Thanks to the nightmare that is children, I found myself watching

I distinctly notice your post doesn't have

>I wouldn't have posted this thread.

Fix yourself.

>>49411969
>While watching, I had the normal reactions. Internal monologues of how the trilogy would have been improved if they downplayed Jar Jar and made him a sith
This isn't a normal reaction, it's the reaction of someone who read that theory on /reddit/. You have to go back. I don't mean this thread, I mean you.

File: Your mind on 4chan 2.png (345KB, 514x390px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 514x390px

>>49411969
>Don't create solo prologue sessions for players that have been known to ditch their friends a multitude of times.

>Don't wait until after you've done solo prologue sessions to have a session 0 and then figure out you have 3 utility/support-based characters.

>Make sure the player in your PL 12 game doesn't have a character with the toughness of paper and active defenses 2 below the power level average.

These are things that I have learned very recently.

>>49411969
When I was a kid, I ran a short campaign with a group that included a powergamer. This was AD&D 2E, and he came to the table with a bard (I think) kit that he claimed to have gotten out of a Dragon magazine. Because I was dumb and new, he was able to convince me that because his character had maxed out his Dancing skill, the kit allowed him to cast Limited Wish once a round as long as he rolled a 10 or better. Because he was so good at dancing it was magic, apparently.

Anyway, the game ended after they ended up forcing a city to give them all their gold. I didn't know anything about DMing and didn't think it would be fun to put my foot down, but in hindsight it was probably the worst series of mistakes I've ever made in gaming

>>49412005
>>49412035
The fuck is wrong with /tg/ today

>>49412110
>in hindsight it was probably the worst series of mistakes I've ever made in gaming

At least it's a learning curve. If you grew from it, then at the end of the day it was a net gain.

>>49411969
>The game was going to end anyway, I should have had my Mage suicide instead of Ascend.

>Don't bring up the problematic player to the new GM. He won't know how to deal with it and the game will die in the ass as a result.

>When given the choice between Violent Outburst Woman Abuser GM and Constantly High Acid Tripper GM, choose the fucking acid tripper as your GM.

>There are simply some things players cannot kill or usurp. Allowing players to theoretical possibility to kill something means that they WILL try to kill it.

While it was fun to launch an invasion of Terra and attempt to duel the Emperor in psychic combat, I PROBABLY should have put some sort of limits on what their power could allow them to do.

>>49412450
>While it was fun to launch an invasion of Terra and attempt to duel the Emperor in psychic combat, I PROBABLY should have put some sort of limits on what their power could allow them to do.

...storytime?

>>49411969
Honestly, my biggest problem with the prequel movies is that Lucas didn't continue his tradition of using unknown actors for the big roles.

Did we really need Ewan McGregor, Samuel L Jackson and Christopher Lee?

I'm not saying they did a bad job, because of course they didn't (Lee's performance is due to the writing really), but Lucas could have used those movies to rocket some people into the spotlight of Hollywood.

>>49411969
>If you could go back and change something you did in your games, what would it be?

Never try to surprise players with what I'm running. Be very clear ahead of time what a game will be about.

Never take advice from anyone else about how to house rule stuff.

Don't try to run anything in an established setting, especially not Star Wars.
(That rule I'll probably break again at some point, Star Wars is like the terrible girlfriend I cannot stay broken up from.)

Never agree to let anyone play in my games I don't know.

Never co-GM a game.

Never make the plot dependent on one character.

Never allow more than 6 or less than 4 players in a game.

And, as a player, never complain to a GM about his methods. Either accept them or leave the game. If you order constructive criticism, you will at best be ignored, at worst punished.

>>49412528
That's your biggest complaint? My mind is blown.

>>49412570
It's a complaint on principle, rather than a practical issue with the movies.

No, I re-watched them and the OT when VII came out, and the thing that struck me is that the whole trilogy felt like everything that happened only happened so that it would fit into the OT, which it still kind of bungled. Nobody did things for self-consistent reasons, it was only because those things had to be done because that's what has to be done for New Hope to happen. Obi-Wan had no real reason to take Anakin after Qui-gon died, Padme was only into creepy-ass Anakin because Luke and Leia had to come from somewhere, Anakin only fell to the dark side because he has to be Darth Vader.

>>49411969
>irl problems made me flake on a game i dmed
Shit i still feel so bad about it.
Was going epic and was right near the end.
Had the party about to be gangbanged by just about every malevolent enitity/force simultaneously, half of the party was helping one enemy or another, and every player had a different idea of what was going on they were 100% convinced by.
They were a few sessions from exterminatusing their own asses i swear

>>49412528
Of all the things to complain about, those? Lucas's directing was a bigger issue.

>>49411969
Don't cave in to player pressure when they want to play a fanwank game based on Harry Potter. Sensible games and Harry Potter do not go hand in hand.

>>49412879
I can imagine, far too much of Harry Potter is obviously made up on the spot in the books.

>>49411969
If you're not going to prepare food and drinks your the group yourself, you should say yes to the players who want to bring food and drink.

File: 1408667941310.png (50KB, 736x1024px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 736x1024px

>>49411969
>how the trilogy would have been improved if they made Jar Jar a sith

>>49411969
>I shouldn't have let players make themselves as characters in a zombie apoc. game, they should have done it as a group.

>>49413298
>number of posters before this: 10
>number of posters after this: 10
>Samefaggotry detected.

>>49412550
>Never make the plot dependent on one character.
God, so much this.

Waaay back when I first started GMing, I ran a GURPS campaign for my siblings.

My sister was kind of a flake, so being some sort of world class genius I made a huge part of the plot center around a medallion that she had stolen. That way, she would feel obligated to continue playing!

It worked about as well as you'd expect.

> Don't play a game involving intrigue and betrayal with that guy who tried to choke someone when his dnd character got pvp killed.

>>49413497
> Don't play a game involving intrigue and betrayal with that guy who tried to choke someone when his dnd character got pvp killed.

>tried to choke someone

Jesus fucking Christ, anon. Tell me you don't still play with them. The worst my group has ever seen was one player telling our GM that if his character of 6 years dies in a fight, he'd hit him. And that got the player a stern talking to.

>>49413524
No we stopped playing with him.
Eh, you know what. Story time guys. Give me a minute.

>>49413496
Ok, so here's one of tthe stories of James, I've been looking for a good time to tell it.

> 19, in college playing 3.5e with friends.

> the 3 rotating dms are me, Sam, and Franco. We are the 3 competent players as well. The others either never bothered to learn or didn't care much.

> Then there is James. James plays a self insert of his self inserted wow mage. In his mind this is a charismatic chaotic-stupid half elf sorcerer who only takes evocation spells. He also has a nasty habit of wanting every piece of cool sounding loot, even when the "loot" is really just an intricately described thing we are supposed to sell for gold as it does nothing.

> Sam is dming, he gives us a slull necklace which resonates of evil magic. Our quest is to iinvestigatethe necklace..

> Franco, being a Paladin, insists in character he take the evil artifact.

> Too late though, as James, being the self appointed party face has snatxhed the necklace and won't give it up.

> Fast forward, James is left unconscious after a fight, Franco goes over to revive him and before doing so takes the skull, not trusting a chaotic stupid with an evil artifact.

> James pitches an OOC fit then as soon as he gets up says he takes it back. Franco says no, Jaes says to roll initiative not understanding a low level evocation only sorc can't fight a well optimized paladin. Franco hits him over the head, James is now unconscious again.

> In a fit of rage he leaves.

> Later that night he confronts Franco in his room, demands an apology.

> Franco explains it was just roleplaying, he did what his character would do. James isn't having it.

> He backs Franco into a corner and demands an apology. Franco lays a hand on his shoukder and whispers "The skull is mine." James tries to choke him.

So, was he provoked? Yeah, a little, Franco is a bit smarmy, but James was also already a known that guy by this point, not trusting him in character was a good idea. Either way it was fun to watch.

>Don't let your players play custom classes unless you're certain a standard class can't fill the same role.
>Don't let a player use metagaming to get away with actions that cause disturbances within the group (such as stealing from a party member.)
>Don't let players go through the motions on a fight where the outcome is already decided. Morale failure exists for a reason.
>Similarly, don't let them go through the motions because they feel there is no other option beyond killing every enemy, especially if said enemy is difficult to kill but not particularly dangerous and said fight will take over an hour. The the session of Piercer slaying must never be forgotten.

>>49411969
Plan out the adventure in the Border Princes a bit better, really hammer home the concept of hiring people to do the tedious job of ruling so that it doesn't turn the game into a spreadsheet simulator and try to finish the campaign before half the group leaves so that I wouldn't have to sack the enemy town with Crusaders just to have some kind of conclusion.

>>49414112
>James tries to choke him.

James needs legitimate help. He's either got some mental issues, or he should just be incarcerated.

>>49411969

>Don't drink and DM if you can't hold your liquor

>>49411969
>I'm a retard who doesn't know my fucking lore

>Jedi Clone Troopers would be cool!

>Movies about Force Feedback resonence kills the clones and the Jedi
>Sith Victory!

>>49414538
Yeah, we were theorizing that he might be a bit asburgery right around the time we stopped spending any time with him whatsoever. Homestly the only reason I think we hung out with him for so long was he was fucking loaded. We also I think thought we could help him a bit. It didn't work.

>>49414538
And when I say tries to choke don't get the wrong idea. He wasn't looking to cause serious harm more extort an apology out of him. Still pretty fucked up, but not incarceration leveks of fucked up.

>>49414678
>Movies about Force Feedback resonence kills the clones and the Jedi
>Thinking a clone of a jedi would automatically be able to use the force
>Thinking having legions of dopplegangers so the sith can't figure out which one is the jedi is a bad idea
>Say midichlorians, I fucking dare you.

>>49411969
>or if the clone wars had been about clones of jedi rather than some New Zealander.

I don't know. A war of multiple Fellowships all vying for the same ring would be kinda cool.

>>49411969
>Stop inviting the alt. chick to your games because you think one day she might pity fuck you. She ruins everything she plays in and she's not a great lay anyway.

>>49414112
>the skull is mine
Kek

>>49415018
Still pretty messed up. Good thing you don't play with them anymore. Anyone who resorts to violence over a game is not someone worth knowing.

>>49412095
>Don't wait until after you've done solo prologue sessions to have a session 0 and then figure out you have 3 utility/support-based characters.

Dude, you had your goonies campaign spelled out for you.

>>49411969
>While watching, I had the normal reactions. Internal monologues of how the trilogy would have been improved if they downplayed Jar Jar and made him a sith

Who the ever loving fuck ever had this reaction

>>49413298
>complains about people using theories from Reddit
>something you would only know if you went on reddit
Huh...
>>49414112
Franco's a bad player, James is a bad person.

File: 1435643847846.png (281KB, 528x440px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 528x440px

>>49411969
>if they downplayed Jar Jar and made him a sith
>Mesa can feel yousa anger.
>Mesa be thinkin' yousa be turnin' to the dark side now, okieday?

File: images (1).jpg (12KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 223x226px

>>49414112
Gimme back my skull muddafukka!

>>49411969
What the hell was all that preamble about, anyway?

Why not just make a "If you could go back and change something you did in your games, what would it be?" thread?

>>49414112
Is your name Carlos?

>>49416178
By this point we were all a little tired of James' bullshit. Franco later admitted he was acting provocative, but frankly none of us faulted him for it. I'll post another James story to show what an asshole he was.

>>49416226
Nope.

>>49411969
>Don't DM three PbP games simultaneously while you have college engineering classes and personal issues that require you to take medicine
>At least not Dungeons and Dragons games
Seriously, what the fuck was I thinking?

>>49414112
James Part 2:

This will be a relatively short one. But if there is genuine interest I could be convimced to share more.

> Same year.
> This time I'm GM.
> At the time I hadn't really come into my own as a GM, most of my games were silly one shots, the players expected a humorous non serious game and that is what they got.
> This time I actually put some effort into something with so,e depth.
> I'd talked it up a bit, saying this time I'd put some real thought into the game, it wasn't going to devolve into skeleton humor or Doc Aquatic Random Adventure Table shit, etc.
> It's the beginning of the game and I'm explaining some shit to the players after an encounter.
> The encounter was like pullingteeth every time it was James turn and now he keeps asking me to repeat myself cause - get this - He's playing fucking WoW. The character that his Dnd character is an insert of.
> I tell him he can either play WoW or play DnD but not do both. He gets pissy amd leaves back to his dorm to play WoW.
> Later that session Franco's soul was put into a metal golem. Even though I said no silly bullshit I couldn't help myself when he said he wanted to test out hus golem body in the nearest brothel.
> I give a defeated sigh and describe a newrby brothel.
> "I go up to the owner amd say 'Give me your loosest most used up filthy whore you can find, she needs to be able to fit this.'"
> I get a glint in my eye.
> A smirk crosses my face.
> I kmow I shouldn't do it, I kmow the whole game will get derailed.
> Fuck it.
> "But of course sir, give me one moment and we'll fetch James' mom."

>>49416568
>"But of course sir, give me one moment and we'll fetch James' mom."

I applaud you, sir.

>>49416568
Got a little chuckle, but it's sounding like your relationship with James is mutually self-destructive. You're starting to sound as bad as he is.

File: Saruman.jpg (92KB, 625x479px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 625x479px

>>49416568
Come on, dude, that's almost as cringeworthy as the one /r9k/-tier joke I dropped in high school.

>>49416586
It was pretty shitty relationship. He definitely brought out the worst in all of us. It was why we stopped being friends with him. Aside from ripping on his mom behind his back though I don't see what was so bad about all that. Asking him to not play wow during my game? Seems resonable to me.
>>49416590
It was funny as fuck when I was 19. Maybe it wouldn't be now. But since I remember it being funny I still find it funny.

>>49416619
>Asking him to not play wow during my game? Seems resonable to me.
The fact that he was playing in the first place is a bad sign.

Additionally, as the GM you should have been above petty shit like that.

James is definitely a shit based on what you're telling us, but based on what you're saying you are a good match.

D&D game - playing a Paladin, insisted on keeping on my plate armour and when clearing some mines. Couldnt look up because of the great helm I was wearing and was dissolved by the Green slime that was danging from the ceiling in the entrance I bravely entered first.

>>49416652
You don't think it's possible that anon's behavior was first influenced by James' shitty attitude?

>>49416652
A bad sign as in me not being able to tell a good story? I suppose that couldbe a fair criticism. I was new to dming at the time, but I would say asking a player to pay attention to my game or not play isn't hostile or petty. I didn't ask him to leave, he was welcome to sit and listen. Was the mom joke pertty? Yes. But it was also a goof among friends. Keep in mind that, as much as I make James out to be the bad guy now. I did genuinely consider him a friemd at the time. Our relationship mostly deteriorated due to his irl behavior not in game behavior. When his in game behavior became to problematic we just didn't play with him anymore ajd found other things to do.

>>49416705
I'd be surprised if it wasn't. But if they're a shitty person, and it's making you be a shitty person back then you're just as bad as each other.

>>49416712
I'm just wondering how he was playing WoW in the first place. Did you just let him open up his laptop and play off the bat?

> did genuinely consider him a friemd
>Making cheap jokes at his mother

Dude, that's a shitty way to treat your friend. It'd at least have been better if he was just an asshole you put up with so you could have a full group.

Like I said, James sounds like an ass - but it looks like he was in the right group.

>>49416768
I ket my players be on their laptops during games to look up rules, spells, tske notes, play music that set the mood, erc. It hadn't been a problem in the past. In my group it was the norm to bring your laptop to dnd games for just that purpose. James kept his game on mute so I didn't notice at first.

As for your second point, I don't know man. Cheap mom jokes were pretty common in my friend group, we were fresh out of high school. We ripped on eachother. I'm not saying I didn't cross the line. But James and I in particular built our friendship insulting one another. A lot of people thoughtwe hated each other, and when we actuallydid start hating eachother it was for completly different reasons.

>>49416843
Still sounds like James fit in well with the rest of you.

>>49416875
I suppose since you don't know the entire story, and since I am in no mood to go over the entire saga of James, ig behavior and oog behavior. I can't really fault you for that opinion or argue my point any farther.

>>49415122
I'll say midichlorians AND Dorsk 81.
I dare to say that midichlorian numbers can be random, even with cloning involved.

>>49416209
>scene where Jar Jar reveals to be a Sith
>His speech pattern becomes perfectly normal right before it.

>>49416652
The group as a whole seems pretty dysfunctional. James was just the guy who couldn't handle that.

Like, Franco obviously started that skull thing. We go on about how party members shouldn't steal from each other, even if it's "what they would do", and usually that's in the context of CN but it still applies to Paladins. Obviously, James went full turbotard, but he's not a Disney villain.
>>49416768
>>Making cheap jokes at his mother
That's what friends are for.

>>49417548
>Making cheap jokes at his mother
>That's what friends are for.

Yeah, but you make the jokes TOO the person ABOUT their mother. That's friendly.

If you start making jokes about their mother behind their back to other people, then you've moved from friendly into early stage bullying.

>>49417573
>Yeah, but you make the jokes TOO the person ABOUT their mother. That's friendly.
It depends entirely on context. If you're all good mates, you can extend ribbing to each other, "behind their backs". But I agree, it can also easily put you in the situation of "we don't really like this guy hanging out with us so we'll slag him off but we won't actually stop him hanging out with us", which is stupid.

But that's not bullying (though it can be). It's just slagging someone off.

One of the biggest lessons I thankfully learned relatively early is to never count on the players to react in a certain way just to progress the plot.

At one time I had this fantastic adventure planned (at least I thought it would be fantastic), but part of it hinged entirely on the players picking up on a big plot hook. Needless to say, they ended up completely ignoring the plothook and spent an entire session just faffing about in a shitty tavern and terrorising the locals for no goos reason.

>>49417587
>But that's not bullying (though it can be). It's just slagging someone off.

That's...bullying, anon.

It ain't as bad as beating on someone, but badmouthing people behind their backs is a form of emotional bullying.

>>49418672
> Telling a joke about his mom behind his back is bullying.
> He literally choked a guy in one story, and completely disrespected the GM in another.

The other guys in these stories are being assholes but not as big assholes as James, it seems to me their toxicity is rooted in James behavior. Really my only question is why keep him around?

>>49417548
>super dangerous evil skull artifact
>objective is to (safely) investigate it
>chaotic dumbfuck sorcerer gets a hold of it because of ooc dibs and whining
The Paladin was 110% in the right here.

>>49418672
I know what bullying is. And beating someone up doesn't equal bullying either.

This isn't about method. It's about the context, and the length of such actions. You're not bullying that one guy you think is an arsehole if you tell your friend he's an arsehole, for example. You are bullying if you make fun of this guy who hangs out with you, and you do it all the time, and you do it in such a way that it directly affects them.

Also, I'd say it's definitely as bad as beating someone up.
>>49418782
>It's what my character would do

>>49418754
It works the other way too. He can act like that in response to their previous actions. In fact, he certainly did, even if he was the one first at fault.

>>49412110
>The fuck is wrong with /tg/ today
A couple of people woke up to shit in their cornflakes this morning.

>>49418854
> He certainly did.
I think what you are missing here is that what op and his friends do seems like a normal person's response to getting pissed off by another player, whereas James seems to just fucking flip out. If I'm coming off as a condescending asshole I really don't mean to but think of it this way.

> Op explains that his previous games were kind of silly and lacked depth.
> He makes one he put a lot of effort into and tells his players, this implies not only that he is proud of his work, but that he really wants his players to both take seriously, and enjoy his game.
> The player who OP claims is already an established that guy (unclear if this was before or after the skull incident chronologically) disrespects OP by playing a computer game and not paying attention.
> After OP tells him he won't permit him to play both at once instead of realizing he was being rude he only gets angry and leaves, potentially derailing the game or at least setting a negative tone on a game OP put a lot of work into.

I'm not saying OPs joke wasn't mean, maybe it even was bullying I dunno. But I completely understand why he was salty about it, and why he moght want to vent that salt amkng like minded people
As for the skull thing, maybe Franco was a bit dickish, but choking a guy? Come on.
Either way I agree with >>49418782 here.

>kill the metagaming bard early

>>49418844
> It's what my character would do.
Yes, exactly. I camnot fucking stand this meme.This can 100% be a valid excuse when, given the situation it is WHAT THE CHARACTER WOULD DO. Being able toplay a character who has flaws and doesn't always make the best choices is part of rping. Any decent role player, scratch that, anyone who isn't fucking autistic should be able to tell the difference between an in character action and an ooc action and not take ic actions personally. There is a difference between using ic action to justify being a dick and actually acting ic in a way that brings about conflict and development in game.

>>49418754
>it seems to me their toxicity is rooted in James behavior

Based on what the guy said later, it sounds pretty mutual. They both sound pretty toxic.

>>49418844
>You are bullying if you make fun of this guy who hangs out with you, and you do it all the time, and you do it in such a way that it directly affects them.

I'd say continuously making fun and insulting a person behind there backs to people they thought were their friends fit's this description, as it would build up an 'us vs them' mentality which seems to fit what the guy described.

>Also, I'd say it's definitely as bad as beating someone up.

Eh. Sticks and stones, anon. Sticks and stones. But it's neither here nor there. I'd argue that continual beating is worse than continual emotional abuse - largely because physical abuse will also have an element of emotional abuse tied in with it.

Unless you think nothing of the idea of being beaten beyond the physical damage it causes, and don't think that it would also cause lasting emotional trauma from being rendered powerless.

>>49418886
>implying most fa/tg/uys don't eat shit for breakfast anyway

>>49418844
It's what ANY Paladin SHOULD do. You don't need to be a power tripping asshole or Lawful Stupid to make that choice.
>>49419391
>There is a difference between using ic action to justify being a dick and actually acting ic in a way that brings about conflict and development in game.
Unfortunately, "what my character would do" is an excuse used by dicks all the time. To the point where it is almost memetic.

>>49412796
Lucas's lack of directing, you mean.

>>49411969

>Don't assume "solving this standoff with the bad guy in your usual way is self-evidently a horrible trap" will have any impact whatsoever on Party Leader's actions.

>>49416178
That theory has been all over youtube as well.

>>49419843
>It's what ANY Paladin SHOULD do.

If it's such a bad idea for the Paladin to let him carry the item, why is the Paladin travelling with him? Why hasn't he taken actions before this? Said something to him? Why is the talisman the point the Pally goes 'Hold the fucking phone'.

>>49426946
Op said they were low level. Seems likely it was one of the first few sessions.

>>49426946
>>49427996
Also there's no reason to believe the pally hadn't had problems in the past with the sorc. Op never said if there was conflict between pally and sorc before or not. It coukd be this was a culmination of tother things, it could be this was the first time. We can't know.

>>49426946
>>49419843
>>49419707
James anon here. Since this debate is still going aparently I will give you guus the cliff notes on my relationship with James, amd hopefully shed some light as to why we were such a toxic group.
Part 1:
> When I first met James in my freshman year of college we were fast friends, he liked dumb youtube videos and Mass effect, so did I. He seemed a bit awkward, but hey, so am I.
> After a few months he had his first sort of "incident." It was then I learned James had a very short temper, and seemed to take people disagreeing with him or things not going his way personally.
> As time progressed we saw more and more shittyness from him. He was selfish, egotistical, an alcoholic, overly sensitive, behaved grossly toward women (not blatant sexism more cringy attempts at being a womanizer), he couldn't stand not getting his way, he largely behaved like a spoiled child. But he was still our friend, we liked him.
> Things got worse and worse with him and it became clear to me I was mostly staying friends with him because despite all the times he got upset at us, we were still his closest, dearest friends. He didn't have many others and he would be crushed if we stopped hanging out with him.
> The obvious solution would be to talk with him about his behavior, and we did multiple times. The problem is it always went one of two ways.
> 1. We played the part of concerned friends worried about how his behavior seemed destructive. In this case he would graciously thank us for being concerned and then explain why we were wrong and his behavior was actually fine. His infamous "I'm a high functioning alcoholic" speech comes to mind.
> 2. We would give him a bit of tough love, explain he was doing things that put a strain on our friendship and he needed to stop. We did this once, he got so angry and upset he literally had his parents pay for him to fly home for a few days.

>>49428997
Part 2:
> So, to summarize, my friends and I were stuck in a toxic, and what one person even called abusive relationship.
> As much as we disliked him from time to time we cared about him and didn't want to hurt his feelings. But his behavior showed no signs of ever improving.
> His led us to feel resentful of him, and attack him when he wasn't around. It was our only way of venting our frustration and annoyance with him since, being the socially awkward people we were, we could neither get him to change, nor find a way to deal with the situation by ither means without hurting him.
> So were we mean to James? Yes, very, and often. But only because there was an unspoken agreement that even though nome of us really liked have him around we also weren't about to ruin his entire college experience by abandoning him. We had no other way of expressing our frequent anger and frustration with him than to rip on him when he wasn't aroumd.
> Eventually his problems got to be too much when he started harassing Franco and is girlfriend (whom he had a crush on, she was creeped out by him from the stsrt as many women are.) So we dropped the bomb, told him we were all getting a new house next year, he was welcome to visit but living with him put too much strain on our friendship. And that was it. He hated us from then on.

>>49412450
Damnit, Horus, not again

File: 1458752179925.png (56KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x600px

>>49416178
>something you would only know if you went on reddit
What has to happen in your life to lead you to make a statement as stupid as this.

>Don't play a one-shot M&M game as the Batman villains trying to take down the caped crusader with someone who actually spends a significant portion of his income on Batman comics.
Did he make it too easy or no-sale every plan?

>>49417426
done right, that could have been really chilling.
"All these years debasing myself... did you really suspect nothing, Jedi Master Kenobi?"

>He would have fought Mace, and that would have been the fight to watch. Yoda, Palpatine, Anakin and Obi Wan all have to live, because they appear in the good trilogy

>>49431270
>no-sale every plan?

This. And he was a player. I was willing to give them some flexibility and get away with some shit because, hey, it was a Batman Villain one-shot. But this guy would actively tell us all why nothing we could ever do would work.

When I asked why he was playing, all he said was 'I like Batman'.

>>49431528
I'd have enjoyed that. Jar Jar would make an interesting drunken-master style fighter.

>>49419067
People necessarily react to what comes down to other people's reactions. If James is a sperg, or just a dick, and other people react to this negatively, he will himself react to this further. So even if the fault is pretty squarely on his shoulders, he is still acting in response to their actions.

>>49419707
>Unless you think nothing of the idea of being beaten beyond the physical damage it causes, and don't think that it would also cause lasting emotional trauma from being rendered powerless.
You are clearly not thinking of the scale of things here.

Most people, when beaten up, are beaten up by a few people. When bullying is social, it involves everybody. And all the time.
>>49419843
>It's what ANY Paladin SHOULD do
Why?

Games are games, anon. They're not real life. You don't have to do what you should do all the time, when it would bring about utterly meaningless party conflict.

And that's what this is.

>>49432013
> Games are games.
Yes. Games are games. James shouldn't get pissed when something bad happens to him in game.

>>49411969
I'd be less thirsty and stop trying to fuck every pair of tits at the table. The ones that turn me down aren't the problem, it's the ones that have said "yes". You faggots would do well to remember that there is no way to un-fuck someone.

>>49432181
I don't disagree with you.

Well, maybe he should get pissed, but he shouldn't choke someone.

>>49431606
The problem is that you were using Gotham villains to fight Batman.
Try it again, and open it up a little. DC villains only, versus Batman and Batfamily members if you like.
No involving the Justice League on either side. Bruce can't call in a solid from Clark, and no Brainwashed Superman.

Just pray they don't get the idea to pull out Superboy Prime or something.

>>49432013
>Most people, when beaten up, are beaten up by a few people. When bullying is social, it involves everybody. And all the time.

You've obviously never been beaten badly before.

As someone who has been assaulted and had social bullying levered against me, I assure you - they're both as bad as each other. Bones heal, but remembering that you weren't strong enough to defend yourself lasts.

>>49417426
>perfectly normal
That IS perfectly normal for a Gungan.

File: 1435985630481.jpg (119KB, 970x781px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 970x781px

>>49411969
>not taking a really hard look at the system the newbie DM wanted to run and making sure it wasn't the disorganized garbage fuckfest we've discovered it to be now
could've saved us a few weeks of our lives
FUCK mekton

>>49416178
really makes you think.....

>>49412110
/qst/ fractured the community.

My lesson is that you must always keep the plot simple. Players will find a way to complicate it anyway.

File: horse.png (99KB, 238x261px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 238x261px

>>49411969
Don't let the party befriend a Kenku with perfect forgery abilities.
Don't let the party face and IRL lawyer talk your merchant's guild into providing a higher reward on the condition that it comes in the form of bonds payable only to guild owned stores.

BIG MISTAKE

>>49432495
>they're both as bad as each other.
That's what I said, anon.

I haven't been beaten, but my friends were, badly. My point was that they're both about equal in badness, though they have different effects. People tend to just sideline social bullying.

>>49433110
>/qst/ fractured the community.
It did not.

Divisions caused /qst/, not the other way around.

/qst/ just produced butthurt, appropriate given it was made from butthurt.

>>49412110
>The fuck is wrong with /tg/ today

Since questfags got kicked out, they've been shitposting here on our board to try and ruin normal content.

>>49433271

I'd argue physical abuse is worse than emotional abuse simply because physical abuse is also emotionally abusive, but emotional abuse isn't always physical.

>>49433311
>Since questfags got kicked out, they've been shitposting here on our board to try and ruin normal content.

>Thinking it's the questfags that are shitting things up
>Rather than the fact that /tg/ is just full of shitty people
>Rather than the fact that 4chan has always been full of shitty people.
>Rather than the fact that the internet has always been full of shitty people.

>>49433322
I'd argue that multiplicity of effects does not make something worse.

Just as an analogy, getting your arm chopped off with an axe, and getting stabbed with a spear in the leg, is better than getting your head chopped off with an axe.
>>49433331
It's funny that quests were removed, and smut was removed, and there was no actual change to /tg/ at all.

We still get fetishbait threads, we still get normal bait threads, we still have generals, and guess what -- that's what /tg/ IS.

>>49433322
As someone who was bullied all the way through school I have to tell you that you aren't entirely full of shit, but the difference is slight at best.

On the positive side I did get even with my chief tormentor some years after leaving school. His face will never be the same shape again without very expensive surgery and every morning it will remind him to cross the street when he sees me walking up it

>>49433271
>>49433322
>>49433342
>>49433368
Hey guys, not to toot my own horn here. But I did give a more in depth explanation of the whole James situation here >>49428997
>>49429136 cause this argument was still going. Unless its not really about that anymore.

>>49433392
It's not really about that any more.

>>49433392
>I didn't actually read any of your responses
>My head is actually so far up my own ass that I think you're still talking about me.

>>49433368
Bet you're a guy. Guys tend to view emotional bullying differently to women. Still, talk to any rape victim or attempted murder survivor and you'll find there's a reason they suffer from extreme emotional trauma on top of the physical damage of the actions.

>>49433422
I did read you responses. Like sorry I tried to bring some closure to this argument by bringing up the reason it started in the first place.

>>49414678
The EU isn't canon.

>>49411969
>make Jar-Jar a Sith
kill
your
self

>>49433331
Case in point.

>>49433368
>being this mad years later about high school
>pretending to be a tough guy on the Internet
>faggot who thinks being called a faggot is worse than having your head caved in

This thread is sad and stupid.

>>49433445
>I read your response
>My head is so far up my own ass that I wanted you to re-read something I already posted, and you already read, because pay attention to me!
>My head is so far up my own ass the lump in my throat is my nose.
>I have become ouroborous.
>I have no beginning or end.
>A perfect cycle of shitposting.

>>49433451
Give me seven reasons why Jar Jar being a sith would have somehow made that abortion of a trilogy worse.

>>49433507
Only need one reason.

It would have made them include more Jar Jar.

>>49433507
It would have distracted from the main point.

The central idea, to show some kind of tragedy from beginning to end, is a good one. It really could have worked well. But it was executed fucking atrociously. Jar Jar the Sith would've just made it even more scattered, though his existence in the first place was a bad idea.

Unless you rewrote major chunks of it to make Jar Jar effectively Palpatine. Which would've probably worked better.

>>49433501
He poured half a pint on my head. I think I was within my rights to fuck his nose up.

>>49433507
Or maybe I just feel bad that I may have actually done something unreasonable or unjustified given the situation, and want to clarify what happened further to give context to the argument. Is it a bit selfish? I suppose so but if I seem defensive its cause I actually do feel bad and want outside perspective.

>>49433524
...can't argue with that.

>>49433555
Give it a rest, he's either baiting or undeservedly butthurt.

>>49433555
People have told you what they think.

>caring what people think on a Maltese coal-burning forum

>>49433555

The fact you even care enough to ask an internet forum of anonymous people if your were a shit-cunt is evidence enough to declare that, regardless of how un/justified your actions were - YOU feel guilty over them.

We can tell you you did the right/wrong thing until the cows come home - it's not going to stop that guilt from gnawing you up inside. You've already convinced yourself you're in the wrong.

>>49412528
>Samuel L Jackson
He was so severely misused as Mace Windu. Jackson is great at playing intense, expressive characters, which he doesn't really end up doing. There was no reason for that particular actor to be that particular character.

>>49433342
>It's funny that quests were removed, and smut was removed, and there was no actual change to /tg/ at all.
Everyone with half a brain could see that coming. Why would things change? The people are still the same.

>>49412550
>Never try to surprise players with what I'm running. Be very clear ahead of time what a game will be about.
This is such an important lesson. I ended up with a game completely falling apart because the players didn't like the concept I thought would make a fun surprise.

>>49412110
>he was able to convince me that because his character had maxed out his Dancing skill, the kit allowed him to cast Limited Wish once a round as long as he rolled a 10 or better.

What. Geeze, I know you were young, but how could you not see the abuse potential in that.

>>49433642
I do wonder how many people actually thought there'd be a change. It seemed like it was mostly just bait.

Contrast anti-quest(or smut)fags with anti-generalfags. There are actual arguments used by the latter, because people are more sincere about it.

>darth jar jar nonsense
No, seriously, you have to go back.

>>49433695
Of course they thought there would be a change. They spent years and years riling themselves up over an imagined enemy until they started to believe it. It's happened several times before, and it'll happen again.

If you want an example, look at this guy here >>49433311. It's a pretty clear sign of this sort of thing. Quests haven't been here in any real number in months, and now they're completely gone, but they're still riling themselves up over nothing. Give them half a year and they'll find a new target to whine about. It's pretty much guaranteed it'll be just as pointless as the last few examples.

>>49412879
That reminds me about that story where someone played Rincewind in a forum Harry Potter game filled with edgelords and crashed it with no survivors.

>>49433695
There is no contrast except that you apparently don't mind some things but do mind others. But really, generals? Those are completely inevitable. Would you really want ten short threads per day about a system instead of one long one?

>>49433726
But I think that guy was baiting.
>>49433731
Reminds me of that time you were a fucking faggot and mentioned an interesting story without linking it.

>>49433747
Poe's law. Even if he's baiting, there were plenty of people like that arguing in all seriousness over the years.

>>49433746
People have arguments against generals which explain the "decrease" (or change) in /tg/'s content. This did not exist for quests or smut.

Besides, I have one very good reason to support generals. How the fuck else are you going to keep updated on something like Song of Swords?
>>49433756
I wonder what proportion, however. After all, most or all extreme /pol/shit is almost certainly baiting, too.

>>49433747
I'm looking, but I think it's on another HD. Basically, he interrupted some kind of satanic ritual by stealing their macguffin and running like hell. The edgelords all got on their brooms and started chasing after him, but he put all his points into the "running away" skill. He leads them to an air force base, and suddenly the RAF sees a dude decked out in all red being chased by satanists flying on broomsticks shooting lightning bolts and shit from their hands. Of course, the RAF mobilizes and wipes out all the edgelords, and in the process, the muggles get woke up to the fact that magic exists. Game over.

>>49433772
>most or all extreme /pol/shit is almost certainly baiting, too.
I wouldn't be that certain there, anon. Never underestimate how far up their ass people can manage to shove their heads. Especially in a place like this, where they have nothing better to do. I'd say the proportion there is pretty depressing, about the same as for serious SJWs for example.

>>49433788
>I wouldn't be that certain there, anon.
I would. If you were going to bait someone, would you want to be moderately extreme? No, you'd want to be as extreme as possible. You'd also want to be as inflammatory as possible. This is what you normally see, when you see /pol/shit.

If you actually believed it, you would be more likely to be less extreme, and you would also be more likely to present yourself like -- a normal poster.

I agree regarding SJWs. Most or all of them are baiting, too.

This is only on /tg/ by the way.

>>49433772
Arguing may be the old traditional game. Debate and all that.

>>49433814
I think you're immensely naive, but there's really not much else we can say on this topic, so I guess that's that.

>>49433868
Not taking people at face value, and assuming malicious intent, is the opposite of naive.

>>49433879
You're assuming their intent is baiting, which is far less malicious than it would be if they were serious.

>>49433899
No, it is not. No one thinks they are the bad guy. This includes genuine stormies. Naturally, they are not being malicious.

We don't live in a Disney cartoon.

>>49433910
You don't have to think you're bad in order to have a malicious intent if the ideas you're working with are extreme enough. Funnily enough, /pol/ and SJW tier ideas are exactly of that sort.

>>49433925
>You don't have to think you're bad in order to have a malicious intent

>Malicious: characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.

You do.

Stormies do not think they are harming anything. They think they are making the world a better place, that they are helping it.

And you should cut this "moderation is inherently the best way" bullshit out ASAP. Maliciousness is not judged by its relative position to your own (clearly moderate) beliefs. It is only judged by the actor's own beliefs. We do not, unfortunately, live in a world where we everyone can sit down and see the (same) light.

>>49433949
>You do.
Not if you think the harm you're doing is good. Derp.

Or are you saying that burning jews wasn't malicious because nazis thought they were doing the right thing? Not that I'd invoke nazi analogies normally, but seeing how we're talking about their modern echo chamber...

>And you should cut this "moderation is inherently the best way" bullshit out ASAP
You should cut out your straw man bullshit ASAP, anon.

>>49434001
He should be taking his moderation in moderation.

Sometimes you just got to bury your head in a bag of coke and fuck all the whores.

>>49434001
>Or are you saying that burning jews wasn't malicious because nazis thought they were doing the right thing?
Sort of. Towards Jews it was malicious, and from that perspective it was indeed malicious, but as a whole it was not "generally" malicious.

Compare a guy who is killing a Jew because he thinks it is right for the Fatherland or whatever bullshit, and a guy who is killing a Jew because he has a vendetta against Jews. The first is not generally malicious (he wants to help by harming something else), while the second is (he simply wants to harm). Likewise, a guy killing a rampaging elephant is not malicious, while a guy who kills an elephant because he really hates elephants is.

>You should cut out your straw man bullshit ASAP, anon.
It's not strawmanning when you can see the letters on the page.

>maliciousness is governed by extremity
and
>/pol/ and SJW tier ideas are exactly of that sort
equal clinging to moderation for the sake of moderation.

File: reddid-did-id.jpg (46KB, 475x350px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 475x350px

>>49413298

>>49434063
>Sort of. Towards Jews it was malicious, and from that perspective it was indeed malicious, but as a whole it was not "generally" malicious.
These mental gymnastics are hilarious. Especially when you need to crutch them up like that with "generally" inside quotes.

>maliciousness is governed by extremity
Don't try to hide it. I can see the straw you're holding behind your back just fine.

>>49434088
>Especially when you need to crutch them up like that with "generally" inside quotes.
You do not understand what I mean. I do not mean that they are usually not malicious, I actually meant they are generally not malicious.

At least, I assume you do not understand me, because otherwise your post is nonsensical.

>Don't try to hide it. I can see the straw you're holding behind your back just fine.
That's right, don't try to argue back.

>>49434063
>>/pol/ and SJW tier ideas are exactly of that sort
>equal clinging to moderation for the sake of moderation.

Odd. I always hated /pol/ and SJWs because they were retarded extremists and the only good points either side had worked best when used together. Guess that means just liking moderation for the sake of moderation now.

>>49434125
>I always hated /pol/ and SJWs because they are extremist
Yes. That's what clinging to moderation is. You think moderation is inherently a good thing.

>>49434116
I understand what you mean perfectly. You're trying to be pedantic and skirt the issue with irrelevancies and strawman fallacies. If you're not willing to consider my point, then don't expect me to waste time on yours, especially when it looks like it's a waste of time in other ways as well.

>>49434144
You've just thrown out a few insults and backed off from saying anything. You can't "consider my point" if you refuse to make it.

>>49434139

Because both of the alternatives are terrible. I don't pick the neutral option in a good vs. evil debate, because I don't inherently value moderation. But when both choices are evil (SJW and /pol/) I reject both.

>>49434165
I've made it and pointed you towards it several times when I told you that you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. In case you're ignorant of what straw man means.

Act like a retard and you'll get called a retard. And the only thing worse than someone being retarded on purpose is someone being retarded and pedantic on purpose.

>>49434171
>Because both of the alternatives are terrible
That is not clinging to moderation. Choosing something because it is the best course of action is good.

Your alignment example doesn't work because this is about judging what is good and what is evil to begin with.

>>49434198
>I've made it and pointed you towards it several times when I told you that you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. In case you're ignorant of what straw man means.
I must have missed it, then, because I don't see it.

I've quoted you where you were being an extremist moderate, and you didn't say anything in response. It's not straw manning if you actually said the things I'm saying you said.

>everyone who disagrees with me is a retard or purposefully pedantic

>>49434201
>Your alignment example doesn't work because this is about judging what is good and what is evil to begin with.

I judged that in my post. They are both evil, so I reject both. Moderation is the way chosen because it is the best course of action, not because it is moderate and inherently good for its moderation.

>>49434221
>They are both evil, so I reject both
The argument comes from why you judge them as evil, however. Not what you do once you have judged them.

Moderation chosen because it happens to be better is not clinging to anything; but this is not what >>49434198 said. I don't hate moderates, anon.

>>49434219
>I've quoted you where you were being an extremist moderate,
That was it, anon. Go read it again.

>everyone who disagrees with me is a retard or purposefully pedantic
>said the guy who made statements like "You do not understand what I mean. I do not mean that they are usually not malicious, I actually meant they are generally not malicious." and "Sort of. Towards Jews it was malicious, and from that perspective it was indeed malicious, but as a whole it was not "generally" malicious."

>>49434246
>That was it, anon. Go read it again.
How about you stop being obscurantist and explain how I misrepresented you. I'm assuming it has to do with the quotes I chose.

Making clear a point of unclear wording is not being pedantic. It's in response to pedantry, sure. You must admit the meaning of the sentence is changed radically depending on how you take the word "generally".

Do you just think "pedant" is a dirty word?

>>49412653
>Padme was only into creepy-ass Anakin because Luke and Leia had to come from somewhere,
I like the theory that he was influencing her mind with the force the whole time and not realizing it.

>>49434219
>I've quoted you where you were being an extremist moderate, and you didn't say anything in response. It's not straw manning if you actually said the things I'm saying you said.

You are actually the only person who's said anything about moderation being inherently the best way. In fact your post was the first post where the word 'moderation' entered the argument between you and the other anon.

>>49434242
>The argument comes from why you judge them as evil,

Because both of them seek to suppress the rights and voices of individuals they don't like, make sweeping generalizations about both their oppositions and the minority and majority groups caught in the crossfire based on only a few individuals, are incredibly unpleasant just to be around, let alone have a conversation with, have no sense of prudence, tact, or any other good social grace, and would gleefully tear down Western society to see their own subjective vision of utopia erected in its place.

>Moderation chosen because it happens to be better is not clinging to anything
>I don't hate moderates, anon.

Fair enough, then. I misinterpreted you and thought you were claiming that all moderates choose moderation because they believe it is inherently better.

>>49434278
>calling it a strawman is obscurantist
Anon, you said that I think something that I don't think. That's what the fucking term means.

I said that malicious views are common among extremists, not that their views are malicious because they belong to extremists.

>>49434296
>You are actually the only person who's said anything about moderation being inherently the best way. In fact your post was the first post where the word 'moderation' entered the argument between you and the other anon.
You don't need to say "I am writing in French" to write in French. Someone who points out you are writing in French will naturally be the first person to mention it.

>>49434333

This is true, but you need to explain why you thought anon was writing in French, to stretch the analogy.

>>49412550
Why not less than four? Assuming no one bails, 3 is a sweet spot for me
more than 6 is just dumb

>>49434330
Obscurantism is calling something a strawman and then refusing to say where, or how, it is a strawman. But now you have done so.

>I said that malicious views are common among extremists, not that their views are malicious because they belong to extremists.
What you said was maliciousness of an idea is governed by how extreme it is: you say this is a straw man, but this is in fact what
>You don't have to think you're bad in order to have a malicious intent if the ideas you're working with are extreme enough
means. You are saying that the extremity of idea determines whether it needs malicious intent to be malicious. Or, in plainer language, that an extremist can be malicious by simply having extreme views, while a more moderate person cannot.

>>49434415
No, it doesn't. What I said means that, if your ideas are extreme enough, you may not be able to see them as malicious even though you'd be able to determine them as such if you were willing to treat them more reasonably.

>>49434477
That's what I just said.

If your ideas are extreme enough, you cannot see them as malicious because your ideas are extreme enough that you have no malicious intent, meaning you weren't actually malicious at all.

But you say that their ideas are malicious even without intent. And you discriminate between these ideas which do not require intent, and other ideas which do require intent, purely by levels of extremism. This means that you say that extremism governs maliciousness, as there is no other factor to discriminate by. I know that you would not call, say, violence or harm alone "malicious", because I know you would not call a hurricane malicious.

>>49434560
>meaning you weren't actually malicious at all.
Nope, this is completely different from what I said. You're the one who thinks maliciousness being relative depending on the person it comes from is somehow meaningful. Even though you still didn't get to saying why it's meaningful.

> And you discriminate between these ideas which do not require intent, and other ideas which do require intent, purely by levels of extremism.
STOP THIS RETARDED STRAWMAN ALREADY.

I told you three times now that that is NOT what I said in any way, shape, or form.

>>49434591
>Nope, this is completely different from what I said. You're the one who thinks maliciousness being relative depending on the person it comes from is somehow meaningful. Even though you still didn't get to saying why it's meaningful.
...Yes, I was saying what I thought. That's why the next paragraph begins with "but you say...".

It's not a strawman if I am taking your quotes and drawing their logical conclusions. You can disagree with your own logic, but it is your own logic. I'm not sure why you don't understand this.

The simple result of saying "only extreme ideas can be malicious without intent" is that you are discriminating between ideas by extremism. After all, a moderate idea still requires intent, to you. And this in turn means that you are saying extreme views are malicious because they are extreme, which is the same as being moderate for the sake of moderation.

The only way you could avoid this is by saying "no, I mean their killing/book burning/whatever is what makes them malicious, even without malicious intent"; but this breaks down when you encounter hurricanes, which kill and destroy books, and which have no intent, but must, by that logic, be malicious. Which I know you do not think.

>>49434654
>It's not a strawman if I am taking your quotes and drawing their logical conclusions.
It is a strawman if you misunderstand something, have it pointed out 15 times that you misunderstood it, then have it explained 3 times what it actually meant, and you still cling to your own interpretation that has nothing to do with what I said unless you misinterpret it, and nothing at all to do with what I meant in any way.

You're getting fucking tiresome now anon. I'm not going to say it again. If you want to continue this discussion then stop yammering on as if you're the only one in the thread and start communicating.

>>49434686
Then address the post.

You said I was strawmanning because you said
>malicious views are common among extremists
but this is blatantly not the case. What you actually said was
>You don't have to think you're bad in order to have a malicious intent if the ideas you're working with are extreme enough.

This is your own, actual post. You can't just pretend you never said it, or that its conclusions do not exist.

>>49434686
>>49434732
Oh, and you even further clarified that
>What I said means that, if your ideas are extreme enough, you may not be able to see them as malicious even though you'd be able to determine them as such if you were willing to treat them more reasonably.
which carries the exact same logic. It's even right there in the quote:
>if your ideas are extreme enough

>>49434732
The issue we were discussing at that point was that it's possible to think you're doing the good thing and still have a malicious intent. That was just a simple explanation of how that's possible.

>>49434748
>That was just a simple explanation of how that's possible.
Which rested on the assumption that extreme = malicious, which I disagreed with.

>>49434760
No, I never said that in any way, nor did I think it. I'm perfectly aware that extreme views can be non-malicious.

Malice is about causing harm. An extreme view is more likely to condone causing harm in the name of whatever good it espouses.

That's it.

>>49434781
>I never said that in any way
And it still rested on these assumptions, as I explained. The conclusion of what you said was that extreme = malicious. I never said that's what you literally typed. I said it was the logical result of what you did type, and that's not strawmanning. That's arguing.

>I'm perfectly aware that extreme views can be non-malicious.
I did not mean to say you weren't aware of it. I meant that when you did judge extremist but intentless views as malicious, you were doing so only because they were extreme.

But apparently, I was wrong. You base it off "harm", something I mentioned repeatedly in case this was what you were doing, as you can see in my hurricane examples.

Bluntly speaking, you think hurricanes are malicious (or do you want me to say that the logical conclusion of "malice is about causing harm" is that hurricanes are malicious?), which runs counter to what the word means (*desire* to cause harm). And probably runs counter to what you really think, too.

File: 1343235268507.jpg (38KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x480px

>refresh thread 30 minutes later
>these two faggots are still arguing about semantics

>>49434847
>The conclusion of what you said was that extreme = malicious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

>I meant that when you did judge extremist but intentless views as malicious,
I did not. I judged someone with an extreme view as more likely to feel justified in acting maliciously. There's a huge difference there, anon.

>Bluntly speaking, you think hurricanes are malicious
Hurricanes don't have intent.

>>49434913
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
This is about statistics you mongoose. Not logical procession.

>Hurricanes don't have intent.
So? Malice is about causing harm. That's it.

That's what you said. What's the difference between an intentless hurricane and an intentless extremist?

If you want to bring intent back into this, then we are back at the logical conclusions of your statements that extremists can be malicious without intent.

Let me go through this:

1. Extremists can cause harm, because of their extreme views, without intent. This makes them malicious.

2. Moderates, because they do not have warping extreme views, cannot. They can only be malicious if they have such intent.

3. The only thing allowing for extremists to be malicious without intent, while not allowing moderates to be malicious without intent, is that one has warping extremist views and the other does not.

Now here's where you have a choice. You either pick another factor than intent or extremism, but also common to both moderate and extremist malice, to govern malice (as you did: "harm"), in which case you get this:

4 a. Extremists who cause harm without intent are malicious because they cause harm: hurricanes which cause harm without intent are malicious because they cause harm

Or you say that extremism can be malicious all of itself, without intent playing into it. In which case you get:

4 b. Warping extremist views can inherently be malicious (bad).
>>49434906
There is literally nothing wrong with au/tg/ism.

>>49435032
>This is about statistics you mongoose. Not logical procession.
It matters when I'm talking about something related to statistics in the first place.

>So? Malice is about causing harm. That's it.
No, malice is about intentionally causing harm. Keep in mind that throughout about half of this conversation we were using the words "malicious intent". We just started using the shorter version now because it's easier to say. The fact that you're hanging arguments on this shows that you are now engaging in nothing but the emptiest of semantics.

>>49434906
Yeah, I too was hoping to read some horrible ideas "that would have make the prequels better".
Naboo should have been Alderaan.

>>49435095
>It matters when I'm talking about something related to statistics in the first place.
No it doesn't. I'm not looking at two sets of data and assuming there's a causal link between the two. I'm looking at the results of your logic.

Examining the results of a strain of logic isn't a fallacy, it's an actual argument.
>malice is about intentionally causing harm
Not according to how you are using it. You are saying extremists do not need to intentionally cause harm.

I think you think that intentionally doing what YOU consider harm, even without thinking you are doing harm (all because extremism is warping your view), = intentionally causing harm. Which results in thinking extremism can be inherently malicious, for the reasons outlined here >>49435032. If you don't think that, I would like to know your reasoning behind hurricanes not being malicious (or behind extremists being subject to different laws than hurricanes despite both causing harm and lacking intent).

>>49435273
>No it doesn't. I'm not looking at two sets of data and assuming there's a causal link between the two. I'm looking at the results of your logic.
The logic of my statement, which was about likelihood of correlation, is inherently tied to statistics.

Whatever else YOU are looking at, though, I can't help you with.

>Not according to how you are using it. You are saying extremists do not need to intentionally cause harm.
No, I'm saying that they are the ones who have a higher likelihood of thinking causing harm is the correct choice.

File: Rincewind and the Edgelord's Sock.png (417KB, 1220x1790px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1220x1790px

>>49433747

>>49435298
>The logic of my statement, which was about likelihood of correlation, is inherently tied to statistics.
I am concerned with this statement:
>thinking causing harm is the correct choice.
This is an argument about whether extremists who do not have the intent to cause harm, but still cause harm, are nonetheless malicious. I am saying they are not, because they think they are helping. You are saying they are, despite the fact they think they are helping.

I have talked about why the conclusion of this is that extremism can, to you, be inherently malicious.

I am not concerned with the fact you think they are "more likely" to think causing harm is the correct choice. I'm not concerned with it, because I don't think that actually causing harm is the same as actually being malicious.
>>49435358
Thanks, anon.

>>49435378
>This is an argument about whether extremists who do not have the intent to cause harm, but still cause harm
No, it's an argument about people who think having the intent to cause harm and going through with it is the correct choice. You really can confuse the simplest of things, can't you.

>I am saying they are not, because they think they are helping.
I'm saying they are malicious, because they believe their malice is helpful.

>I have talked about why the conclusion of this is that extremism can, to you, be inherently malicious.
That's according to you, not me. I've already told you repeatedly that I was talking about likelihood. It's more likely, that doesn't mean it's inherently connected.

I'll link you again, because you apparently need it:
https://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

>I'm not concerned with it, because I don't think that actually causing harm is the same as actually being malicious.
This is another argument you're pulling from the fact that we dropped "malicious intent" and are using a shorthand now. Please don't do that.

>>49435101
Well it would have meant all the gungans were horrifically exterminated...

Two thumbs up from me.

Gungans weren't any worse than Ewoks or Jawas t b h, the only difference is only Gungans got a character with a prominent role

>>49435452
You're now moving away from the argument. This is presumably because you feel stronger in another, unrelated argument, than this one. It's a bit hopeful to think you can convince someone who's been arguing with you that they've been arguing something completely different to what they've actually been talking about, especially seeing as we can all scroll up.

>I'm saying they are malicious, because they believe their malice is helpful.
So they are not being malicious, because they do not believe they are causing harm. Which is an integral part of malice, remember?
>That's according to you, not me
It's according to me that your logic proceeds like that, yes. You have done nothing to contradict it. You have only thrown out words you clearly do not understand (strawman, correlation not equalling causation).

Seriously, just read the page you linked:
>"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other.[1][2]
>a phrase used in statistics
>two variables
You will notice this has nothing to do with our argument, because this is not statistical (no matter how much something completely unrelated is), and it is not about two variables (what constitutes malice is not about variables). But feel free to try and argue that it is. We both know you can't.

>This is another argument you're pulling from the fact that we dropped "malicious intent" and are using a shorthand now. Please don't do that.
This is another attempt to avoid backing up your arguments by lying about what you've said. Please don't do that.

Or do you really need me to quote
>You don't have to think you're bad in order to have a malicious intent if the ideas you're working with are extreme enough.
again?

This is what it's about, remember.

>>49417426
It'd personally be pretty great if, while he still had a slight accent, his voice became completely coherent and went down an octave, suggesting that the entire time he was around them he was simply playing a character.

If done correctly, that could be pretty damn effective.

File: (Dark Heresy) Miss Stalker (1).jpg (535KB, 1366x1141px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1366x1141px

Fuck those arguments, post interesting stories.
Also, the dude that make the AGP stories has a lot of screens in his site.

File: (Dark Heresy) Miss Stalker (2).jpg (388KB, 1368x1086px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1368x1086px

>>49436933

File: (Dark Heresy) Miss Stalker (3).jpg (419KB, 1359x1141px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1359x1141px

>>49437056

File: (Dark Heresy) Miss Stalker (4).jpg (393KB, 1356x1211px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1356x1211px

>>49437075

>>49437090

File: (Dark Heresy) Miss Stalker (5).jpg (368KB, 1090x1240px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1090x1240px

>>49437110
Aaaaaand I forget the bloody thing. Marvelous.

File: (Dark Heresy) Miss Stalker (6).jpg (566KB, 1374x1240px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1374x1240px

>>49437125

>>49436933
I think the argument is done.
>>49437110
Best story yet.

File: (Dark Heresy) Miss Stalker (7).jpg (326KB, 1376x791px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1376x791px

>>49437141
The last one.
>>49437161
Thanks, it's the one I'm proudest of.

File: Karthaki Marching Powder.png (259KB, 1583x1765px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1583x1765px

>>49437161
Fuck, now I forgot it.

>>49411969
>While watching, I had the normal reactions. Internal monologues of how the trilogy would have been improved if they downplayed Jar Jar and made him a sith, or if the clone wars had been about clones of jedi rather than some New Zealander.

That's not a normal reaction, that's an autistic reaction. Besides, Ep I is the only bad movie of the PT.

File: estelle.png (53KB, 179x192px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 179x192px

Thankfully good GMing is based on experience. Some of the things I've figured out...

>Always tell players the parameters their characters have to fit in, i.e. "You're all playing Good or Neutral characters who have a debt they have an active interest in repaying to X retired Wizard."

>Corollary to above: Have a few backup characters ready to go for players who can't follow instructions.

>Second corollary to first entry: Have backup players (or enough players to get a game going without them) when dealing with players who can't follow instructions.

>No complex plan will survive contact with the players. Unless they have proven otherwise, assume they will have to stumble across any plot points you want them to experience instead of traveling to a specific location.

>If the players come up with a ridiculously complex plan for a simple problem, make the problem complex enough that they don't feel like they overplanned. If they feel that way, their next plan will involve bored, full-frontal assault on whatever their target happens to be.

>Never put your main antagonist within ranged weapon distance of your players unless you want him or her dead. Players ALWAYS find a way.

>Never give your players unlimited cosmic power unless you're wrapping up the campaign. They will find a way to turn it into petty spite against those that have wronged them, be they NPC or otherwise.

>Always remember that players are as inventive as Batman and as malicious about it as a toddler from an abusive home. Don't give them time to plan unless you want to see events which would prompt their country to have to pass new laws on war crimes.

>NPCs can be replaced far more easily and with far less drama than PCs. If the inventive fuckers kill someone you didn't want dead, that NPC was a pawn for someone even more badass.

>>49435549
The point would be to give more weight to Alderaan destruction... guess that wouldn't work after all.

>>49435608
They were all made for different reasons.
Jawas were made to create a strange and mysterious atmosphere with an hint of danger but not too much. That worked, in my opinion.

Ewoks were made to be plushy, no doubt about that. I would say they are way more questionable than Jawas, because I can't see any reason they couldn't have used any other race or even just rebels troups.

But gungans? I guess they were made to be marvellous and strange in a nice way. You're supposed to feel like you are an explorer as you discover their city. Also all CGI characters are impressive and will never be dated, right guys?
And the final land battle could have been fought by naboo insurgents, but it would have changed the tone of the movie, making it less fantasy and more serious.

So I may be missing something but I guess Ewoks are the most pointless and shameless? Gungans seem to suffer more from Jar Jar being their representative than from being a bad idea. Though they are a consequence of wanting to make a movie for kids (nothing wrong with that), it's Jar Jar that is everything wrong about what some people think kids like. You don't need slapstick and funny voice to entertain kids, a New Hope did it after all.

>>49436081
>It's a bit hopeful to think you can convince someone who's been arguing with you that they've been arguing something completely different to what they've actually been talking about
This is what you've been doing the entire time ever since I started calling out your strawmen.

>So they are not being malicious, because they do not believe they are causing harm.
They do believe they are causing harm, and that that harm is helpful. "Harm" isn't some sort of objective thing as you seem to be presenting it here.

>Which is an integral part of malice, remember?
Yes, better than you apparently.

>You have only thrown out words you clearly do not understand (strawman, correlation not equalling causation).
You're just refusing to let go of your own view on what I meant. I'm sorry, anon, but I'm the primary authority on what I mean to say, so you can't convince me otherwise. The fact that you think those words aren't applicable is because you think the arguments are different to what they actually are.

Which is what the reason for building your straw man of me is, I assume.

>You will notice this has nothing to do with our argument
I notice that it does, because the argument was about the likelihood of something appearing. I'll remind you that that's what this all started from, remember? How likely those people are to be trolling or serious.

>(what constitutes malice is not about variables)
That's a secondary semantic argument unrelated to the first one that you keep returning to. I'm using maliciousness the same way I've been from the start. You're using it a different way. Since we realize this we could possibly come to some sort of agreement despite it, the problem is that we draw final conclusions which are completely opposite despite it.

>Or do you really need me to quote
The quite which proves me right can be quoted as many times as you like.

>>49436081
>it is not about two variables
You're the one who's saying that my belief about the correlation between extreme views and malicious intent must mean that I believe there is a relationship of causation between them. But I don't. Because correlation is not necessarily caused by causation.

Is that really hard to understand? You're incapable of wrapping your head around it?

>>49412796
That and Lucas's writing. Whatever genius he might have once had was completely gone by the time of The Phantom Menace. It's hard to say when exactly he lost the magic, but there are some earlier signs of it. A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back are great movies, but even Return of the Jedi falls rather flat in comparison (ewoks and all), and then there was that "Greedo shot first" nonsense with the special edition... and, well... a number of other issues with the special edition. I wonder if there is ever going to be another actually good Star Wars movie, or if the best we can hope for is entertaining but clumsy stuff like Revenge of the Sith and The Force Awakens.

>>49439329
The Force Awakens was trash if you ask me. I even liked Jar Jar better than Han and Leia's son. And that's saying a fucking lot.

>>49439329
>or if the best we can hope for is entertaining but clumsy stuff like Revenge of the Sith and The Force Awakens.

I'd hold off on making a blanket judgement of the new movies just yet, at least until we see VIII. You gotta remember, Disney was kind of testing the waters with this new movie, and they played it safe when it comes to characters and situations.

They've really set up good character growth for both Rey and Kylo Ren - Rey because she's now forced to be something she ultimately doesn't want to be, and Ren because he now has to become an actual Sith, and he's been crippled to the point where now he'll actually need the mask he wears.

I think VIII will really give us a verdict on whether Disney can handle the series well or not in a live-action setting.

>>49439818
>I even liked Jar Jar better than Han and Leia's son

You weren't supposed to like him, fuckknuckle, He was supposed to be a whiny, arrogant brat who threw temper tantrums and made careless mistakes (like leaving the droid behind and taking only Rey). That is all to set up his growth into an actual villain in the next few movies.

>>49439860
I can separate liking a character as a person and liking a character as a character, thanks.

>>49435101
You did read OP right?

This thread is about what mistakes you as a gamer would have wanted to correct if you could.