OK, I think I have found a clearer, more analytical way to express the problem here.

There are several questions one could ask vis-à-vis Capes, such as:
1. What are the official rules?
2. Why did Tony use rule X in making the game instead of rule Y?
3. What would be the effect of adding house rule Z be?
4. Would that effect be desirable?
5. Should someone be judged, disparaged, denounced, or scorned based on their answer to the above question?

I think that we should be vigorously discussing and debating  the first four questions.

I think that anyone who answers yes to the fifth is no longer talking about how to use Capes to have recreational fun, he is talking about how superior he is to those he judges.

Discussing why the answer to the fifth question is yes is inappropriate I feel to these forums.  If I were the moderator I would not permit it, as I feel that it is entirely off topic.

But if it were to be discussed, I would say that anyone who answers yes to the fifth question:

• is judgmental and intolerant
• has personality issues
• has an Agenda beyond helping people use Capes to have fun, namely trying to get his philosophy into other peoples’ heads
• is not permitting Capes to be used purely for recreation

Bottom line: when the subject of house rules and other mods come up, one should feel free to say that house rule Z will not have the effect you think it will, or that house rule Z causes an effect that I prefer to not partake of in Capes.

One should never say, “It is the mark of a child.”  One should never disparage someone for playing the game differently.  One should never put someone down because what is fun in Capes for them is different.

That statement is not about Capes.  It’s about how superior one feels onself to be for how one chooses to play Capes.

I don’t know if Tony, as the moderator of this forum, will take a stand against this sort of thing.  He seems to me to be one of the main perpetrators, so I think it may be unlikely.

But whoever is reading this, if we can keep our discussions about questions 1-4, and simply refuse to attack each other with question 5, then I think the forum will become both more pleasant and more functional.

The only attacks that make sense to me are on those who have already attacked and continue to attack us by answering “yes” to question 5.  Then it’s just a matter of self-defense.

Thanks.

There are several questions one could ask vis-à-vis Capes, such as:
1. What are the official rules?
2. Why did Tony use rule X in making the game instead of rule Y?
3. What would be the effect of adding house rule Z be?
4. Would that effect be desirable?

Tuxboy wrote:

There are several questions one could ask vis-à-vis Capes, such as:
1. What are the official rules?
2. Why did Tony use rule X in making the game instead of rule Y?
3. What would be the effect of adding house rule Z be?
4. Would that effect be desirable?

These questions miss out a couple of important points:

3a. What is the justification behind introducing house rule Z?
3b. Is house rule Z required to produce the effect?

Changes could effect the gaming experience, so I like to know the reasoning behind a proposed change so it can be discussed openly and without assumptions, which even with the best intentions can cause issues if the assumption is incorrect.

I will be the first to note you have restated exactly what you said in the other thread, Sindyr, and have still failed to indicate you understand any of the criticisms levelled at this response over there. Yes, people should not blindly attack other people's fun. No one is arguing that with you.

They are arguing against the claim that everyone is just defending their fun, when that is not the case, and that all criticism of such disguised behaviors is judgmental, intolerant or unnecessary. Simply, you are still attacking something Tony did not argue, and still defending an untenable position (because you claim you have the moral high ground when you do not; in its current form, your argument is unfalsifiable and thus no ground of any sort except shiftable).

greyorm wrote:
I will be the first to note you have restated exactly what you said in the other thread, Sindyr, and have still failed to indicate you understand any of the criticisms levelled at this response over there. Yes, people should not blindly attack other people's fun. No one is arguing that with you.

They are arguing against the claim that everyone is just defending their fun, when that is not the case, and that all criticism of such disguised behaviors is judgmental, intolerant or unnecessary. Simply, you are still attacking something Tony did not argue, and still defending an untenable position (because you claim you have the moral high ground when you do not; in its current form, your argument is unfalsifiable and thus no ground of any sort except shiftable).

The only thing I would suggest is asking what is the purpose or goal behind introducing house rule Z, as opposed to the justification, as asking for justifications can slide into a my way good your way bad sort of thing that runs smack into a type 5 question.

We can, however, discuss whether or not it achieves the stated purpose or goal.  We simply do not tell someone else that their goal or purpose is bad in and of itself, just that it will have certain effects.  If those effects are desirable to them, then we would *want* them to use house rule Z - even if we ourselves would do no such thing.

Sindyr:  You want us to respect your right to hold your opinions.  We do.  Nobody is telling you not to hold your opinions.  Indeed, people are asking you to hold them more forcefully, and to defend them.

You want us to respect your right to play the game according to your opinons.  We do.  Nobody is telling you that you can't play the game that way.  Indeed, people are asking you about the details of how such play worked out.

You want us to respect your opinions, whether sensible or silly, just as much as we respect any other opinion just because you are a human being and you hold the opinion.  We do NOT, nor do you have any right to expect that of us.

If you put forth an idea which I think is stupid and misguided I am not obligated to treat it as enlightened wisdom.  I can (and will) look at it and say "Man, that's stupid and misguided."

Your recourse to that is not to say "Tony's thinks my idea is stupid!  That inherently means he must be wrong!"  On the contrary, if the idea is stupid it would sort of be natural for me to hold that opinion, wouldn't it?  Bitching and moaning about how judgmental I'm being will do precisely zero towards making me respect your idea ... and it's only "zero," rather than "negative" because I'm a very patient person.

Your recourse, if you really, really need me to respect your idea, is to earn it by making an argument for your idea that convinces me.  Nothing else is going to work.

Not only will I not take a stand against being judgmental regarding people's ideas, I will go on record right here and now taking a stand for being judgmental.  I want people to judge each other's opinions, to weigh them and consider them, and if they find them wanting to say so.  I firmly believe that it will lead to more productive and polite discourse.

Sindyr wrote:
I think that anyone who answers yes to the fifth is no longer talking about how to use Capes to have recreational fun, he is talking about how superior he is to those he judges.

Well, thank goodness I am made of stronger stuff - if not a single reader can see or embrace what I am positing, I will not wilt and die.  I will be disappointed in some folks, but I do not fear being in the minority - I am quite used to it.  I almost see it as a badge of courage and intelligence.  Almost.

Anyways, at least I have put out there some good stuff.  What other people take from it is out of my hands.

Plus, now I have a way to escape being drawn into Type 5 questions which sap lost of energy and are not helpful to me as I investigate matters of the other types (1-4).

I will throw out one more morsel, not because I think it will succeed where all my efforts in the past haven't, but because it just occurred to me.

I created an authorship mod. We employed it in our game.  Everyone was happy, and everyone had fun.

If a group of like-minded people want to play a variant of Capes that includes this rule, and if they are relatively certain that playing with this variant will be much more fun than playing without it, then in what way is anyone entitled to fault these players for so doing?  In what way is anyone entitled to claim that their own style of play is in anyway superior to the way my group plays?

I can only assume that whatever reason, damage, or blindness that caused all my previous efforts to fail will block this latest attempt at evoking clarity.

drnuncheon wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
I think that anyone who answers yes to the fifth is no longer talking about how to use Capes to have recreational fun, he is talking about how superior he is to those he judges.

I think you've got an entire post here talking about how you are superior to the people you are judging.

J

TonyLB wrote:
Not only will I not take a stand against being judgmental regarding people's ideas, I will go on record right here and now taking a stand for being judgmental.  I want people to judge each other's opinions, to weigh them and consider them, and if they find them wanting to say so.  I firmly believe that it will lead to more productive and polite discourse.

Tuxboy wrote: Purpose and justification are different things. Lets just replace both questions with:

Why is house rule Z required to produce the effect?

Actually, Sindyr, he hasn't said that at all.  At least I can't find it anywhere in his recent posts.  In fact, he's actually refuted what you claim he's said.

TonyLB wrote:
And, just to be clear:  I have no objections to people who know that they can play inviolate or vulnerable and choose to play inviolate for whatever reason.  If you know that the magic feather is just a feather, but it's a jaunty feather, who's gonna object?  I got no objection to a spiffy looking feather, just to the delusional reliance on it.

Sindyr: here's the situation from the other side.  Since you like analogies and all.

Tony's made us a mighty fine exercise bike.  It's got a TV screen on it that shows a simulated road, some nice scenery, and t's got some wicked hills that really make you work.  We're all pedaling along.

You come along. "Hey, this exercise bike, it's great, but this place where you can choose whether to turn left or right?  The left road is better, so why wouldn't you always choose that?  Aren't you worried about people going in circles all night?"

"Well, you might want a change of scenery, or a different route..."

"But if the other route is better, why wouldn't you choose it?  And look here - someone might fall off of the seat and hurt themselves. It should have a seat belt to protect them."

We all look at each other.  Nobody's ever fallen off, and if they're likely to spontaneously fall off of an exercise bike then maybe they shouldn't be riding one in the first place.

"And I'm worried I might strain a muscle on it.  Why don't we take out the part where it gets tougher to pedal when you're going uphill?"

"That's just weak.  You're never going to get any exercise that way."

"Don't be judgemental!"

J

Gaerik wrote:
You're arguing against something he never said.

But, really, who cares?  Because there are two cases where I can hold all other factors equal:  Myself before I try to play vulnerable characters and myself after I try it.  If we assume that my skill at playing inviolate characters stays exactly the same (again, a point that might merit debate) then I am a better roleplayer after expanding my horizons than I was before doing so.  I've improved.

So I worry that you're missing a crucial point here:  I'm not saying that, if you cling to the notion of inviolate characters, you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with me.  I'm saying that you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with what you could be.

I think that the crux of the mistake that I perceive you to be making.  Inferior is the wrong word, with entirely the wrong denotations and connotations.

Is someone who can play golf well inferior to some who can play golf *and* tennis well?  Of course not.  Perhaps if they were to play tennis badly, then you could say that their tennis skill was inferior, but you certainly can't say that they as a person are inferior.

Perhaps if we just adjust the language to something more appropriate we will come to a meeting of the minds.  Any of the below I find acceptable and probably true:

If I do not enjoy playing Capes without inviolate characters, my ability to play Capes will not be as versatile as if I did.
-or-
If I do not play Capes without inviolate characters, I will not have experienced as much of Capes as a could have.
-or-
If I do not enjoy playing Capes without inviolate characters, I will not be find as many kinds of fulfillment in Capes as if I did.

If any one of those three things are your point, then I understand, and agree.

But I don't consider someone an inferior sportsman just because he plays fewer games than he could.  Narrowly focused does not equate to inferior, and widely focused doesn't not equate to superior.

It only equates to versatility.

Are we on the same page now?

Sindyr,

You're still equating two things that aren't the same.  You seem to like doing that a lot.

I'm going to bow out of any more dialogue with you on this subject and let Tony deal with it, if he cares to.  It's become obvious to me from reading this and other threads that you are being intentionally obdurate and no amount of actual debate will ever sway you in your opinion.  I've got better things to do with my time than pound my head against that wall.  I'll stick to just the threads on actual rules and play.

Gaerik wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
Burning one's hand on a hot stove is not the only way to learn not to do that.

We aren't even talking about the same thing here.  Of course you don't have to burn yourself on a hot stove to learn that it's hot.  It's not even remotely like what I was talking about.  Let me give an example...

You:  I prefer Peach Pie to Apple Pie.
Me:  Have you even eaten Apple Pie?
You:  No.  But I've seen people eat Apple Pie and it doesn't look good.  I prefer Peach.

Your football example above is closer to what I'm saying.  At least in it you are basing your preference on some relevant experience.  You don't like pain.  You don't like to sweat.  You don't like physical exhaustion.  You don't like some of the components of football, so you don't like football.  Fine.  I still think it's bullshit but that's up to you.  At least it's based on some experience.  I don't like any of those things either but I still like football because the activity is more than the sum of its component parts.

Gaerik wrote:
Sindyr,

You're still equating two things that aren't the same.  You seem to like doing that a lot.

I'm going to bow out of any more dialogue with you on this subject and let Tony deal with it, if he cares to.  It's become obvious to me from reading this and other threads that you are being intentionally obdurate and no amount of actual debate will ever sway you in your opinion.  I've got better things to do with my time than pound my head against that wall.  I'll stick to just the threads on actual rules and play.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
No we are not.  We are talking about someone who could choose to do something, and doesn't, because its not fun.

Wasn't that always what we were talking about?

No, it wasn't.  You originally asked:

Sindyr wrote:
Is someone who can play golf well inferior to some who can play golf *and* tennis well?

My answer remains:  Yes, all other things (including skill at golf, sportsmanship and sex appeal) being equal, someone who can play golf and tennis is a better athlete than someone who can only play golf.

Likewise, all other things being equal, someone who can play inviolate and vulnerable characters is a better roleplayer than someone who can only play inviolate.

Sindyr,

You can obviously play Capes with whatever house rules and modifications you want. Obviously, the RPG Police won't come to your door and haul you away. Obviously, Tony won't show up and your house and kick your cat because you didn't play the game the way he wrote it.

But if you think you--or me, or anyone else--can post in the official Capes forum about playing with modified rules and not be judged--and possibly questioned, pushed, prodded, and maybe even scorned--then you're being silly. By posting in this forum, you are inviting people to question you, to judge you, to push you and prod you. And as the creator of the game, you shouldn't be surprised at all if Tony says, "You're playing how? Well, I personally don't think you should play it that way, and if you do, you're on your own. Don't expect official support." Heck, I've seen other game designers say similar things when people talk about changing the rules of their game.

If you feel like you're being put in the spotlight--you are. You've walked into a public forum. In public forums, people are judged, questioned, pushed and prodded by their peers. All things are not equal. All opinions are not equal. And if Tony or anyone else gives you a reaction that bothers you...you can always ignore them. But you can't post here--and neither can I--without being judged.

Joshua -

spot on!  As far as I can see, you are exactly right. 

We are all judged by others, every time we open our mouths.

My point is not that it doesn't happen, but that one should never claim that someone who enjoys diverse games is superior to one who enjoys fewer.  And one should also never claim that what one find fun makes one superior to someone who finds something else fun.

Some judgements are necessary, some are asked for, and some, even if unasked for, must be made.

And some should not be.

If I post how much I like bubblegum ice cream over vanilla, any who judge me inferior or lacking, or at fault, are simply wrong to do so.

That's all

Sindyr wrote:
Joshua -

spot on!  As far as I can see, you are exactly right. 

We are all judged by others, every time we open our mouths.

My point is not that it doesn't happen, but that one should never claim that someone who enjoys diverse games is superior to one who enjoys fewer.  And one should also never claim that what one find fun makes one superior to someone who finds something else fun.

Some judgements are necessary, some are asked for, and some, even if unasked for, must be made.

And some should not be.

If I post how much I like bubblegum ice cream over vanilla, any who judge me inferior or lacking, or at fault, are simply wrong to do so.

That's all

Than you haven't made it yet.

joshua wrote: You can obviously play Capes with whatever house rules and modifications you want. Obviously, the RPG Police won't come to your door and haul you away. Obviously, Tony won't show up and your house and kick your cat because you didn't play the game the way he wrote it.

dunlaing wrote:
Depends where Sindyr lives. I tried to play Capes with a GM and Tony came over and kicked my cat. She still runs into the basement whenever someone knocks on the door.

Sindyr wrote:
Than you haven't made it yet.

Sindyr wrote: Than you haven't made it yet.

Hey, Joshua ... if someone insults Sindyr then I'm gonna be all over it like ugly on an ape.

If somebody says that his arguments are stupid and juvenile, on the other hand, I got no problem with that.

greyorm wrote:
Tony, as a public service, put a stop to this already; it should be obvious at this juncture that you have two bear-pits on your hands.

TonyLB wrote:
Hey, Joshua ... if someone insults Sindyr then I'm gonna be all over it like ugly on an ape.

If somebody says that his arguments are stupid and juvenile, on the other hand, I got no problem with that.

Well, y'know, there is some truth to the concern.  If I say (as I have) that some people are acting in a way that is childish ... I am saying that they are people who (at least sometimes) act in a childish way.

Sorta hard not to, y'know?  In fact, it is impossible to say anything about anyone's opinions without implying that they are the type of person who would hold such opinions.

In theory there's really no line between saying that and saying "You're ugly and your momma dresses you funny," but in practice I think I can (the vast majority of the time) discern between insulting someone's person and insulting their opinion.

TonyLB wrote:
Well, y'know, there is some truth to the concern.  If I say (as I have) that some people are acting in a way that is childish ... I am saying that they are people who (at least sometimes) act in a childish way.

Sorta hard not to, y'know?  In fact, it is impossible to say anything about anyone's opinions without implying that they are the type of person who would hold such opinions.

In theory there's really no line between saying that and saying "You're ugly and your momma dresses you funny," but in practice I think I can (the vast majority of the time) discern between insulting someone's person and insulting their opinion.

TonyLB wrote: Rev., you're acting like I have a problem with bear-pits.  On the contrary, I find these threads immensely entertaining and amusing.