I’m tired of the incivility in your posts and I would like it to stop. *** EXAMPLES OF WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT: Neil was talking about healing spells. JLV wrote on Thursday, June 21 at 18:01 > But why is it so unacceptable to allow a healing spell to be created > for the game by the designer (which, given SJ's reputation for carefully > thinking his way through things, will be well-balanced in the context of > the rest of the game) and then, if you feel so strongly about denying it > to your players, simply saying that the spell doesn't exist in your world? > … > As
the GM, you can make your world any way you want, but why > try to
enforce YOUR rules on anyone else? I reread all of Neil’s posts for several days before this comment, and NO WHERE did he write anything which suggested that he was trying to impose his rules on anyone. If someone disagrees with you, it seems that you do not hesitate to escalate. I thought the above was pretty over the top. In part to deflect an unpleasant conversation, I said that SJ had written some pretty questionable design. On Thursday, June 21 at 20:52 you asked me what he wrote, and I responded with two examples of poor design he had made. I wrote a post with a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference to give it a bit of humour. I talked about the brutal punishment SJ gave for people who switch talents. While I was writing up my examples, I paused for a moment to think of what was the silliest talent change I could think of. Someone studying UC I, UC ii, and UC iii, then changing UC i, to Missile Weapons was the most absurd thing that came to mind, so I included it as a joke. You know, humour? I gave an example about long range, super accurate arquebus fire, but I forgot that my hexes are 1 meter rather than 1.33 so my example was off. (I also missed the time to set up the Arquebus on its stand.) On June 22, 11:46 you wrote: > (Several examples of why smart players don’t change talents elided) > … > In short, your "what if" is another primary example of the kind of > bleeding edge arguments you've been making all over the place. Wow. I make a joke, and get this. Then you wrote: > Second example; skipping, for a moment, that Steve has already > stated he's changing this, your proposal seems a bit off. > > (Long argument, with several good points elided.) > … > Again, another highly unlikely bleeding edge example. I did make a couple mistakes in my post, but most people would write, “Rick, I think your numbers are off" and been polite. The scorn and sarcasm are not appreciated. On June 22 at 2:00 PM I wrote. > Really? I don’t recall that he said that he was changing it. He > never replied to the thread where we were talking about the > accuracy of Napoleonic era fire arms. If so, good news. Can > you give me a link to where he says this? Seeing as you didn’t like the long range example, I gave less unlikely example which were more common for TFT in that post as well. On June 22: 14:18 you wrote: > My counter-arguments are a good deal less silly than your strawman > examples were to begin with. > … > As for his comment he was going to change these things -- just look > at the Blunderbuss thread. A straw man argument is a real thing. A straw man example is something new. I’ll discuss that later. Note that you were in error here, about him saying anything like that in the Blunderbuss thread. I didn’t heap scorn on you, for YOUR mistake. In fact despite the hostility, I remained, determinedly polite in an attempt to moderate the tone of this thread. On June 22, at 15:37 I wrote: > A straw man argument is when I claim you are stating > something that you are not, and then attack this > position that you don’t hold. So my examples of poor > rules on SJ part, is certainly not a straw man argument, > since I am discussing rules which he actually wrote. > ... > If you are saying that I claim that the silly rule about the > excessive penalty is “a game-ending mistake” then YOU > are making a straw man argument, since I never said > that. Note the words that I put in blue italics above. I also wrote in this same thread: > I reread the whole blunderbuss thread just now, and SJ > never said he was going to fix the Arquebus being the > most accurate missile weapon in the game. > ... On June 22, at 19:06 you wrote: > And, of course, as a "professional game designer," you've never actually > written a rule that you had to change later (as Steve did with the GEV and > Heavy Tank rules you mentioned). Errata is apparently something you’ve > never issued for any of your "professional games?” … I assume you included quote marks around the bolded phrases in order to convey scorn and disbelief. It sounded like you were letting me know that you think I am lying. I responded politely to your request tho. You continue: > As far as TFT goes, it would have been awfully hard for Steve to have > changed ANYTHING, since he no longer owned the rules...and now that he > does, I foresee a lot of minor changes over things that he maybe feels need > some tweaking. Speaking as a game designer myself, I think your > puritanism on this surpasses the bounds of reasonableness. What does SJ not being able to change a mistake, have to do with my argument that he made a mistake in the first place? If you are raising the bar VERY high on the correctness of my logic, then this argument seems pretty sloppy. I note that rather than just making your argument, you feel the need to slip in another personal sneer. > Also I didn't say your arguments were strawmen, just that your examples were > -- since no such situation would ever be likely to arise against anything other > than an idiot. (Which means you are NOW making a strawman argument, > since you contend I said something I never did, but nice try). I was getting angry by now, so I was choosing my words very carefully. If you look at the words I made in blue italics above, I actually didn’t say that, and so you are incorrect here. I read what you said very carefully, and you didn’t say that, but you implied it. So I prefixed my word with “If you said…” precisely to avoid this counter charge. You continue. > And you got the > facts wrong anyway. Attention to detail is important in a discussion like this, > and if you can't even get the underlying rules that you are using to "prove" a > "mistake" was made right, why should I take your argument at face value? And if I fix that mistake, or give another example without the mistake… ? Perhaps it is more fun to harp on my initial mistake than advance the discussion? You continue about the blunderbuss thread. > Finally, "Steve didn't specifically say he was going to change it" is your ending > argument? He didn't ever say he was specifically going to start charging XP > for Talents either -- until he did it -- and even there, we have no idea how the > rule will finally come out (or even if it WILL finally come out, for that matter). > Which just goes to prove my point; all this angst over a rule that we don’t > even know the final content of seems...premature...to me. So Steve makes a public post supporting his +4 DX for Arquebuses. I say there is no evidence that he intends to change it, and get this lecture??? You continue: > I won't even bother to address the issue of the +4 DX for the Arquebusier … > Which is not to say it's the way I would have done it, but then, it's Steve’s > game, not mine or yours. I never claimed it was my game. I was critiquing an aspect of his design. But my point is that a wildly inaccurate weapon in real life is by far the most accurate missile weapon in TFT. By ‘won't even bother to address' that +4 DX, you save yourself from… losing? If you were interested in fairly debating if the weapon was overpowered, is this something that should have been discussed, no? On June 23, at 10:05 You wrote: > It seems pretty clear to me that Steve Jackson, like millions of other people, > isn't a shooter...or at least wasn't when he wrote these rules originally. That > means he probably conflated "maximum range" with "maximum effective range,” > … > Hitting something with an arquebus at those ranges would fall more under the > "miracle" definition than it would the "skill" definition. I note that you agree that the Arquebus is very inaccurate at 250 meters and more. And polite! Oh, you are talking to Peter von Kleinsmid, so you don’t need to be rude? *** If you go to some trouble to prevent new players from ending up having to change studies (in order to avoid that absurd penalty), AND you agree that the hyper accurate arquebus is unrealistic, then WHY ALL THE VILE??? If you don’t disagree on my major points then why inflict this incivility on the whole mailing list??? *** DISCUSSION ON "STRAW MAN EXAMPLES": A straw man example is a term you have invented. I take pride in making honest arguments. A straw man argument is a dishonest debating trick, and by analogy a straw man example would be that I claim the you gave some example, (which you didn’t), and then demolish it. Well, no. That is clearly not what I did. I think the only purpose of inventing the term straw man example, is to suggest that my examples are so unfair, that they are the equivalent of a dishonest argument. Which irks me. I strive to argue fairly and it angers me to be baselessly accused of slimy tricks. How is suggesting that a PC wants to make a silly change to their studies a dishonest example of changing studies? The point is that people CAN change studies. For good reasons or for poor ones. A joke makes my argument dishonest??? My example of hyper - accurate Arquebus fire got the range wrong. For years I never used gunpowder weapons in my campaign (too powerful), so I looked up the time to reload. (I thought it was 12 turns, and when I saw that it was, I stopped reading.) I missed the 4 turns to set up the stand. (Tho in real life the stand was hammered into the ground, so after the first shot it does not need to be set up fresh.) As I pointed out, by adjusting the range, the example could be made to work. After your criticism of the first example, I came up with another example. My first example, was intending to point out the absurdity of hyper accurate fire by a very inaccurate weapon. You claim that no one but an idiot would get into that situation. Were the soldiers killed by snipers in WWII idiots? Even if it is true, how does that weaken my point that the TFT weapon is preposterously accurate at that range? It likely couldn’t hit a company of 100 men at that range. If you were to say, politely, that my numbers were off, then fine. I would have fixed it. But you chose to heap, sarcasm, sneers, and accusations of dishonest arguing at me. *** I am tired of your incivility and want it to stop. Feel free to not reply to my posts if basic politeness is beyond you. Writing all this was a nasty chore. I won’t do it again. Rick |