with one another in an activity which is primarily done solo - on your own table, by yourself, in so-called preparation for the game - is a part of the game.
Quibble the First:  I invite you to examine, if you would, The Tao of D&D, in which Alexis has detailed quite precisely what he is doing in terms of his own prepwork.  “Painstaking” is not an adequate term.  I quite admire the level of prep he does, but the smell of head-up-the-ass-hypocrisy is overwhelming.   Prepwork is not part of playing the game, but it is part of the game.  
Random dungeons are useless.  A specific dungeon designed for a specific instance, where both players and DM know why its there and how it fits in the campaign, are useful.
Quibble the Second:  Did you examine those previous Tao blog posts?  Did you notice how often Alexis referred to using random generators to take his ego out of the equation?  

Quibble the Third:  While the GM needs to know how a dungeon (or any other structure) fits into the campaign milieu, the players do not.  Oh, they might discover why it is there and how it fits in, but they certainly need not know this to begin with.  Nor do they ever “need” to find out.  Unless the players are interested enough to find out. 

Quibble the Fourth:  Why this focused rancour on dungeons?  The same principles of design, and the same potential pitfalls, occur with towns, wilderness, etc.
The certainty that someday will be the right day to use this dungeon is a pervasive, even addictive justification to DM solo-produced, solo-conceived dungeons until doomsday.  But such dungeons demand shoehorning the players into the DM's headspace, and do not recognize the need for the DM to apply their dungeon-making skills to the player's headspace.
Again, Quibble the Fourth applies.

Also, there may be a fundamental disconnect here.  In any game I run, or in which I am interested, the world is the world.  I do not have treasure packets of wish-list items follow the PCs around until they find them.  A ruined city which holds the Geegaw of Ages is not going to appear simply because Black Leaf is interested in ruined cities while Elfstar wants to find the Geegaw.

The concept that “the dungeon - or any adventure - as a work of art to be hung on the wall of the campaign” or “the DM's creation of the adventure is the 'point' ... the game is the applause” is so alien to me that I cannot even see it clearly.  No part of the game has any real meaning unless it is introduced into play.  No part of the campaign milieu is “to be hung on the wall”.  It may be art, but if it is, it is more like a child’s tower of blocks, which is built merely for the pleasure of seeing it smashed by others.

And, hell, because I know you will read this out of context, let me be clear that the same tower of blocks is there to be rebuilt into something else, ignored, or whatever else the players want to try to do with it.

Even then, I would have just shrugged and said, “Well, that’s Alexis being Alexis”.   I personally think that both GMs and players are important…good ones doubly so.  I certainly do not think that contests like the One Page Dungeon “celebrate DMs while subtly discarding the value and importance of the player.”

On the other hand, to be clear, I don’t think any GM has an obligation to run any game they do not wish to run, or any player to play in any game that they do not wish to play in.  As long as you can find someone else who wants to play the way you want to, that’s exactly what you should do – no matter how foreign it may be to what I want from a game.

I have the impression that this is another fundamental disconnect between Alexis and myself.  I have strong ideas about what makes a good game, and I will argue them until the sky turns bright green, but at the end of it all, if you disagree with me, I also strongly feel that you can and should disregard what I say.

Alexis doesn’t like dungeons.  Okay.  I knew that.  He’s opinionated.  Okay.  I knew that, too.

What actually made me respond was this:
someone else's dungeon is a 2nd-hand interpretation of knowledge they have about something you're not connected to; so if you REALLY want new ideas, don't read other person's interpretations, go find the hard data from scratch. You do better to read a solid book on caving (spelunking) than you do to read through someone's cave representation. That's the problem with the "I learn things" argument. You're not really going to learn all that much. There are far better sources than this.
So, to reiterate, I argue that there is really no difference between using a module to help fill in a region, and using a map from Google Earth or a portion of a book on spelunking to do the same.  Moreover, interest in how someone else used other materials to create a module is no different than interest in how someone might use Google Earth to fill in a portion of a campaign region map.

Alexis asks “Is the a structure I am using the data for imposing order on the players?” and the answer is tautological.  Creating structure imposes order.  You can pretend otherwise, and wallow in that hypocrisy, but that doesn’t make it so.

Alexis then asks, “Is the map a playing surface designed to allow movement in the least number of directions, or the most? Does the map limit freedom of action as do hallways and traps, or does the map offer that freedom?”

But these questions side-step the argument.  Alexis made a claim that using modules was a relatively bad decision because they presented material second-hand.  Well, so does Google Earth, and so does that book on spelunking, and so does reading Alexis’ blog on how he used Google Earth.  My point was not that Alexis’ blog was useless, or Google Earth, but simply that this is a crappy argument about why you shouldn’t use modules.

And then we get to this:
Over and over, and I'll beat this drum forever, the DUNGEON and its 2-dimensional structural element, presented to the players as a maze and a puzzle, is the principle problem of the game. The best dungeon in the world is no better a representation of good PLAY than is the worse dungeon, as neither are about play at all! Dungeons are about imposition and rule by the DM; they are well named, for they imprison players in the DM's trap. The only thing you can learn from them is how better to take away player agency.
And this
The module is a limiting mechanism for game play. The module is premade, and therefore produces a predestined game play. The module includes the creativity of ONLY the DM, and therefore discounts added creativity from all the players. The module is a maze, with a beginning and an end. The core idea of D&D, that the module (bought or personally made) is CENTRAL to the game is the innate flaw in the game. We both believe the DM should create an experience for the player; but I believe that the player brings substance to the game, by making a decision about what the player wants to do, that cannot be addressed by the module mentality. You clearly disagree. Most of the gaming community, no doubt, would disagree, because the gaming community has bought into the "DM PRESENTS GAME" fundamental structure. I don't believe that's right. It is perfectly fair to create a setting. But one should not pre-create "Events" in that setting ... which is the form, purpose, methodology and habit of the dungeon principle. It has had its run. Let's move on from that principle.
And here, too, we clearly disagree, and I think the smell of shit is strong.  

A good module does not produce predestined game play. I have used Keep on the Borderlands, for example, with many gaming groups, and game play was markedly different depending upon how the group approached the material.

Again, game play was markedly different not because of the GM, but because of how the group approached the material. A module, like any prep, is limited in how it introduces creativity during prep, but that does not mean that it uses ONLY the GM's creativity during play.

And the play's the thing.

A module is not necessarily a maze, with a beginning and an end.  Again, Keep on the Borderlands can be used as a consistent part of a campaign setting during its entire run. So can any module, really. Like all parts of the campaign world, the elements of any prep - your own or that of a module - progress and change as time goes on.

Alexis may feel that "The Keep on the Borderlands is NOT consistent with the vast majority of modules" but this is an inconsistent response if he continues to also claim that "The best dungeon in the world is no better a representation of good PLAY than is the worse dungeon" - suddenly we are equivocating because the best and the worst are, apparently, not equal as examples.


When Alexis finally said something I could agree with in his comments, it was a strong step away from the things where I thought he had his head up his ass. He was no longer saying that "the dungeon....is the principle problem of the game".  He was no longer making a claim that modules, because they were secondary sources, or because you would be forced to use them in specific ways, were the problem.  Or that because there were things to react to in the game, the players could not be creative.  

Players deserve the ability to say No is not controversial.

In fact, when Alexis says “Twice now, you've said, reaction is creativity. That is such unmitigated bullshit.” he is mistaken.  I said that reaction does not prevent creativity.  In fact, having something to react to is often a spur to creativity.

Alexis says
And still, once again, you're all missing the point.
"Presentation" is the limitation. The DM should be reacting to the players, not the players reacting to the DM. To present is to make the player's passive.
Worse, the wise player to which you present your presentation can see it all coming, like a telegraphed boxing punch. But none of you see how the game has become a series of expected roles the players must play to keep the DM happy.
All I hear is how the DM is happy with the dungeon, and what the dungeon does for the DM. But the post is titled, "the player's piece." You're all so cocksure - but I'm hearing nothing about the player who is sick to death of having to run in your maze, because you present nothing but mazes. And I STILL haven't heard any other idea advanced.
I'm sitting at your table. What do you have for me that ISN'T a dungeon?
To which I responded
You still aren't listening. You are still hearing something other than what is being said, and answering something other than the positions that are being presented.
You aren't stepping on toes for writing against the use of modules, or the use of dungeons. You are stepping on toes because you are parading a straw man to burn. And you are burning him without presenting even a smidgeon of reasoning that demonstrates why the straw man - let alone the actual positions of people actually using dungeons and/or modules - needs burning.
When you do that, you take yourself (in any meaningful way) out of the conversation. You are coming across exactly like those people you speak about, who don't want to hear anything that takes effort to understand.
It should be obvious at least that, if you believe that the DM is supposed to react to the players, you should also believe that he should react creatively. And, as an example, when you use the dice to discover that there is literally a potential gold mine on land the PCs are holding, they are reacting to information you are presenting.
Hopefully, they are also reacting creatively to the information you are presenting.
Because I am almost certain that over 99% of your readers know that presenting and destroying creativity are not the same thing.
Likewise, the game is a volley of actions and reactions, from all sides, with both players and GM introducing ideas and reacting to the ideas of others - even if those ideas are no more than "wandering monsters....people needing brave souls to defend their villages" or strangers to make "either friends or piles of meat". All of which are, please note, presented by the GM by necessity for them to be introduced into play.
Your readers all know this. I cannot understand why you do not.
Alexis would later say
It isn't a sandbox dungeon if the player's can't look at it and say, "Let's not."
And no one, I think, disagrees with that.  You'd be stunned at the number who don't get that no one is disagreeing with that.  Hint:  it is a whole number less than 2 but greater than 0.  That the players have, deserve, and need the right to say No is not controversial in any way, shape, or form.

So, finally, we get back to 
A "circumstance" is a fact or condition connected to an event or action, but it is not the event itself. Yes, the party must start somewhere. Yes, authority figures give orders. Creatures and the setting itself provide limitations to character agency continually. Nevertheless, parties who happen to find themselves subject to the orders of superiors, or who are caught in wars, or any other circumstance, must not feel that there is no other possible option to their action except to follow what the DM has determined is the best, most suitable, and ultimately 'expected' action. To make the DM world, one must, yes, create many, many circumstances, which are out of the player's control. Designating that something is out of the player's control does not dictate that the world is a railroad - though I've now seen that argument made about 30 times this last week, to say that therefore, every campaign MUST be a railroad because it is impossible to create a world that doesn't have things out of the player's control.
Wherein the GM can suddenly present "circumstances" for the players to react to without limiting their creativity, and without creating a railroad.  That these "circumstances" are remarkably similar to the very things that modules provide that Alexis rails against has, apparently, eluded him.  That he has seen that argument "about 30 times this week" is not because people are arguing that it is true, but because it is an obvious consequence of the GM being unable to present things which the players can react to.

Another way of saying that, and far simpler, is this:  Alexis' entire argument against modules is hyprocritcal bullshit.  And it is bullshit predicated upon his own admission that, if he used modules, he wouldn't feel he was able to avoid using them to railroad.  

That makes sense if Alexis' game is as "highly scripted" as I am told.  People trying to give up smoking are often the most critical of smokers.  Criminals see anti-social behaviour where others see community service.  A pessimist can see success as failure....and in that light, be warned that I am an optimist and perhaps sometimes see failure as success.

I do think that his comments on “buy in” also deserve some serious examination, because I think that there are some serious flaws there as well.  But I also think that he has walked far enough out on the edge that I don’t feel any compelling need to do so now.  


But no, Alexis, you moronic self-proclaimed genius, I am not saying that I am wrong.  I am trying, one last time, to make you listen to the actual argument.  And then, if you address it, and address it well, you might convince me that dungeons, modules, or GM prep are problems.  But you won't do it by addressing only the areas where we agree - or by pretending that those are the areas where we disagree.

I know you've said that you are having a hard time following this.  Hope that clears things up.

24 comments:

  1. Alexis Smolensk said...(on his blog)
    I tried to read that response, but after not too long, the jizz began to burn my eyes.


    If the above post makes anyone else THAT excited, I apologize before hand.

    Also, that'll be $20 bucks, please.

    Hell, If I'm going to make random people on the InterWebs jizz after not too long, I ought to get paid for it! lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annnnndddddddd......those comments are now deleted from The Tao of D&D. Happiness for you that they have not fallen into the dustbin here, if you still want to read them.

      I get the impression that, as soon as he knows you don't agree with him, Alexis stops reading. That's sort of sad, and sort of cheesing-off-making, but, thankfully there are a lot of other people out there to talk to.

      Best of everything,
      Daniel

      Delete
    2. Well, how high-falutin' of him, eh? Anytime someone uses the word "jizz," you know it has to be a coherent and well-thought-out reply, eh?

      Delete
    3. I'll give him credit. Unlike -C, he took the comments down in such a way as to not leave it appearing as though I had agreed with him.

      Delete
    4. This is from a long time ago - 4 years. However, it's the most recent example I can find of folks mentioning debates being fruitless, and I'm currently in one such fruitless debate.

      Is there any particular commenting style he's looking for? I'm looking at deleted comment number five or six over there, and the last three of those have been apologies with 0 argument. I could simply be daft but it feels like I'm being tarred and feathered for no reason.

      Delete
    5. Does your comment agree with him and tell him that he's brilliant? That comment will remain.

      Does your comment point out holes in his argument and ask him to respond? He will take that as a personal attack, no matter how polite you try to be. Deleted.

      As far as I can tell, Alexis, is not interested in your opinion. He is interested in your interest in his opinion, so long as your interest confirms his opinion. Certainly, that is more than slightly implied by his posting rules, while he denies the same vehemently.

      My advice: His stuff is worth reading, but he is not worth engaging with directly.

      Delete
    6. This would refer to you, I guess?

      http://tao-dnd.blogspot.ca/2017/02/comment-moderation.html

      Delete
    7. Yes, that's me.

      I've been reflecting on some of his past posts about validation and about how he isn't writing the one true way, as much as he is simply writing about a way. On the one hand, I think that contextualizes his intentions a bit better for me than before I read those posts. There is a slight nuance: he isn't saying "my way or the highway", he's saying "your way is fine but please never mention it".

      Disagreement clearly *exists* in spots on the blog, so I'm not sure what the trigger was. Plus, it isn't like reading his other posts has clarified things, just muddied this *less*. Having acknowledged the nuance above, I still find it functionally identical to "my way or the highway".

      Delete
    8. If there is a discrepancy between what a person says they do, and what they actually do, what they actually do is the truth.

      As I said, Alexis is not interested in your opinion. He is interested in confirming his own.

      Delete
  2. This is time you will never get back. I walked away from debating with Alexis, didn't return to his blogs and haven't ever regretted it. You may want to consider doing same.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I commend you for a very cogent reposte in the form of this post, my friend. You are now a part of a select group of bloggers who have been the target of Alexis' ire. Why was said ire aimed at you? Because you dared to speak your mind. Perish the thought, right? If there's one thing he can't countenance, it's someone having a different opinion than him.

    Like Jeremy Murphy, I would advise that you allow yourself to step away from this debate. However, I applaud your efforts and don't think they are in vain at all. Rather, you've joined the elite ranks of those who have come before you in defiance of someone who is basically a "reverse-troll." Yon troll sits like a spider in the middle of his blog-web, waiting for the unsuspecting reader to wander unknowingly into his lair. Then, as you compliment him, he will lambaste you in return. If you seek to disagree politely, you will be excoriated.

    Welcome to the club!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your para #1 suggests to me why he has to fight so hard to avoid railroading, and also why he seems to do it despite worrying about it so much.

      Delete
  4. "You still aren't listening. You are still hearing something other than what is being said, and answering something other than the positions that are being presented."

    Ah yes, welcome to one of the biggest aspects of debating with Alexis! He reads what he wants in your words, and responds to what he thinks you're saying...or maybe what he thinks you should be saying? I've never been able to figure that out. Alexis, like some of his ilk, are so, sooooo fond of using the term "straw man" but they don't even know when they've woven one themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know that this is turning into a pile-on on Alexis, and I know that he has done things to deserve that, but that really wasn't my intention. My hope was that, even if we disagreed in the end, he would either (1) address the topic or (2) stop misrepresenting what I was saying. And I could not respond the way I wished in the limited space of a comment field....especially one which may, or may not, be published to the blog.

      Anyway, as I have said several times already, I do appreciate the level of work he puts into his modules (or, at least, the wilderness modules he demonstrated on his blog), and I do think he has some good ideas.

      Which is not to say that he is always worth reading. But then again, neither am I.

      I don't think this is malice or trying to be oh-so-clever on his part. I mean, his parting shot was that reading my words caused him to jizz in his eyes! Those are not the words of a man who is being clever.

      I really do wish him well, although I can't seem to make my Save vs. Asshattery after reading his comments, and I keep throwing in these juvenile digs myself.

      Delete
    2. That, BTW, is what someone trying to be clever looks like.

      At least I knew when I was writing that comment that, starting from paragraph 2 onwards, I was shoving my head farther up my ass with each word. Juvenile digs, I know. Childish. I should be above that.

      OTOH, Alexis (and others) can point to this and say, "See what a dick RCK is?"

      'Cause sometimes, yeah, I'm a dick.

      Delete
  5. Seriously id leave him alone - talks about reason yet i had the most offensive tirade from him over nothing i have ever been assaulted with on the net. Which basically invalidates every claim of sense or reason he makes. He continued to bait me with only intent of abusing me. Weve all met the type in real world gaming circles. Personal attacks accusing me of gay sex acts that would equal a death sentence in many countries and that my players must all have a bad time because and i am a terrible dm over a disagreement over economic realism in fantasy game worlds. Personal attacks and straw man arguments are not a sign of a balanced reasoned mind. I expect this beef in graffiti gangs or college newspaper not in gaming. As soon as you care enough to be that vindictive your just pissing on everyone. Dont let the clever essays convince you its just rain.

    ReplyDelete
  6. apology over typos - reading these comments helped confirm numerous ideas id had on subject so thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to apologize.

      From a personal viewpoint, I don't care one whit about anyone's sexual orientation, except as it directly intersects with me (which has narrowed me down to caring only about my partner's orientation at this time of my life). In my neck of the world, accusing someone of gay sex acts should result in a shrug and a "so?" (although, of course, it does not always do so, and not all of the world is so enlightened).

      In any event, I am sorry you had such a bad experience.

      Delete
    2. im probably more offended by being called a bad dm - it seemed very over the top, irrelevant and one of many assumptions about my life over very little data - all ads up to = opposite of reasoned or enlightened - Australian law wont kill me over this but we do have different online defamation/bully laws - only comparable abuse i had online was from a funny cat pic forum when i suggested we not merge with another group and another person commented i was wrong and was too fat to be an artist (this went on a while and they dug up my personal info online to keep it up) cats and dnd are not worth getting this worked up over or spending so much energy hating and baiting me - blogger is buggy and wouldn't let me remove any blogs from my reading list

      Delete
  7. Just to counteract a bit of pile-on-Alexis, while I think I agree with you about sandboxes, I do find your posts very hard to follow when you get into this mode. You dig so deep into responding to so many individual quotes that your argument becomes fractured and your overall point is lost.

    (I also think Alexis is over-wordy.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but in this case, I started with what Alexis likes to call the "kindergarten version", and he didn't get that either.

      If you find the following hard to follow, or think it reads as a paean to railroading, or that it means you should make your players dance to your tune, then you may well have a valid point.

      If you find the following easy to understand, as I think most folks do, then you can perhaps forgive me for parsing the argument so minutely in order to clarify for Alexis...as well as any reader who might imagine Alexis has understood what I was saying.

      So, do you find this hard to follow? Anyone?

      Here's the text:

      In this case I will have to disagree with you.

      There is really no difference between using a module to help fill in a region, and using a map from Google Earth or a portion of a book on spelunking to do the same.

      If I accepted that "someone else's dungeon is a 2nd-hand interpretation of knowledge they have about something you're not connected to" as a strong enough reason to not "read other person's interpretations", that would apply to using Google Maps or a book on spelunking as well.

      We all could "go find the hard data from scratch", but finding the hard data is what life is, and it would take a lifetime to find all of the hard data used in this game. Some of it, of course, is fantastic, and can never be found "from scratch".

      You rely upon data gathered by others. Your series on how you map demonstrates as much. We all do.

      Delete
    2. I can follow that, although I didn't think it was the strongest or most interesting part of the argument.

      What I'm trying to say is that every time I see you "parsing the argument so minutely", I think you become more difficult to understand. I don't believe it serves you to take that approach to argumentation. I can empathize with Alexis' not wanting to read through it, even as I scorn his "jizz" comments.

      Delete
    3. Fair enough.

      It's a bloody lot of work to parse an argument that way, and I only do it when I think it is important.

      It might not be the most interesting part of the argument, or the strongest, but the only part I was arguing is that using modules (1) is not intrinsically bad, and (2) does not intrinsically make you a railroader.

      For what little it is worth, I feel pretty damn certain that Alexis is smart enough to have understood that as well. But he isn't honest enough to address it, or to even accept it for what it is and ignore it.

      He wants to pretend it is something else.

      From what I have subsequently heard, it seems likely to me that this is because it strikes a little too close to home.

      Delete
    4. Also, let's not kid ourselves.

      Anyone who thinks it takes "magic" to avoid putting his players into a position where they have to say No to some course of action....rather than, say, simply letting them tell you what course of action they take....shouldn't be lecturing anyone about railroading.

      I couldn't believe I was reading that. I was astounded.

      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.