>"Hey man, what game do you play?" >"Oh,

So you're dismissing the notion of discussing and comparing systems altogether?

You can't just assume everyone's experience mirrors your own, or you just end up shouting anecdotes back and forth with no progress being made.

Actual RPG discussion is rooted is discussing RAW or common consensus alterations, along with important factors like the games design intent and how well it fulfils what it claims and promises to do.

Sure, there's a lot of shitty discussion on /tg/, but that doesn't mean that sort of discussion as a whole lacks value.

>>51779082
>discussing and comparing systems
This requires equal footing in the system. When someone plays a game once, wrong, and they dismiss it outright then it's no longer equal footing, and not OPs fault

File: 1484602764621.jpg (84KB, 465x441px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 465x441px

>only just now figuring out /tg/ is the worst place possible to productively discuss tabletop RPG systems

>>51779106

But that involves making a lot of assumptions which I would consider unfounded, as long as implying that there's a way to play a particular game 'Right', which I'd dispute.

If people are enjoying a game, they're playing it right. If people are playing a game the way they feel best but still aren't having fun, that doesn't mean the system is bad, it means it doesn't suit their preferences.

I guess the real flaw I see in the theoretical person OP is discussing is a lack of self awareness, not being confident enough to express their personal feelings on something as an opinion rather than feeling obliged to translate their experiences into a facade of objectivity.

>>51779136

It's actually better than a lot of 'nicer' places, in my experience.

Sure, on a forum with identities and rules, you get discussion that seems more polite and civil... But it's also laboured by hierarchies and reputations. Discussions are decided not by what people say but by who they are and who aligns with them, generally leading to mob rule by whatever turns out to be the more popular opinion.

/tg/ and 4chan in general might be full of bullshit, but anonymity does have some serious advantages as long as you're capable of wading through the bullshit it brings alongside. And I'd much prefer to have an honest conversation, shitslinging and all, than the limp wristed sanitised stuff you see on RPG.net and other sites.

>>51779082
You seem like you go through a lot of effort to hide your trolling behind a facade of concern and intentions. I'm betting the games you like aren't actually that good, the games you dislike aren't actually that bad, but you hold your beliefs so firmly that you honestly believe what you personally value is somehow more valuable than what other people value. The only difference between you and your opposing trolls is that you do not appreciate your own hypocrisy and the irony of it all, all while clinging to what you earnestly, honestly believe is the sole truth in regards to how to evaluate a game, never recognizing the limitations of your perception or how far you've gone into denying the experiences of others. The system and edition wars held hear are purposeless, and serve absolutely no purpose in regards to actually discussing the games themselves. It's simply a game of politics, not unlike the endless arguments you could find in /v/ over which system was better, though the mods over there at least had the foresight to ban that senseless, repetitive, and fruitless arguing that can be described as nothing more than groups hoping to pretend that the facets their system is strongest in were the most important facets in which to judge a system by.

>>51779179

The problem is that /tg/ IS often about hating different things from usual murderhobos, though.

>>51779208

Wow. I am honestly unsure how to respond to that sudden surge of baseless accusation and paranoia.

Are you okay dude? Are you suffering from /tg/ related PTSD?

>>51779245
I'm just saying what you seem like.

File: i-know-that-feel-bro-i-know-that-feel.jpg (34KB, 555x351px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 555x351px

>>51779041
>proceeds to describe himself not only playing the game wrong, but playing it in a way that sounds like they were specifically trying to play it wrong

I feel you, OP. I've had that experience with more than one system here on /tg/. I'm not a GURPS fan, but I do know your frustration.

>>51779179

This logic runs hollow because 4chan has the same problems with hierarchy and popularity as any forum does- it's just that instead of the hierarchy being linked to specific posters it's linked to board culture.

Go to /pol/ and try to make a thread criticizing, I don't know, Trump's wall and see how shitty the quality of discussion gets.

On any board a post you make that goes against the board consensus is going to be drowned in memes and flaming.

>>51779041
>I'm done with all these system/edition wars.
I feel you Anon.

>>51779041
>If you didn't enjoy playing my favorite game, you were playing it wrong

Sure thing, buddy

>>51779522
>Go to /pol/ and try to make a thread criticizing, *I don't know*, Trump's wall and see how shitty the quality of discussion gets.

Yes, it's very apparent you don't know. Fuck along now, child.

>>51779769

So, what do you say to someone who's all "I rolled a 1 and the DM said I critically hit myself in the testicles and then I died this game is shit who designed this garbage these rules are stupid" if not "hey that's not actually how the game works, you should read the rule book" ?

>>51779082
>So you're dismissing the notion of discussing and comparing systems altogether?

At this point, yes. We never reach conclusive or meaningful discussion when any major system is involved. It only seems to work whenever we bring up the gems and bits that /tg/ as a whole has developed an opinion on.

Dogs of the Vineyard vs. Savage Worlds? Pretty interesting discussion. Some Savage Worlds haters, but never with a barrel of vitriol.

GURPS or any edition of D&D? Fuck off, I'm done with the bullshit, and I'm done with these threads that lead nowhere, produce nothing, and repeat themselves every odd day. I play my edition, I like my edition, and I know that it has flaws and what it does and doesn't do well, and that's all I have to say on the matter.

>>51779884
>At this point, yes.

I wouldn't go that far. That anon is clearly just rushing into hyperbole for the sake of defending his particular favorite flavor of trolling.
We can discuss popular systems. We just need to recognize that there are some very obvious politics involved, and plenty of trolls on both sides. How can this be done? By dismissing anyone who does something like claiming a system in its entirety is terrible, or that any of their views are objective. That's really all that needs to be done to deprive system/edition trolls of any imaginary value that they want to try to add to their arguments. Reminding them that all they have is opinions helps reveal that all the effort they put into their board politics is nothing more than a pointless waste of time. Trolls hate this, and will argue that it deprives the discussion of any worth or merit, but that's only because the only merit they see in a discussion about systems is trying to establish the systems they simply don't like as irrefutably disallowed from any positive discussion.

For a simple metaphor, consider the Xbox and the PS2. The PS2 outsold the Xbox vastly, and had superior specs in many regards, as well as a collection of great games, but the Xbox had better specs in other regards and also had a wealth of great games. If we wanted to discuss the merits and flaws of either system, we could do so easily, as long as no one was trying to objectively prove that one system was superior than the other, or that one of these systems was objectively shit.

>>51780058

Some things aren't just a matter of opinion though. How significant and important they are in regards to your experience of a game might be, but pointing out rules problems and the like are objective, factual statements.

If they promote actual discussion of the problem, the best ways to fix it and advice for people wanting to make use of the system? Awesome, that's useful and productive stuff that any fan of the system should both approve of and be able to usefully engage in.

But in my experience most of the vitriol comes when defenders of a system either refuse to acknowledge that such a problem exists, or dismiss/disregard it without any explanation. That isn't informative and provides no useful advice or context to other people who might be interested in the system, it just shuts down discussion in order to protect the game from criticism.

>>51780176
>Some things aren't just a matter of opinion though. How significant and important they are in regards to your experience of a game might be, but pointing out rules problems and the like are objective, factual statements.

Sorry, but not only isn't that not always true (as many rule "problems" are a matter of taste), but you fail to recognize that a system simply having flaws is not enough to attempt to "objectively" apply a negative label to it. It's simple board politics, through and through.

>But in my experience most of the vitriol comes when defenders of a system

Maybe you should stop trolling already about systems you dislike?
And, that's enough out of you already. You're trying to figure out how to defend your trolling, and it's embarrassing to see you flutter like this in order to defend what's very likely your favorite little activity.

>>51780261

>Sorry, but not only isn't that not always true (as many rule "problems" are a matter of taste), but you fail to recognize that a system simply having flaws is not enough to attempt to "objectively" apply a negative label to it. It's simple board politics, through and through.

Where did I say anything about applying blanket labels to systems? I'm talking stimulating about useful, informative discussion that involves acknowledging a systems flaws in order to properly inform people about it. How is this in any way trolling?

>>51779041
Gurps is alright but its a giant unwieldy clockwork clusterfuck a lot of the time. Especially if you are trying to teach people to use it. Their decision to base the game around the use of 10 billion different skills allows for lots of customization but is also its downfall a lot of the time.

>>51779144
>If people are enjoying a game, they're playing it right.

Oh boy, here we go again.

This is untrue, and demonstrably so.

>>51780287
Because you're trying to pretend that "concern" trolling about a system is helpful.
If people dismiss what you consider important issues as not important, I don't understand why you would insist on demanding that they pay attention to them when it's clear that they're more interested in discussing some other aspects of the system. To them, your "objective complaints" are simply not worth notice, at least not at the present moment, and nothing you can say will change that. What you consider "useful, informative discussion" is very likely nothing more than you spewing up a shitstorm to complain about the systems you dislike, all while half-deluding yourself into actually believing you're doing someone a favor.
You talking about "system defenders" makes it clear that you are the very worst kind of troll, and with that said, I think I've offered you too much of my attention already.

>>51780399

How?

>>51779829

If you're trying to imply that /pol/ has high quality discussion of Trump's wall, I feel sorry for you.

>>51779884
>GURPS or any edition of D&D? Fuck off, I'm done with the bullshit, and I'm done with these threads that lead nowhere, produce nothing, and repeat themselves every odd day. I play my edition, I like my edition, and I know that it has flaws and what it does and doesn't do well, and that's all I have to say on the matter.


This looks like the hollow excuse of a man who couldn't justify his flawed views, and so now pretends to be taking the moral high ground by running away.

>>51780435
Go away, troll. Your bait is weak and obvious.

>>51780419
Actually we can talk about that if you like why not.

To define fun objectively we need to look at its purpose and then extrapolate relative to that purpose.

For the individual, fun has the main purpose of pleasure. That's simple, though there are other things that come into it. If we also think about right living and self-improvement as objectively good overarching goals then those factor into fun as well. So while mindless edgy fun might not be objectively bad, fun that has intellectual, moral or character-building aspects is objectively better. Objectively bad fun would be kinds that encourage ignorance, falsehood and immorality, and that pander to negative personality traits.

Next we have to look at fun in a group context, and we start with the premise that group fun is a social activity, and social activities have the purpose of creating social bonds. People do this by bringing pleasure to others in the group, learning about their personalities, and fostering a sense of communality by jointly creating something, even if it's creating something abstract. To that end, malicious individuals within a group who find pleasure in indulging their selfish and antisocial whims to the detriment of others are having objectively bad fun. People who inadvertendly thwart the group's goals though stupidity or laziness are also having objectively bad fun, though not as bad. In /tg/-related situations, these are all objectively bad players, aka That Guy.

The same points about right living and self-improvement can also apply to group fun.


In conclusion, badwrongfun is that which causes the individual to stagnate or deteriorate as a person, and/or that works against communal group goals and priorities.

>>51780420

Not him, but its implying that you're trying to say all the boards are like /pol/. When they're not, the most honest boards I find are /co/, /tg/ and /b/.

I have went to other boards to discuss things but in those places I have had honest answers, fun discussions and actual education on different matters.

I once went to /lit/ once to discuss a book I had just read at the time... boy WAS THAT A MISTAKE,

>>51780413

If the problems being raised are really so minor, then those dismissing them should be able to easily articulate a clear argument as to why it isn't actually a problem, or to suggest obvious and easy to apply fixes.

In some cases, this line of questioning yields that exact result, which is great! Information has been added to the discussion which is of value to people not familiar with the discussion.

However, in cases where people will dismiss or ignore such criticisms or questions and not provide any evidence, arguments or rationale, the term 'system defenders' seems appropriate- They are refusing to acknowledge a flaw without any apparent basis, which only serves the purpose of protecting their system from criticism and allowing them to not acknowledge its flaws.

Call me a troll all you like, but I'm entirely sincere. When I talk about a system I like, I always couch it in terms of its flaws, and offer advice as to useful and important fixes. When I see someone advocating a system while ignoring or dismissing any critique or questions as such, I think it's prudent to probe such questions in order to learn more and to open up the discussion.

>>51780440

Nope, you're just a faggot who screams "LE TROLL ;_;" at anyone who disagrees with you. I bet you'll flounce out of this thread in a few minutes with a "I'm too good for this" too. Predictable gutless little bitch.

File: 1478722396905.png (165KB, 368x475px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 368x475px

>>51779041
Why did you feel the need to make a thread about this?

>>51780458
>moral or character-building aspects is objectively better

Your arguments breaks here. You are trying to apply an subjective concept to an objective statement. What is moral or character building is not so easily and clearly defined, and while you have a subjective frame of reference that we can discuss and that I may agree with, it still remains subjective, prohibiting you from attempting to use it as part of an objective definition.

You do this several times in the remainder of your argument.

>>51780477
>but I'm entirely sincere.

I already explained how that makes you the worst kind of troll. You've half-convinced yourself that you're being honest, at least to the point where you are willing to lie to others. You want to press some sort of "attack" and feel frustrated when "defenders" disagree and move on, turning your assault into nothing more than flailing. And, they have every right to do so, because you seem like a particularly persistent troll.
Want to prove me otherwise? Then fine, I can offer you a very simple and amiable way to resolve this. If you choose not to persist, I will rescind my accusations, and believe that instead of you being a troll, that you have some sense of when and when not to argue, and you don't do so purely for the sake of pride and hate.

This is the moment not to argue. Let's both walk away.

>>51780577

Can you try replying to my actual point instead? Your accusations are getting less and less connected to reality, and I am sincerely curious as to why you feel the need to characterise me as a 'troll'. Can you point to where in my arguments you believe I stop being truthful or honest, or where my stated intent for creating useful and informative discussion is undermined by my methods?

At the moment, your current 'compromise' essentially consists of me tacitly agreeing to your unfounded accusations while removing any obligation you might have to actually support them or make points to counter my own, which gives me no real incentive to comply.

>>51780656
You have a problem.

>>51780668

So, you can't actually refute my points, support your arguments or accusations, or generally participate in a real discussion any longer? Thank you for admitting it, at least.

>>51780681
>troll begging for someone to argue with him

It's sad now. You're as bad as
>>51780435

I had the same experience when talking about The Burning Wheel with a friend. There is no use arguing at a point, though I do wish that I could put together a group for that some day.

>>51780741
if by burning wheel you mean mouse guard, then look no further friend

File: nobody believes me.png (97KB, 292x274px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 292x274px

>>51780477
>They are refusing to acknowledge a flaw without any apparent basis

Have you ever considered that maybe, juuust maybe, your "flaw" isn't real? Or that if it is, it's not something that people have to deal with at the table instead of in theory? Or that it does affects the game, but in a way that doesn't bother them, because they don't play the game in the same way you do?
That it's less that they're irrational "system defenders" than that your case is shakier than you think?

>>51781371

>If the problems being raised are really so minor, then those dismissing them should be able to easily articulate a clear argument as to why it isn't actually a problem, or to suggest obvious and easy to apply fixes.

>>51781431
Alright. Which system, which problem?

>>51781431

>Applying fixes
>to some dude's theorycrafted "problems"

Sure, I got nothing but time to waste solving non-problems, just to satisfy some guy's autism

Some people would rather talk about interesting things than play "problem" whack-a-mole with people who want to tear things down. I've seen where that goes -- I once saw that Colette dude refuse to admit an obvious mistake for like four hours straight, and over a hundred posts in just one thread.

In the end, you need to accept that people will go on liking things you don't, even AFTER you tell them that those things are bad.

>>51781371
No, don't argue with trolls. That's all they want.

>>51781431
Welcome to stupid troll strategies 101.

> easily articulate a clear argument as to why it isn't actually a problem,

Insist it is really a problem, regardless of what anyone says.

> or to suggest obvious and easy to apply fixes.

Demand the discussion be centered around RAW. Or, argue that the fix is neither obvious or easy.

Basically, regardless of what method you choose, a dumb troll can argue forever, and it's best to just ignore them and treat them as creatures governed solely by pride and hate.

>>51779179
This.

I value /tg/ as a crucible of traditional game related nonsense.

>>51781537
>>51781635

But this is all predicated on the notion that the problem is minor if not non-existent. What if it isn't?

Or are you really claiming that significant system problems literally don't exist? Noting that this does not in any way imply that minor/easily ignored problems don't exist either, but it's embracing the scope rather than defining the entire area of discussion by a single extreme.

>>51780469
Any intelligent political discussion on /pol/ occurs purely by accident.

What was the book?

>>51781727

If they're neither minor, nor non-existant, then you should find fans of the system have created some kind of patch or workaround. As evidenced by all the patches and workarounds for problems seen being passed around for dozens of different systems here on /tg/.

On the other hand, if a whole bunch of people like the system and play it regularly, and they blithely ignore your claims of this serious problem's existence, then you're probably not on to something.

WOULD YOU GUYS SHUT UP IT'S PAST NINE AND SOME OF US NEED TO SLEEP

>>51781727
Shut up, you troll. You're still just trying to figure out how to get people to not simply dismiss you and all your board politics shitposting.

Enough strawmanning. No one's "claiming significant system problems literally don't exist." They're telling you that they don't care at the moment enough to hear you prattle about them because you want to play your little game of "shitpost and pretend we're not trolling."

People will dismiss you, because all you want is to argue, and fuck you and your edition/system wars, you pathetic, transparently obvious troll.

>>51779274
Not him, but "you seem like" a paranoid loon who thinks most of the world is out to get him.

You should try trusting people sometime. It might make you happier.

>>51781789
SHUT UP DAVE, WE KNOW YOU'RE AN UNEMPLOYED PIECE OF SHIT WHO LIVES OFF HIS PARENTS PAYING RENT AND FOOD!!!

>>51781798

And yet you reply every time

>>51781779

>If they're neither minor, nor non-existant, then you should find fans of the system have created some kind of patch or workaround. As evidenced by all the patches and workarounds for problems seen being passed around for dozens of different systems here on /tg/.

>On the other hand, if a whole bunch of people like the system and play it regularly, and they blithely ignore your claims of this serious problem's existence, then you're probably not on to something.

The problem is when both are happening simultaneously, which is oddly common. It's also much less clear when you're dealing with smaller systems which might not have had as much analysis and work put into them as others.

>>51781817
FUCK YOU RON I'M ON WELFARE AND YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY KNOW IT WAS ME IT COULDA BEEN ANYBODY

>>51781847
LIKE I COULDN'T RECOGNIZE YOUR BRAND OF STUPIDITY A HUNDRED MILES OFF!

Also you mutter what you're typing. I can hear you through the walls.

>>51781772
>Any intelligent political discussion on /pol/ occurs purely by accident.

But this is true of every board and topic on 4chan.

Look at this very thread. We start with obvious trolling and end up with, by accident, an interesting debate on the sociology of when it is and isn't appropriate to start an argument about something. I learned something, at least.

This is the advantage of the 4chan format. Let people freely pan a river of shit and eventually someone will stumble across a huge diamond.

>>51782033
Exactly... But the problems occur when we try and pan the same river too many times.

3.5-guments, Martial vs. Caster, Lindybeige and Myfarog threads? The shit's been processed one to many times there.

>>51782179

The Lindybeige stuff always struck me as particularly odd. He's a vaguely entertaining /tg/ adjacent youtuber who is often wrong, but at least manages to be so in a way that's well presented and generally quite interesting. Nothing phenomenal, nothing atrocious, just kinda... Inoffensive. At least I always thought so, before the recent glut.

>>51782204
/tg/ is resistant, or at least should be, resistant to shilling and advertising. And, frankly, if something "inoffensive" is posted too often, it becomes a question of "why is it being posted if this has so little value?"
I don't care about Lindybeige after seeing one video and listening to his overdone know-it-all attitude, but what I'm worried about is if someone is just spamming him here because they're using /tg/ as free advertising for a thoroughly mediocre e-celebrity.

>>51782204
I believe it has to do with him being a name without earning it. 4chan abhors names, or Names. Names are those that have earned them through producing something great, funny, memetic, or even dickish. LindyBeige just was kind of... there, and then spammed. Compare to our boy Duncan, or even MrCulexus.

This is really obvious, but there are a lot of words involved so broke it down:

>OP: I'm done with all these system/edition wars.
>ANON1: Sure, there's a lot of shitty discussion on /tg/, but that doesn't mean that sort of discussion as a whole lacks value.
>ANON 2(non sequitur reply to ANON 1): You seem like you go through a lot of effort to hide your trolling behind a facade of concern and intentions.
>Apparently OP (in reply to ANON 1): At this point, yes.
>ANON 2: That anon is clearly just rushing into hyperbole for the sake of defending his particular favorite flavor of trolling.
>ANON 3 (possibly OP): Some things aren't just a matter of opinion though.
>ANON 2: Sorry, but not only isn't that not always true...
>ANON 3 : How is this in any way trolling?
>ANON 2: Because you're trying to pretend that "concern" trolling about a system is helpful.
>ANON 3 : Call me a troll all you like, but I'm entirely sincere.
>ANON 2: I already explained how that makes you the worst kind of troll.
…and so on.

My point with this nonsense is this:
Anon 3 is not trolling.
Anon 3 is an argueanon who’s making painstakingly autistic arguments because that’s what he likes to do to the point that he refuses to stop.
He does have a problem and is kind of sad.
But that is not trolling, it is arguing.
I’ve argued with his type before until we get down to the semantic meaning of words.
It can be good discussion and can end amicably.

Anon 2 is kinda trolling though.
He is making nonsensical arguments.
He is repeatedly referencing “concern trolling” and calling to concepts that are completely unrelated.
He insults, asserts that he’s proven that his insults are true, and attempts to end the argument with a call to cease arguing that is essentially: "I am going to insult you now but if you say nothing in response, then I take it back. If you reply at all, that means I was right."

Tldr: Calm, polite discussions with thoughtful arguments are not trolling.
That is all.

>>51782332
Wow, you seem like you go through a lot of effort to hide your trolling behind a facade of concern and intentions.

>>51782332
>Anon 3 is an argueanon who’s making painstakingly autistic arguments because that’s what he likes to do to the point that he refuses to stop.

Anon 3, you need to stop. You have a problem, and it IS sad.
And, you're also a troll, and you are doing us all a pretty big disservice by pretending that you can try to spin up an outline of what was said in hopes of acting like you're not one.

File: kid_in_wheelchair_drifts_like_a_boss.gif (4MB, 398x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 398x270px

>>51782356
Heh.
No, I go through a lot of effort to hide my "autism" by only releasing it on /tg/

>>51782405
>you are doing us all a pretty big disservice by pretending that you can try to spin
>spin
heh
see >>51782435 pic related

>>51781814
No, he's actually a troll who goes and shits up every single game design/3.PF related thread nonstop. Why the mods haven't banned him again is beyond me.

>>51783412
Whether or not he is or is not the same anon or if he is or is not a troll, you still seem like a paranoid loon who thinks most of the world is out to get him.
When you start responding to a series of unrelated posts, respond to posts not even in the same thread, respond to posts with no visible connection to the post you are actually replying to, and when you respond with no explanation for any of this, you seem like a loon.
Respond to the actual post you are actually replying to and you might seem to make a little more sense.

>>51779522
>Go to /pol/ and try to make a thread criticizing, I don't know, Trump's wall and see how shitty the quality of discussion gets.
>>I've never been to /pol/

>>51779136
It's actually not that bad once you learn to identify the trolls and ignore their attempts at board politics.

Discuss the games you like, and ignore the people who demand your attention. You owe them nothing, and they depend entirely on your goodwill towards them.