Tuesday, December 22, 2020

Character Optimization and Easy Mode

Here's something I don't understand.

Everyone's familiar with the idea of "Hard Mode" and "Easy Mode" in video games. Hard mode is for people really into developing whatever skills the game tests (or, if you're really lucky, making money in tournaments) and Easy Mode is for people who don't and also it is often considered an accessibility feature.

All that's easy to get. People know what that means.

Then in tabletop RPGs we have these endless circular discussions for twenty years on the internet (and for the entire life of the hobby if you count fanzine pages) about "Character Optimization".

Character Optimization is basically just playing on Easy Mode.

A few minor differences between video games and RPGs:

  • Rather than just flip a toggle, you are doing (depending on system) either a lot of math by yourself or a little math by yourself in order to play on Easy Mode.
  • It only works if the GM predictably gives you the kinds of challenges that are better solved with your build than otherwise and you consistently choose to use those solutions.

Why do people keep going around and around about this? What's complicated here?

-

-

-

61 comments:

Adam said...

"Character Optimization is basically just playing on Easy Mode".

It depends on the game. There may be a game in which optimizing your character is the main challange. Pathfinder?

Zak Sabbath said...

@Adam

No, that's actually physically impossible.

If optimizing -is automatically done for you- then it isn't a challenge

If optimizing -isn't- automatically done for you then it is a challenge (a thing that requires extra effort) then you can purposefully not do it and escape it being "the central challenge". You've just created a bigger challenge.

Like: Pathfinder has -lots of rules that allow you to optimize- but all you have to do to play on real Hard Mode is not do them.

So: you may be playing next to a bunch of lonely math people who have characters that can melt you with a thought, but merely by deciding not to do what they do you have created a challenge for yourself.

-

The only way that optimizing could be the main challenge is if there's an extremely straitened, stylized set-up with hypernarrow options where the entire game is a set of pre-known encounters in a predetermined order for the -entire- length of the campaign and there is almost randomness during play.

Like, for example, I tell you we will be playing a module you've already played (and only that module) and I say I am running it exactly as the last time, there's no other options (no going to town and buying anything not on a pre-known equipment list, no town unless you already know every inch of it) AND I hand you a list of every die roll, in order and the monsters don't do anything other than what you expect.

At that point you can do the math, pick the best character ops, and run it.

There are certain computer games like this (essentially a babel fish problem, you set it all up and then press the Go button), but it is not a common RPG set-up.

Zak Sabbath said...

(but even then, your choices matter and charop isn't the challenge unless the module is VERY railroaded, like there's not even positioning options)

Bromos Sunstar said...

What if I told you, there is a concept in TTRPGs that there is no character optimization only storytelling as a group that includes a death each session and everyone still had fun! Huzzah! BECMI and below make it your own BECMI Advanced.

Chris Lawson said...

I think stuff like this comes down to 1) new people having or seeing this conversation for the first time, and 2) lots of people who have already had this conversation like to talk about it again, like old timers telling the same stories over and over to remind themselves who they are or ingratiate themselves with the young’ns

Without a central authority or library of “hobby discourse” we are doomed to have the same conversations over and over, delaying the breaking of new ground.

Zak Sabbath said...

@chris lawson

But the people “ telling it again“ have been addressed and disapproved so many times do they themselves just not grasp that they shouldn’t keep telling it again and if not why not? what are they getting out of being more ignorant than they need to be?

Adamantyr said...

Maybe it's a holy grail... much like the other dreaded two words "Character Balance". They keep chewing the bone because they think somewhere they will get a different answer.

I see similar behavior at times from my brother, who reads up on old gaming systems and campaigns from the 70's because he's interested in how gamers played the games then as well as how they play now.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Bromos Sunstar

Uh what if I told you the pope was catholic? Catholic! Advanced!

Zak Sabbath said...

@Bromos Sunstar

What's your point meant to be?

Kyle T said...

Messing with the character options to produce an optimal result is the fun, as is finding DMs who will give them the white room scenarios they want.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Kyle T

Whether it is, for them, "the fun" or not: it is still essentially doing that (fun or not fun) work in order to do the actual play on easy mode.

I'm not asking -whether they have fun- or -where their fun is- obviously there fun is doing the math to play on easy mode. What I;m asking is why people don't seem to grasp this simple concept: some people like their scenario hard and some don't.

Especially since in video games everyone seems to get it.

Kyle T said...

There is in fact a lot of discourse built around not getting it. Usually involving anything made by From Software.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Kyle T

Ok, well I haven't seen it but I believe you that there are places in videogame world that are equally stupid.

Verad Bellveil said...

Without getting into the weeds on the details, there are arguments premised on the idea that a game loses some ineffable quality values by it's fans if it has either a Hard or an Easy mode, depending on the game.

While you bring up people optimizing their way into Easy Mode, there are also arguments and systems based on a distaste for a Hard Mode, as in the challenge-based gameplay you have described in past posts.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Verad Bellveil

Sure but we don't get much out of a conversation where you go "Well there are some people over somewhere who believe some irrational thing". That still begs the question of why they believe it.

If you believe something: say it. Get into the weeds. There isn't much point in logging on, typing, and hitting "Publish" otherwise.

Verad Bellveil said...

System mastery is status to some people. If you struggled to get through Dark Souls then hearing people complain about needing an Easy Mode patched in can lead to a sense your own achievements are being disrespected by somebody. Somewhere. It's a pretty conservative outlook.

You mention doing a lot of math to unlock easy mode in some tabletop games. Same principle: they put in a lot of work for it and it means something and they should be respected for that. Likewise conservative in nature.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Verad Bellveil

Again: this is somebody else somewhere believing an irrational thing. And in many cases this is people who'v had literally -decades- to experience the fact that other people aren't them and don't care how much lonely math fun they had.

I guess I'm asking why this isn't just an obvious solved problem by now. Why isnt' there a stock answer "You want that? Ok, easy mode is a thing. Next question."

Verad Bellveil said...

In TTRPGS? Lots of people do care about each other's lonely math fun and gather together with each other on fora to talk about that fun and network it and further the goal of performing more lonely math. Ditto fans of No-Easy-Mode video games.

It's not solved because the fanbases in both hobbies aren't monolithic and in both fanbases one of its larger subgroups are very invested in their lonely achievements and willing to spend money and argue and harass people to ensure that their preferred presence/absence of Easy Mode is present.

I myself do not believe these things and do not have an example of someone who does believe them tied up in my basement to answer questions, so all I can do is describe.

Adamantyr said...

Maybe the difference between a CRPG and the RPG here is that the former is often a single player experience, where an RPG is a group experience.

In a CRPG, you make all your own decisions. So if you want to do things easy, you can. Or if you want a challenge, feel free. Good example, playing through the first Final Fantasy for the NES with an all white mage party. Just for fun.

But once you are playing with a group of people, you feel under pressure to optimize your character to best suit the party. You see this magnified in MMORPGs where players are encouraged or even required to optimize.

So why is this a thing? Because people. Insecure people who don't want to offend or annoy others. Some of us can rise above this and just play as we want for fun and tell someone who whines our character isn't optimized to fuck off.

Zak Sabbath said...

@verad Bellveil

Well you don't have to have one in your basement, you could just, say, know one otherwise and have had a conversation with them where they explained how they managed to blot out the existence of other humans and their preferences and still sleep at night.

Presumably they are not bots and do manifest in physical form.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Adamantyr

We can all go "Why do people do this thing?" "Oh, they have personality flaws!" That's always the easy answer (and, unfortunately often, apparently the right one).

But that doesn't tell us how -they- explain it to -themselves- .

Maybe they have some more reasonable analysis and we're missing something?
Or maybe they don't and have never realized the problem?

Verad Bellveil said...

Sure. What I am saying has come from past conversations with such people. They generally don't think their desire for having things their way harms other people as much as not having things their way harms them. Or they just don't care much. Sensible ones don't advertise their preferences outside of their game groups, because why would they?

Adamantyr said...

I'd go with the latter myself. Many people have no ability to self reflect. They don't see the problem. "Well if I don't do this other people won't have fun!"

And maybe that insecurity is what also keeps the questions going on what to do about it in the RPG sphere. Because designers and GMs also think that maybe if they somehow had the perfect system all these other issues would go away. But it is never the system but the people who play it.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Verad Bellveil

I am wondering about the people who -do- advertise. Because even though it's not sensible, it is those who advertise who control the conversation and influence new designs.

The people who keep RPG conversations useless by acting like Char Op has some moral meaning and then we all have to wade through those braindead megaphone conversations to get to any interesting ones.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Adamantyr

I mean maybe its as simple as:

"Play with better people" is an accurate but dull message and hard to share over and over whereas "LOOK AT MY NEXT FORMULA TO SOLVE THIS ETERNAL QUESTION!!!!" is at least novel and provocative and so gets reshared.

Kinda like how "Economics, tradition, power politics and religion affect social justics more than who gets shipped with who in Star Wars" is a boring but true message but isn't as fun for most people online to talk about because they don't have an entry point.

Verad Bellveil said...

It's been years, but I remember somebody showing up on therpgsite from the gaming den to scorn anybody who didn't engage in charop as not real roleplayers. The kind of challenge-based play that doesn't rely on charop was dismissed as "magic tea party." The math, and the complexity of the math, was more important to him. It was very much a status symbol to that person.

Zak Sabbath said...

@veras bellveil

Yeah the Gaming Den people are completely irrational. Just because baseball has an umpire doesn't mean there's no challenge.

I mean: all their philosophy does is say that if the game designer designs the parameters of the challenge and communicates them its a challenge but if the GM designs the parameters and communicates them does its not, which makes no sense at all.

The acid test is: they can't answer questions, ever.

They at least have the saving grace that no-one takes them seriously at all. The folks at Something Awful and the Forge refugees are just as loopy but have like major nerd celebrities on their side.

Adamantyr said...

I think you hit the nail on the head there. The truth is uncomfortable and boring.

Whereas "You're just not playing the right game" or "You aren't doing it right, let me tell you how" is more attractive.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Adamantyr

Which mayyyyyy (may?) (maybe? I don't know) be reflected in the fact that the games that purport to solve these problems get a lot of vocal online support but not a lot of economic support.

They are a part of the discourse more than a solution to a genuine problem had by people without some -other- comorbid problem.

Verad Bellveil said...

Seems like the author function served by the rulebook really matters to that kind of person, and would be lost if the designs were just some person at the table. Less implied authority than a text.

I have had some pleasure in teasing out how to make a character concept work in crunchy universal systems like BESM, but I don't feel that same level of deference to the rules. More puzzle than status marker.


Adamantyr said...

Yep! They ride the coat tails of a perceived "problem" which has nothing to do with the system but more with the people playing it. Which is maybe why they perpetuate the questions online about it to try and draw people to their products which claim to "fix" the problem. "Dont worry! In our game any way you want to play won't make other people angry or resentful!"

I had to Google the meaning of comorbid, very nice, I'll remember that one.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Verad Bellveil

Seems like it, but since they aren't sentient enough to respond to stimuli we'll never know.

I remember one of them, Bobby Dee, aka "ancient history" once mailed me his book, which was called "Sex and the Cthulhu Mythos" (a really long book considering there isn't any). And he tried to be all nice. Then I asked him a question and he just disintegrated like a preschooler.

It was so weird. It's like: they're so invested in these beliefs and talking about them and yet haven't (and don't like to) talk about them? How does someone get like that?

Zak Sabbath said...

@Adamantyr

#metoo

Benjamin Cusack said...

Simple rules yield complex interactions.
Complex rules yield simple interactions.
Optimization reduces complexity in the output and input, dependent on which way the design went.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Benjamin Cusack

I think that's not always true, because there are so many other dimensions to measure a rule than simplicity and complexity.

But it is important to point out that a "complex rule" does not necessarily yield a "complex game" and these are unrelated.

Benjamin Cusack said...

Simplicity and complexity emerge from a group of rules, and any set of rules can have many qualities, agreed.
This is merely an assertion, and qualitatively measuring a rule is very challenging, especially because a rule is seldom of interest or character without peers to draw out intrinsic interactions.
In essence, a rule is like a person, limited to individual actions. But people, like rules, form interesting groups, patterns, and relationships.
The main issue in RPG designs approach is the ultimate simplicity of relaying your action verbally rather than in the constraints of code or spaces or through material means. The devestating effect of this ultimate possibility is that many players cannot hack it, so they quit playing in the near-infinite realm of complex interactions that occur due to free dictation of action based on circumstance, and instead cling to the numbers and assigned value in an attempt to ground the possibilities.
The numbers can be manipulated to optimization near always, and so the player creates a simple interaction like firing a crossbow every round of combat because the math keeps them from thinking too hard.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Benjamin Cusack

Depends:

-The person who fires the crossbow because that's their level of engagement at the momen ( http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-much-do-you-want-to-be-wizard_15.html ) is fine. I bear them no ill-will.

-The person who assumes that that is "the game" and that any other action is somehow avoiding the rules or not playing or a marginal activity not core to the game--this person is not paying attention and, yes, not thinking too hard.



Benjamin Cusack said...

Agreed, the main problem is that differentiating these two groups can be very problematic.
And that is where communicating with players benefits the whole group, with the people knowing who wants to be at what level of complexity or interaction.
Some people want to change their voice and map the dungeon and get invested, while others may want to use Action A for Problem A.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Benjamin Cusack

This is a different--though probably realer and more difficult--conversation.

Managing real players is more important than blinkered theorists on the internet. But, still, the theorists have had an impact.

Eric Rollins said...

World of Warcraft guilds often raid the same dungeon every night. The objective is to maximize the loot haul. Players who refuse to min-max optimize their characters for raiding get un-invited.

Turns out Pathfinder Society convention play is the same thing. Not only have all the other players at the table played the module before, they often have all DMed it before. They are playing again to each get that last bit of loot. The difficulty level of the module is set assuming character min-max optimization with all the supplements, so the party likely wipes if not all the players have done the min-max.

Zak Sabbath said...

@eric rollins

in both cases it seems like men maxing the character is not in anyway a challenge at that point because it seems as if it’s considered to be such common (and shared) knowledge that you can actually make it a requirement.

you can minimax the character without bringing any new insight to the table.

In fact you’re being asked to play on the only mode there is in those setups by doing a bunch of lonely work before coming.

with wow, Do you Sumption is that if you don’t minMax as much as possible you’re creating a situation where you are endangering other peoples’ characters more than you need to And (i tthink) making it less likely they’ll be able to play in the future with those leveled up characters that they like.

with Path society, it sounds like theyve effectively made playing at all highly dependent on -paying a lot of attention to the books or other Path community members- rather than making minmaxing the hard part.

It’s a bit like saying “You cannot eat this specific meal unless you go to this very inconveniet store that we own”— qualifying is simply onerous, not a challenge.

In the wow situation the speed of how you handle your game character and react to events is still the main challenge and i the path society example It still sounds like the real challenge is tactical choices that you make in reaction to what unfolds when you do actually play.

Zak Sabbath said...

*the assumption, not “do you sumption”

Adam said...

You can imagine a game in which 95% of the character builds suck, 5% are great. You have to analyze the game and pick the good one, otherwiese your character will suck. If the difference between the builds that suck and the good ones is big enough, optimizing your character is the central challange of the game.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Adam

Incorrect, because you still have to play--and if it's a typical RPG then play goes on for weeks or months or years.

The people with the sucky builds are experiencing more challenge than the person with the good ones. They have to, in those weeks and months, make many more choices that matter.

While the choice between the 2 kinds of builds is -important in determining which route you go- the -central challenge- (that is: what you spend most of your time doing after that first day) is still playing with that chosen build.

So: please address that.

McCabre said...

There's a lot here, and I'd imagine there's a lot of motivations

"Lonely math" is fun for people who like thinking about dnd by themselves and also doing math at the same time

I'm not really sure what your experience is with real-life nerds is but they have weird social skills. It's not uncommon to see two grown men screaming at each other over interpretations of some rpg rule or another which points to a few probable realities:
Their ability to interact with people requires codification in the form of rules because due to autism spectrum personality traits they find uncertainty unbearable (or uncomfortable and they are weak manchildren). Rules focus causes excessive consumption of rulebooks and optimization is a natural outcome of staring at the system like that

They are highly emotionally invested in the outcome of the story of the game, for reasons good or bad, and view character power as their primary way of influencing that outcome. Making "suboptimal" choices is leaving that power on the table - it can cause a sort of anxiety around it when you're really into the game and don't get to play a lot for whatever reason

Self-esteem issues are common in nerds, and, going back to the role of rules in their worldview, demonstrating understanding is how they might prove their worth to themselves and, possibly others.

I remember getting into it with my dm in my first campaign ever when the rules wouldn't let my ranger take the fighter feat to do more damage with a bow - it didn't even explain what the fighter was doing to be more deadly, he just was because he was a fighter.

Slight aside, but I think it shows a rules-as-representation-of-ideas worldview running up against a rules-as-an-expression-of-game-math design

I'd imagine your characters come in the variety of
Guy you've played a lot
Organically leveled based off what seems neat, what your character got up to, or what might he helpful for the direction of the campaign
Random rolls and then whatever makes the character functional
Neat idea you had and whatever you can take that gets you close or whatever you can convince the DM to let you make up

Basically, you (as in Zak) seem more likely to start with "I wanna play as the pope of the Pig Cult, so I've got like a lord of the flies looking scepter and I can summon feral hogs" or whatever then you go looking for a spell that summons hogs and just make your guy whatever can cast that

Other people just see a bunch of keywords in a rulebook and stack them on a character sheet that says "rogue 10" at the top then kind of add a character to it.

I dunno, I feel like it's just a lot of compulsion borne from staring at game texts and this is the way the eventual drive for productive use of time presents itself. Sometimes it's people enjoying what you describe as lonely math, other times it's an unhealthy compulsion and the people who you're asking are either not honest enough or haven't done enough reflection to tell you that themselves.

McCabre said...

I realize my previous conclusion dead-ends the discussion but you tend to expect a level of intellectual honesty out of conversation that seems unrealistic when the discussion is intended to provoke reflection among a group of people who often don't reflect enough

There's something to be said about the idea of looking up builds on forums and copying them - that this essentially sets the bar for play makes you wonder why they don't just hand these sorts of things out as premades instead of making you waste your time with a bunch of research.

Sometimes people like having a lot of stupid bullshit to gnaw on in a game in between the moments of creativity and expression. I'm a huge fan of fighting games and the community tends to form pockets around certain games based off how much they want to focus on different parts of the "lonely work" aspect of getting good at the game. In the end you can't be a strong competitor without strong actually-playing-another-person skills but a lot of people seem happy to just give people math tests instead of engaging with the human on the other side of the screen and getting a hit of seratonin from knowing they did more video game homework than someone else.

A bit meandering again, but my point is people like to get into places with barriers to entry. Beyond that, watching people fail to clear those hurdles makes some people feel smart and special.

Does it? Probably not, but people bought and wore those stupid magnet bracelets for like a whole decade. People are good at lying to themselves about how they feel.

Carcharoth666 said...

Playing a sub-optimal character does in no way lead to a greater amount of "interesting choices" during actual play. That's just an irrational thing that people who can't be bothered to optimize characters tell themselves. Anything an unoptimized character can do, an optimized one can do better.

It does make it harder, but only for the other players with the optimized characters who are actually putting some effort into playing the game, and not for the unoptimized tourist who will fuck around being a useless waste of space, regardless.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Carcharoth666

You have made a claim but provided no proof.

If someone is trying to stay alive and has a character build that makes that harder (because they are not optimized) how is that -not- harder for that player?

Please answer.

Carcharoth666 said...

You are the one that irrationally claims that charop somehow limits what words can come out of the player's mouth that dictates what his character does, so you are the one that must provide proof for this irrational claim.

"Staying alive"
So charop is only about defensive stats like saveing throws and hit points? Because these are the only numbers that directly affect "staying alive". What about the unoptimized tourist that manages to "stay alive" because the optimized player managed, through skill and luck, kill the monster or disarm the trap, while he sat around "playing hard mode" and being useless?

Your entire argument is irrational and makes no sense.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Carcharoth666

All your points are addressed below. You must answer questions to be allowed to comment, though, so address these in your next comment and answer all questions:

1. I did not claim charop limits what players can -say-. If you accept this, apologize. If you believe I did cut and paste that text.

2. Other numbers can directly affect "staying alive". If you are trying to kill a creature that will kill you if you don't do so quickly, offensive and problem-solving stats matter too.

3. So answer the original question "If someone is trying to stay alive and has a character build that makes that harder (because they are not optimized) how is that -not- harder for that player?"

4. re: The "tourist protector" PC is taking on a challenge then as well. They may or may not enjoy that.

5. re: The "tourist protector". Only if someone both a) chooses to do this AND b) is totally successful have they totally removed the challenge for the unoptimized PC. Address this.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Carcharoth666

Deleted. You can't leave comments without answering questions the other party asked.

You failed immediately, with question #1:
"1. I did not claim charop limits what players can -say-. If you accept this, apologize. If you believe I did cut and paste that text."

You must address that and all others before making statements or asking questions of your own.

This is a place for conversations where people learn things and interact, not just yell. If you want to participate, try harder to be helpful to people who can't read your mind.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Carcharoth666

p.s. It will help to use the numbers--that way everyone reading can follow what you write.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Carcharoth666

Deleted. Misinformation is not allowed on the blog.

An -interrogation- require coercive power: I have no coercive power over you, oh rando.

A -conversation- means you act as if we are at a table in real life: in real life if
a person asks you a question, you either answer it or it'd get real uncomfortable and everyone would stare at you.

The fact this conversation is taking place on the internet allows you to pretend it's not weird to dodge questions you're asked, but it's still not helpful.

So, last chance:

You may help the conversation along by answering the question you were asked, or you can get very excited about your right to not be helpful to anyone and not do that.

You dont' have to wear a covid mask either--no-one can force you. But it might help if you did.

Carcharoth666 said...

"Bloo bloo why don't you directly answer my loaded questions"
One can dodge them just fine in real life. In fact it is a great way to not let someone try to control the conversation like you are trying to do.
You know what you can't do in a polite conversation in real life? Tell someone "agree with me or you lose your voice", namely what you are doing in these comments.

Zak Sabbath said...

@carcharoth666

If you believe the question is "loaded" (I think you mean leading) then state the premise of the question that makes it impossible to answer.

You claimed in an earlier response that -I- claimed charop limits what a player can say. I asked you to cite the place where I said that.

If you have trouble with that question: say -specifically- what the problem is with the question in your next response.

carcharoth666 said...

You said min-maxing limits the number of interesting choices a player has to make. The number of interesting choices a player has to make are only limited by the actions his character can take.
And the actions his character can take are only limited by the words coming out of the player's mouth.
Think harder next time.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Carcharoth666

Ok, thank you for finally answering the question. Here is your confusion:

"You said min-maxing limits the number of interesting choices a player has to make."

This may be what I said, but here's what you said:

"You are the one that irrationally claims that charop somehow limits what words can come out of the player's mouth that dictates what his character does".


That is a totally different sentence with a different meaning.

A -PLAYER- is a human being whose choices include:

-Nongame choices (snacks, etc)
-Character creation choices (which ARE limited in character gen if you're minmaxing, because certain choices are not minmax-friendly for certain builds, just like if you want to fill a box you can't choose to leave a space empty)
and
-Character actions in game (which are NOT limited).

-----


The sentence "min-maxing limits the number of interesting choices a player has to make"
includes
character
generation choices.

The sentence you originally said "charop somehow limits what words can come out of the player's mouth that dictates what his character does"
does
NOT
include
character
generation.

Since "what a character does" is not stuff that happens in character generation.

Do you see the difference?

Your options for response are:

"Yes" (this is the response that agrees with me)

"No" (this is the response that doesn't agree with me)

"I don't understand" (this is the response that does neither).

-----

Your next response must answer that question: Do you see the difference?

Carcharoth666 said...

I see. Then you should have clarified that you are referring to character generation choices *ONLY* and not anything that happens in actual play. By they way, "interesting" choices doesn't sound like it applies to writing things on a character sheet, since that's the part that happens before the game is on, and the interesting things start happening.
Plus, min-maxing isn't necessarily limited to character generation, either. Min-maxing can take the form of choosing to use the most powerful weapon instead of the one you like aesthetically, etc. Your position on this whole thing is mind-numbing and badly thought out, sorry.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Carcharoth666

"Then you should have clarified that you are referring to character generation choices *ONLY* and not anything that happens in actual play."

No. The way I phrased what I said was accurate. That is: by reading the literal words literally, the english meaning of my sentence was accurate.

Even if it was -unclear- to you, you still -assumed- that it applied to a limited field (for no reason) and this assumption lead you to believe it was an irrational statement.

There was the literal interpretation (which is correct) and an imaginary one you made up (which isn't). It's strange you would default to picking the irrational one and then not bother to ask if it was what I meant

You must never -assume- a negative thing without first asking a question.

So: Since you did that thing, you can now apologize for making your assumption.

Once you apologize for making a negative assumption about what I wrote without asking a clarifying question first, we can move on to all the other things you said.

If you're not rational enough to do that, we'll have to stop talking to each other.

Carcharoth666 said...

No the way you phrased what you said was not accurate. Talking about player choices in general isn't the same as talking about character generation choices in particular. If a restaurant's bottled water tastes bad you don't go around saying that their menu items taste bad. It is techinally correct, but misleading. Your way of arguing is frustrating.

Zak Sabbath said...

@Carcharoth666

It's difficult for me to tell.

Could you please -cut- and then -paste- the text I wrote that you believe is misleading. It will save time.

If you can't, then I won't be sure I know what you're talking about and we won't be able to continue.