|
Zak S posted:My blog's not called "Playing D&D With People Who All Graduated High School". I will tell you right now, if I tell Kimberly Kane she's got a 3d6 weapon or a 4d4 spell she will not know which does more damage. Dear God. The misogyny, it burns.
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
quote:There is a great deal of butt-hurt on this page. And for once, I'm not involved! Some kind of monument to rear end in a top hat posting?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:50
|
|
And thus not an attack, since true. :3
|
True Evil Bob posted:Multiplication of the size of numbers that are relevant here is something that most schools I know of had students memorize by like 3rd grade. Are you accusing me of lying about my players? And, if so, what motive could I possibly have? I chuck out annoying AD&D legacy crap out of my game all the time, I won't go out of my way to make this tiny exception about this picayune thing. I actually believe what I am saying based on observation of actual real new-to-D&D-outside-the-typical-D&D-demographic humans. I am positing that perhaps I am not unique in this regard. Do you admit it is possible, just possible, that there might be a perceived real game advantage in some situations to having a different damage notation for reasons that might be actually good?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Jabor posted:You've literally presented no reason to use 4-16 instead of 4d4. Then you are at least grasping what I am saying far beyond the level at which your compatriots are. As I said earlier--use both.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
Gau posted:Dear God. The misogyny, it burns. What kills me is so many of Zak's arguments have rested, at least partly, on "it works for my players" or "my players don't think it's a problem" and now, "my players are complete idiots for which I have the greatest contempt". I mean dang, guy. Dang.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
Gau posted:Dear God. The misogyny, it burns. That's . . . not misogyny.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Zak S posted:I don't have a motive to lie about that. But you do. Some OSR bullshit is under attack and you feel compelled to defend it. Zak S posted:1d4 is a bad example. Small numbers like 2d8 vs 3d4 are more like what I'm talking about. Name some weapons that actually do 2d8 or 3d4 damage. Zak S posted:My blog's not called "Playing D&D With People Who All Graduated High School". I will tell you right now, if I tell Kimberly Kane she's got a 3d6 weapon or a 4d4 spell she will not know which does more damage. So now you're going to claim that one of your players is literally too dumb to understand basic multiplication? It's one thing to make up bullshit. It's something else entirely when you start belittling people who are supposed to be your friends. Zak S posted:Are you accusing me of lying about my players? You're calling them stupid to prove a ridiculous point. quote:Do you admit it is possible, just possible, that there might be a perceived real game advantage in some situations to having a different damage notation for reasons that might be actually good? No, not the notation you're defending at least. It's outdated and obtuse.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Pangalin posted:What kills me is so many of Zak's arguments have rested, at least partly, on "it works for my players" or "my players don't think it's a problem" and now, "my players are complete idiots for which I have the greatest contempt". Um, this is getting gross and disturbing in the assumptions you're making but I'm KK's math tutor for the GED--I know what math she can and can't do. You should also all apologize for calling her "stupid" because she can't multiply.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Hamboning posted:It is silly! Very silly! Whoever would try to make that arguement? Zak quit dodgin my post and please explain why it's easier/less confusing to use 2-12 instead of 2d6. Also please explain to me another reason to use it besides "It was in an older game", since [Blah Blah see my post for full points of the futility of using a number line instead of the newer notation]
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Zak S posted:You're assuming the end point is to know what dice to roll. Realistically, a player wants to know both things: the maximum damage s/he can cause and which dice to roll. How is the end point not to know which dice to roll? That's what you actually have to do!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
A HUNGRY MOUTH posted:That's . . . not misogyny. "My female sex worker players are literally too stupid to do third-grade multiplication" isn't misogyny? I guess he just could be generally misanthropic.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:Zak quit dodgin my post and please explain why it's easier/less confusing to use 2-12 instead of 2d6. Also please explain to me another reason to use it besides "It was in an older game", since [Blah Blah see my post for full points of the futility of using a number line instead of the newer notation] The "12" instantly tells you the maximum damage on a hit with that weapon which is sometimes exactly the piece of information you are looking for.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
Zak S posted:Um, this is getting gross and disturbing in the assumptions you're making but I'm KK's math tutor for the GED--I know what math she can and can't do. She should probably get a different tutor if you can't teach her how to multiply two numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Gau posted:"My female sex worker players are literally too stupid to do third-grade multiplication" isn't misogyny? I guess he just could be generally misanthropic. At worst it's "Some of my players, specifically Kimberly Kane, have trouble with simple math," which for all I know is true. You guys realize that people who are illiterate/innumerate/have extreme difficulty with reading or mathematics actually exist, right? e: PeterWeller you're being kind of mean and I have no idea why.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
Rasamune posted:How is the end point not to know which dice to roll? That's what you actually have to do! Well see you use the number line bullshit to puzzle out what kind of dice you roll so the end point is not to find out what dice to roll.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
A HUNGRY MOUTH posted:At worst it's "Kimberly Kane can't do math," which for all I know is true. You guys realize that people who are illiterate/innumerate/have extreme difficulty with reading or mathematics actually exist, right? I don't think they do. I think the idea is "everyone processes information cognitively like we do, we find this easy, therefore it universally is". Which seems far more disturbing than anything else I've ever read here.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
True Evil Bob posted:Multiplication of the size of numbers that are relevant here is something that most schools I know of had students memorize by like 3rd grade. PeterWeller posted:She should probably get a different tutor if you can't teach her how to multiply two numbers. I do not like these two posts.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
God drat you guys are being a bunch of dicks. Especially you Gau, what does her being a sex worker have to do with anything? Nobody brought that up and it's not relevant to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Stupid Boob posted:God drat you guys are being a bunch of dicks. Especially you Gau, what does her being a sex worker have to do with anything? Nobody brought that up and it's not relevant to the conversation. Actually Zak brought it up (my blog isn't called) but I also don't want to get anywhere near this bullshit. e: both sides of this are awful by the way.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Zak S posted:The "12" instantly tells you the maximum damage on a hit with that weapon which is sometimes exactly the piece of information you are looking for. No, it's not. The majority of the time I'm looking for what to roll when I hit. When the gently caress do you ever go to roll and attack and say "Hmmm, what was the max for this again." over "Which one of these do I need to roll?". Even if you wanted to find max damage so what? It's slightly better than the new notation roughly 1 time out of 50. The Majority of the time you'll be looking for 'What do I roll' and how is that saying 2-8 any clearer than saying 2d4?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Is maximum weapon damage really better than average weapon damage in AD&D? If your players really want to pick the big number lottery weapon that's cool, but have you tried explaining to them why they might want to have a high average instead? Also you're a Cool Dude for helping one of your players get their GED.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Drox posted:Actually Zak brought it up (my blog isn't called) but I also don't want to get anywhere near this bullshit. Admittedly, I didn't know what his blog was called until I googled it just now, but still.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:No, it's not. The majority of the time I'm looking for what to roll when I hit. When the gently caress do you ever go to roll and attack and say "Hmmm, what was the max for this again." over "Which one of these do I need to roll?". I am going to answer this post. Please try to read it and, if you disagree, respond. Here is a thing that happens: A player looks at a long list of weapons and looks for the one that does the most damage (from the ones they can afford and which fit their class). If you think I am lying when I say this happens frequently during character generation, let me know. After this (because the player is playing an old game) the player finds the die that matches that and rolls that same die for a very long time thereafter. If you doubt this phenomena exists let me know and then explain why you think I'd make it up.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Death Pits of Crap posted:Is maximum weapon damage really better than average weapon damage in AD&D? If your players really want to pick the big number lottery weapon that's cool, but have you tried explaining to them why they might want to have a high average instead? I explain a lot of things about the mechanics of the game. Some stick, some do not. Most of my players play fairly diegetically after character generation, though.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Zak S posted:My blog's not called "Playing D&D With People Who All Graduated High School". I will tell you right now, if I tell Kimberly Kane she's got a 3d6 weapon or a 4d4 spell she will not know which does more damage. Ok, Zak, taking for a moment the naive view that these two sentences were a legitimate attempt to tell us forthrightly that Ms. Kane has some specific issues with mathematics and that is why you have adopted this specific method of expressing damage, that is to say, for the benefit of Ms. Kane, who has a particular handicap, do you see why it might look like a statement of contempt toward your players generally. Like, let's just assume I misunderstood you completely, do you comprehend why that happened?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
Look, sometimes you just can't roll the dice if all the dice notations don't come with an in-depth graph-laden statistical analysis authored by a CPA, your 6th Grade Math Teacher, and a 20 Int Wizard.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
Yeah. This is hosed, I am out. Zak S is saying this works for him and his group, and you guys are jumping all over him like a pack of hyenas. It's dumb as poo poo. Stop.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
Zak S posted:I am going to answer this post. Please try to read it and, if you disagree, respond. Wow, now I've been a bit of an rear end when it comes to tone, but no need to go all victim pity party on me. I mean yes, everyone who disagrees with you instantly thinks you're making things up. Your entire story would still work in a system where the weapons are listed XdY. You may notice that the majority of weapons in D&D and the like are 1dWhatevers with only the occasional 2dLowNumberLike4or6. But you know what, that's perfectly fine. I'm done with this conversation. You don't want a discussion, you want to be the martyr. "Oh woe is me, everyone's calling me a liar." Take your self victimization and your loaded questions and  .
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Pangalin posted:Ok, Zak, taking for a moment the naive view that these two sentences were a legitimate attempt to tell us forthrightly that Ms. Kane has some specific issues with mathematics and that is why you have adopted this specific method of expressing damage, that is to say, for the benefit of Ms. Kane, who has a particular handicap, do you see why it might look like a statement of contempt toward your players generally. First: not jumping all over a post doesn't make me naive. Second: is not having graduated high school a quality worthy of contempt? You seem to be implying that it is. e: Pointing out that a specific woman can't do simple math isn't in itself misogyny. Saying that a person hasn't graduated high school isn't in itself a value judgment. Gau posted:Yeah. This is hosed, I am out.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Pangalin posted:Ok, Zak, taking for a moment the naive view that these two sentences were a legitimate attempt to tell us forthrightly that Ms. Kane has some specific issues with mathematics and that is why you have adopted this specific method of expressing damage, that is to say, for the benefit of Ms. Kane, who has a particular handicap, do you see why it might look like a statement of contempt toward your players generally. I don't think it's helpful to get into a big metadiscussion about the layers of good faith and bad faith assumptions here in this thread. Really, what I am telling you is: for certain audiences _other_ than alleged nostalgic Cheetoh-stained exclusionists range notation is sometimes useful. I have made a number of detailed posts about situations where this is so based on observed reality. Either you, overall, think I am a person who wants to lie about this for mysterious reasons or you don't. Pick one. In addition to people who suck at multiplying, we haven't even talked about the GM whose first priority scanning the monster manual (and remember, this is not a 4e manual with balanced encounters) "can this thing kill my players in one round with their current number of hit points?" This is a thing many DMs will want to know and will prioritize. Again, the best would be both. But there are reasons to have each.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
A HUNGRY MOUTH posted:Second: is not having graduated high school a quality worthy of contempt? You seem to be implying that it is. I don't think so, no. I'm a high school dropout myself. When you imply that failing to graduate high school has some kind of relationship to being unable to do basic arithmetic, that offends me. Because I can do basic arithmetic. You see how the implied correlation might bother me. And when someone says, in reply to the notion that his players might be poor at math, "my blog isn't called Playing D&D With People Who All Graduated High School" that says something about their assumptions, not about mine. I make no assumptions about his players based purely on the facts of their formal education. It's my own fault for ever addressing anything Zak ever says, but what can you do.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
As a mostly-lurker who is only sort of aware of the ongoing slapfight between grognards.text and Zak, I just wanna say that you guys are NOT giving a good impression. He very reasonably explained what the OSR considers "simplicity" and instead of chuckling and moving on, y'all are desperately attempting to argue over anything you can. It looks pretty lovely.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Scrape posted:As a mostly-lurker who is only sort of aware of the ongoing slapfight between grognards.text and Zak, I just wanna say that you guys are NOT giving a good impression. He very reasonably explained what the OSR considers "simplicity" and instead of chuckling and moving on, y'all are desperately attempting to argue over anything you can. Both sides really need to rethink dragging the personal attributes of a few women into their stupid nerd fight about dice, too, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
Drox posted:Both sides really need to rethink dragging the personal attributes of a few women into their stupid nerd fight about dice, too, in my opinion. Yeah this is true, but also... Starting petty arguments over someone's dice notation? Really? This is the direction people want to go? It's just such an obvious attempt to argue about something, ANYTHING, with Zak.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Last night, I defended Trollman, after Evil MAstermind called something out that he posted. Today, I want to defend Zak S against ... well, most everyone posting (Drox, Happy Mouth, you guys are cool! Not that you're the only ones being cool, but just throwing that out there). But this is a clusterfuck and I don't want to wade in. Also that I'm leaving soon. Is Cirno going to call SKR out on a terrible feat that's actually mathematically viable, tomorrow?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Scrape posted:Yeah this is true, but also... No, zak is totally being an idiot about dice and that's what this thread is for. Both parties are being really gross and weird about it though.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
I really don't know why it was necessary for anybody to bring up his players' personal issues, no, and I'll apologize for what part I had in that. In general I just wish he'd stop using MY PLAYERS as a crutch. As far as the actual argument goes it probably is generally harmless to present both forms of the damage expression but I really can't blame anyone reacting to Zak with reflexive hostility given his past interactions with the thread.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Yeah, Zak is grasping at straws to defend an obvious legacy mechanic but two pages of nitpicky bullshit isn't funny, and I thought that this thread was for having a laugh at OSR's expense. A laugh. Edit: the whole "past history" thing is true but how can a dude move past it if he can't even make a simple post without provoking a bunch of vitriol? That's a valid question, how is he supposed to move on?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
I feel like this could have been a reasonable discourse at some point. I'm not quite sure when it became such a shitstorm. There are points about ease of play vs ease of analysis, and frequency, and whether PCs have different issues than monsters when it comes to printing data and learnability vs familiarity that came up and were worth exploring, or even just recognizing, but they were either couched in or lost among rampant terribleness.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Scrape posted:Yeah, Zak is grasping at straws to defend an obvious legacy mechanic but two pages of nitpicky bullshit isn't funny, and I thought that this thread was for having a laugh at OSR's expense. A laugh. He could stop making terrible posts that are all vaguely antagonistic and also not try to invoke "my players" in the worst ways like he just did. Like. Seriously. Did you see the post he opened with on simplicity? If he just didn't do that kind of poo poo, he might actually get along with people.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 02:46
|
|