It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like:Chrome,Firefox,Internet Explorer orOpera

×
arrow-down2arrowcart2close4fat-arrow-leftfat-arrow-rightfeedbackfriends2happy-facelogo-gognotificationnotifications-emptyownedremove-menusad-facesearch2wishlist-menuwishlisted2own_thingsheartstar

This is almost like Linux fanatics arguing the technical reasons why their OS that 99% of people don't use on the desktop is the very best.
avatar
SkeleTony: Yes...and your point?
The point is that fanatics, think their personal preference is somehow an objective reality, when it is not, and will go on long tirades, against any perceived slight of their object of worship.

Just because you think that RQ is "the very best at emulating heroic fantasy" doesn't mean that it actually is.

Even it was, it doesn't follow that this makes for a more fun game.

I haven't encountered RuneQuest zealotry before, but really it's both more silly and annoying than Linux Zealotry.
avatar
SkeleTony: You are implying I said something without tact or somehow attacking or criticizing those who developed the above. I have done no such thing. Please do not read INTO what I say. I am sure there are lots who found this hack useful. It just is not what I was asking about and does not meet my particular needs (and from the sound of it NVN2 cannot be used in the way I would like by any means).
avatar
touched: You seem to be reading into what I say as well. I never said that "massively watered down" is a criticism, or that it is in any way impolite. Who would think that? I was simply offering a helpful protocol for dealing with mod-makers.
Because if you were NOT laying this criticism on me then your post makes no sense. The only way your post makes any sense is if you felt I was being tactless here and you were warning me to be more tactful when requesting something from modders (something I would not do either way). Hence my response to you. My "massively watered down" comment has a specific context you should pay attention to as well sir. It was not a criticism so much as a comparison to what the IE games gave us. In the same way that the added 'pause' feature in Heroes of Might and Magic II is just an 'as close as I could get to replicating Heroes III's pause feature...'.
avatar
SkeleTony: Yes...and your point?
avatar
PeterScott: The point is that fanatics, think their personal preference is somehow an objective reality, when it is not, and will go on long tirades, against any perceived slight of their object of worship.
Oh...sorry! I thought you were talking to ME so you can understand my confusion here. I now see you were talking to some other guy who evidently 'worships' something, is trying to think their "personal preference" is "somehow object reality", etc.
In my defense though you should be more clear about who you are replying to and quote them precisely so there is less confusion.
Just because you think that RQ is "the very best at emulating heroic fantasy" doesn't mean that it actually is.
AGAIN please use the quote function here so there is no question as to what I said and in what context.

Do you have any argument for D&D being well designed? Because so far you have given none and instead wish to keep pounding on straw men (AGAIN this is a logical fallacy/error in reasoning which invalidates your entire attempt at defending your position). No dodging behind making bald assertions about what I might think or believe. Stick to the points/arguments.
Even it was, it doesn't follow that this makes for a more fun game.
"Fun" is a useless qualifier here. Like "beauty" or "coolness". What the issue is here is how well these RPGs achieve what they set out to do which is to emulate heroic fantasy. D&D is the most (unnecessarily) complicated and yet the poorest at emulating heroic fantasy, from as objective a POV as one can achieve.
I haven't encountered RuneQuest zealotry before, but really it's both more silly and annoying than Linux Zealotry.
You have encountered none here either. You have me mistaken for someone else. I have plenty of criticisms of RQ as well. My point in bringing it up was because it was a well known game and was literally considered the 'Gold standard' in RPG design EVEN by most of D&D's writers/authors for decades. I figured there was a better chance of you being familiar with it and able to actually provide some insight here. Alas...
avatar
SkeleTony: Oh...sorry! I thought you were talking to ME so you can understand my confusion here. I now see you were talking to some other guy who evidently 'worships' something, is trying to think their "personal preference" is "somehow object reality", etc.
I don't see any other RQ zealots around here, and I quoted you, so I was talking about you.

Clear enough?



Just because you think that RQ is "the very best at emulating heroic fantasy" doesn't mean that it actually is.
avatar
SkeleTony: AGAIN please use the quote function here so there is no question as to what I said and in what context.
avatar
SkeleTony: RuneQuest was easily the very best at emulating heroic fantasy and there was NO character from the genre that could not be accurately represented in that system.
Clear enough?

Do you have any argument for D&D being well designed? Because so far you have given none and instead wish to keep pounding on straw men (AGAIN this is a logical fallacy/error in reasoning which invalidates your entire attempt at defending your position). No dodging behind making bald assertions about what I might think or believe. Stick to the points/arguments.
No because I think only children and zealots make proclamations about which OS is the best, which superhero, or which RPG is best.


I don't see any other RQ zealots around here, and I quoted you, so I was talking about you.
You mean you do not see ANY RQ zealots around here period. Stick to the arguments/points and avoid putting so much effort into trying to insult others and things will go much better for you.
Clear enough?
No, as it still appears you were talking to someone else and confused me with that person.


avatar
SkeleTony: RuneQuest was easily the very best at emulating heroic fantasy and there was NO character from the genre that could not be accurately represented in that system.
Clear enough?
Much better. Saves us all from having to comb through every line of every post looking for whatever you were on about.

Do you have any argument for D&D being well designed? Because so far you have given none and instead wish to keep pounding on straw men (AGAIN this is a logical fallacy/error in reasoning which invalidates your entire attempt at defending your position). No dodging behind making bald assertions about what I might think or believe. Stick to the points/arguments.
No because I think only children and zealots make proclamations about which OS is the best, which superhero, or which RPG is best.
*Chuckle* A tad dishonest of you don't you think? If I had just come here making bald assertions (as you continually do) then you might have a point but such is not the case. I take it this is your concession that you have no grounds for your positions here then?

Also you give false analogies here as children arguing over which superhero is best is entirely different than critically analyzing the game mechanics of a designed RPG.
avatar
SkeleTony: [
*Chuckle* A tad dishonest of you don't you think? If I had just come here making bald assertions (as you continually do) then you might have a point but such is not the case. I take it this is your concession that you have no grounds for your positions here then?

Also you give false analogies here as children arguing over which superhero is best is entirely different than critically analyzing the game mechanics of a designed RPG.
Really, what definitive assertions did I make.

I just get annoyed by zealots like you who rant about their favorite anything being the best.

Or in your case: "... easily the very best ...". Presumably you know the source this time?

These are subjective entertainments.

Ranting on about how your favorite is the best, is childish and annoying.
avatar
SkeleTony: *Chuckle* A tad dishonest of you don't you think? If I had just come here making bald assertions (as you continually do) then you might have a point but such is not the case. I take it this is your concession that you have no grounds for your positions here then?

Also you give false analogies here as children arguing over which superhero is best is entirely different than critically analyzing the game mechanics of a designed RPG.
avatar
PeterScott: Really, what definitive assertions did I make.
The Bald assertion is another logical fallacy. It occurs when one asserts something that is dubious/debatable (or outright false even) as if it were an established fact. You did this in every instance in which I called you out as doing such (and you ignored my calling you out on until just now). You can scroll up to those posts and see for yourself. If you then wish to challenge me on pointing out the fallacy then do try.
I just get annoyed by zealots like you who rant about their favorite anything being the best.
Now this one does not fit the "bald assertion" definition but it does fall under the argumentum ad hominem (argument by attacking the character of another) which is equally fallacious. If I call you a "child molester" instead of addressing whatever it is you are saying then I would be just as wrong as you are here. It also falls under the Straw man fallacy as you are attacking your own construct of the "zealot" rather than addressing my actual points.


These are subjective entertainments.
Yes and just like movies, TV shows and music there are still rather objective qualities to be debated. A child who does not know the first thing about music can pick up a guitar and start strumming while singing his favorite song from a Disney movie for example and his parents may well think it is the greatest song they have ever heard (for reasons other than the child's musical talents). But someone watching a video of the child on youtube who may even be a music theory student or some such may well grimace at the child's lack of ability. Likewise someone who has studied film making (acting, directing, etc.) will almost certainly find The Fast and the Furious an incompetent wreck of a film while millions of people may think that movie great.

"Subjective entertainment" does not absolve everyone from all criticism that can be leveled at whatever they are creating.
avatar
SkeleTony: Now this one does not fit the "bald assertion" definition but it does fall under the argumentum ad hominem (argument by attacking the character of another) which is equally fallacious. If I call you a "child molester" instead of addressing whatever it is you are saying then I would be just as wrong as you are here. It also falls under the Straw man fallacy as you are attacking your own construct of the "zealot" rather than addressing my actual points.
But you are acting like a zealot:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zealot

Definition of zealot for English Language Learners

: a person who has very strong feelings about something (such as religion or politics) and who wants other people to have those feelings : a zealous person
The object of your Zeal, is Runequest, you know "... easily the very best ..." RPG.

No logical fallacies involved.