I love to Debate
It's funny but I've noticed that when I post comments on Gamegren, I almost inevitably start or continue some sort of argument. My articles have been known to do this but not as rampantly as my posts on my or other people's articles.
The most inflammatory thing that I post would have to be the quotes that I put on the end of my comments. I usually find funny quotes that fit my reasoning and tack them on. They can get pretty mean, if taken wrong. Things like "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" and "If the boot fits, kick somebody" may piss off someone whose arguments and reasoning I've just debated circles around.
One reason that I'm so... controversial... is that I play Gurps while most of the posters favor D&D and I am very outspoken as to my opinion of the two games. As a Gurps GM I am much more open to things that are limited by the D&D system. For example, there is a whole article devoted to dealing with massive amounts of hit points titled "142 Hit Points (Or how to account for all those blows to the head)" by Rogue Githyanki.
This is a game system problem. In D&D characters are rewarded by going up in levels, each of which makes the character more powerful in abilities and spells and whatnot, and also gives them more hit points so that they can take more damage.
By way of comparison, Gurps rewards characters with experience points that the player can use to add to their character in different ways. A player can raise a character's sword skill for example, but nothing else would be effected. Thus a player COULD spend all of their points raising their character's hit points and health, but everything else would stay the same. Comparatively speaking, the character would end up taking the same amount of damage and suffering the same as if they hadn't used their points like this because they still wouldn't be skilled enough to avoid the damage, unlike the other members of the group who have learned how to parry with their swords, how to use a shield effectively, and when to run away.
In D&D a 3rd level and 10th level character each fall 100' onto stone. The 3rd level character dies while the 10th level character can get up, brush himself off, and walk away shaking his head.
Whoops! I wanted to write about how easy it is for me to start minor flame wars on Gamegren and I digressed into the differences between Gurps and D&D... Oh well.
You know what I'd enjoy doing? I'd enjoy being a member of an online debate team. I'd enjoy debating live, but that would take time away from my family or work. I write while at work and I obviously get plenty of time to do so.
I like debate and argument, especially when it is intelligent and all parties involve actually listen and discuss things with eath other.
A few months ago or more I was watching the Apprentice on TV. Two women and one man was on the spot trying to avoid getting fired by Donald Trump. The guy, bracketed by the women, had no chance to say anything because the women were screaming and yelling at him and at each other. When one woman paused for breath, the other one started in. They were obviously out of control.
After a while Trump stopped this and asked the guy, rather insultingly, why he didn't respond to the women. He said to the guy, "I thought that you were supposed to be good at debating". Now, while I think that Trump is a smart, very successful businessman, this showed that he has his stupid moments just like the rest of us.
If Trump had refereed the boardroom as he does on occasion, and let the guy speak and respond to the women and to Trump and his advisors, then I believe that the guy would have shown that he could debate. But Trump messed up and that guiy was fired. Why? Because the women lost control and Trump let it happen.
I hate stuff like that. I like open, honest debate. But lets be reasonable. Screaming insults and yelling over someone does not mean you won the debate. It means that you're too immature to be in one. That's it.
I am willing to admit when I am wrong and I will change my opinion on things if I am given enough reasons. I'm not like my mother who voted for Bush simply because "he's republican". I researched the candidates and voted for the person that I felt would do the best job. If someone had come along and showed me convincing evidence why Bush was the best candidate, then I would have voted for him. Of course he wasn't, and I didn't, but it could've happened.
I wonder if there are debate groups and forums that I could join that are open to a range of topics. I like debating roleplaying, books, some politics, football, childcare, laws, Colorado, Denver, religion, moral and ethical questions, and a host of other things. Usually multiple things at once.
Oh well...
Normally, this would be the result of insulting people, saying mean or untrue things, or using language that is harsher than expected. However, I tend to be as polite and professional as possible, even when I inspire other posters to give me challenges to mortal combat."A journey of a thousand miles sometimes ends very, very
badly."
The most inflammatory thing that I post would have to be the quotes that I put on the end of my comments. I usually find funny quotes that fit my reasoning and tack them on. They can get pretty mean, if taken wrong. Things like "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" and "If the boot fits, kick somebody" may piss off someone whose arguments and reasoning I've just debated circles around.
"The harder you try, the dumber you look."
One reason that I'm so... controversial... is that I play Gurps while most of the posters favor D&D and I am very outspoken as to my opinion of the two games. As a Gurps GM I am much more open to things that are limited by the D&D system. For example, there is a whole article devoted to dealing with massive amounts of hit points titled "142 Hit Points (Or how to account for all those blows to the head)" by Rogue Githyanki.
This is a game system problem. In D&D characters are rewarded by going up in levels, each of which makes the character more powerful in abilities and spells and whatnot, and also gives them more hit points so that they can take more damage.
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent, but
you'd be a fool to withhold that from your superiors."
By way of comparison, Gurps rewards characters with experience points that the player can use to add to their character in different ways. A player can raise a character's sword skill for example, but nothing else would be effected. Thus a player COULD spend all of their points raising their character's hit points and health, but everything else would stay the same. Comparatively speaking, the character would end up taking the same amount of damage and suffering the same as if they hadn't used their points like this because they still wouldn't be skilled enough to avoid the damage, unlike the other members of the group who have learned how to parry with their swords, how to use a shield effectively, and when to run away.
Levels and classes are another way the D&D differs from Gurps in a bad way. Classes restrict characters by pigeon-holing them while levels are redundant and unrealistic and the difference between levels is huge."When you earnestly believe that you can compensate for lack
of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't
do."
In D&D a 3rd level and 10th level character each fall 100' onto stone. The 3rd level character dies while the 10th level character can get up, brush himself off, and walk away shaking his head.
In Gurps, a low level character or a character made with the starting 100 points, and an experienced character of 300 points would both die."When you find yourself struggling with loneliness, you're
not alone. And yet you are alone. So very alone."
Whoops! I wanted to write about how easy it is for me to start minor flame wars on Gamegren and I digressed into the differences between Gurps and D&D... Oh well.
"If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your
style."
You know what I'd enjoy doing? I'd enjoy being a member of an online debate team. I'd enjoy debating live, but that would take time away from my family or work. I write while at work and I obviously get plenty of time to do so.
I like debate and argument, especially when it is intelligent and all parties involve actually listen and discuss things with eath other.
A few months ago or more I was watching the Apprentice on TV. Two women and one man was on the spot trying to avoid getting fired by Donald Trump. The guy, bracketed by the women, had no chance to say anything because the women were screaming and yelling at him and at each other. When one woman paused for breath, the other one started in. They were obviously out of control.
"Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quite
voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one
more?"."
After a while Trump stopped this and asked the guy, rather insultingly, why he didn't respond to the women. He said to the guy, "I thought that you were supposed to be good at debating". Now, while I think that Trump is a smart, very successful businessman, this showed that he has his stupid moments just like the rest of us.
If Trump had refereed the boardroom as he does on occasion, and let the guy speak and respond to the women and to Trump and his advisors, then I believe that the guy would have shown that he could debate. But Trump messed up and that guiy was fired. Why? Because the women lost control and Trump let it happen.
I hate stuff like that. I like open, honest debate. But lets be reasonable. Screaming insults and yelling over someone does not mean you won the debate. It means that you're too immature to be in one. That's it.
"None of us is as dumb as all of us."
I am willing to admit when I am wrong and I will change my opinion on things if I am given enough reasons. I'm not like my mother who voted for Bush simply because "he's republican". I researched the candidates and voted for the person that I felt would do the best job. If someone had come along and showed me convincing evidence why Bush was the best candidate, then I would have voted for him. Of course he wasn't, and I didn't, but it could've happened.
"Some people dream of success, while other people live to
crush those dreams."
I wonder if there are debate groups and forums that I could join that are open to a range of topics. I like debating roleplaying, books, some politics, football, childcare, laws, Colorado, Denver, religion, moral and ethical questions, and a host of other things. Usually multiple things at once.
Oh well...
"The downside of being better than everyone else is that
people tend to assume that you're being pretentious."
posted by Keko at 09:07
1 Comments:
I think that your problem isn't that you don't have good arguments most of the time, it's that you choose to use words like "immature" and "dumb". While Immature is a very discriptive word, it also has all sorts of connotations that most people do not like to hear about themselves. When you use the word immature to refer to D&D and generally mean that it is "beginner" people take it to mean that you are insulting them on their intelligence. While they may in fact be childish, lack adult reasoning skills, and/or desires to run a more adult campeign, you have personally insulted them, thus leading to a flame war.
Also, some things are relative, and while you may think that GURPS is a superior system (and I agree) it does not fit everyone's style. For some reason people resent arguments for one system over the other without qualifying statements like "but everyone must choose which system fits their play style best". This is the whole politically correct thing, and I have known you long enough to know that you are in no way PC. This might be why you have issues at work occasionally. Your complete lack of PCness flags you as "watch me I'm up to no good" when you are not.
My preferance for "fantasy" violance in games vs "real" violence may be seen as not being realistic enough and thus inferior to other people's preferances. This is not because I lack the ability to function in the real violence of these games, it means that I prefer not to think about exactly what happens to a body when you are stabbed in the gut, or about how prevelant rape and such things have been in history, and in our own society.
In the same light, many people choose to play D&D and avoid the intricacies of GURPS, not because they are not capable of handling them, but because too much number crunching, or figuring out a new system ruins the purpose of playing for them.... to have fun. This is why the most realistic game I have ever seen, Time Lords, is not played as frequently. It is simply too complicated. Also, any video game RPG that I have ever seen is a lvl based system and thus it is more comfortable for many people to play a lvl based pen and paper RPG (D&D).
Post a Comment
<< Home