>OP: "thing"
>Dummy: "depends on the setting"
>"depends on the setting" basically translates into "depends on many different factors"
>he justs says that "it depends on factors", and doesn't elaborate on specifics, and how those factors specifically influence a thing
No one wants a mathematician's answer. If you want to meme, at least put effort into it, so you won't look like assholes.
>>48013393
> If you want to meme, at least put effort into it, so you won't look like assholes.
Depends on the poster.
>>48013420
This doesn't make evwn a modicum of sense. Care to put some effort and rephrase that word salad you got?
If there's no established setting, there's no answer that could possibly be worth giving. It's up to the OPs to specify, because no real generic genre settings exist.
>>48013483
Actually, you could easily give an answer for your own setting, or give some thoughts on the matter.
I've done it many times. It's not hard, and often forms interesting conversation, and also introduced me to mutants and masterminds.
>>48013483
I thought people assumed dnd 3.5 was the default
>>48013393
>elaborate on specifics, and how those factors specifically influence a thing
So you're expecting anons to go into pointless rambling detail, most of which will be wasted because it's irrelevant to OP, all because OP was too lazy and stupid to be more specific in their question?
Fuck off. I know you're only "pretending" to be retarded, but you're still a piece of shit.
>>48013555
That's a game system, not a setting.
>>48013534
>I've done it many times.
Yes, because you want to drone on about your own setting and will take any excuse to do so.
>>48013393
Guaranteed 200 replies thread
>>48013593
>Fuck discussing settings or /tg/ things!
>I just want to snark about things and pat myself on the back about how witty I am for not contributing!
God forbid you have to hear about a setting you hadn't before and maybe like it.
>>48013393
The idea that you have to discuss specific settings and can't answer a question with discussion on how it is answered in numerous settings is one of the leading causes of general culture.
Every time someone says "depends on the setting" and demands the OP specify one, they are effectively saying "I want threads to be about one system only with no cross contamination to further encourage tribalism"
>>48013393
Depends on the question.
>>48013534
>Actually, you could easily give an answer for your own setting
Because that's not what the question was. If OP wants to hear about shit in your setting, they should damn well phrase their question properly.
>>48013658
If they left it generalist, then they did phrase the question properly.
>>48013567
>>48013658
This and this.
OP's defending lazy OPs, because he most likely is one.
>>48013658
>>48013694
>>48013567
Goddamn, you guys will take any excuse to not contribute these days, won't you?
This is getting to extreme levels of finnicky choosiness about what you will grace with your legitimate conversation.
>>48013580
True but maybe everytime someone asks a vague lore question we should answer as if he's talking about forgotten realms. I hear there is enough lore to cover it too.
>>48013778
I usually answer it for whatever system has my fancy.
It works out pretty well.
>>48013705
>Goddamn, you guys will take any excuse to not contribute these days, won't you?
No one on 4chan has an obligation to contribute anything.
>>48013847
>You can't make me be a productive member of the community!
>>48013393
>I ask vague questions and when I get vague answers, it makes me mad!
Don't make shitty threads, OP. Learn how to ask specific questions and you won't get answers like "Depends on the setting." Because when you specify the setting your question is about, no one can say "Depends on the setting." It's like ya know... Common fucking sense.
>>48013859
>You can't make me be a productive member of the community!
You literally can't.
>>48013890
Shame on you for having that takeaway from this.
>>48013887
shit,
>>48013638
was right on the money.
>>48013705
Vague questions get vague answers. I see no problem with this. There's nothing extreme about the response "There are a lot of kinds of 'dwarf'; what exactly are you looking for here, OP?", because there ARE a lot of kinds of dwarf. Admittedly, the exact response "Depends on the setting." is a rather passive aggressive one, but it's no less accurate. A 'wizard' could be any of literally dozens, if not scores, of basic ideas. >>48013638 has it, unsurprisingly, literally backwards: the pleading need for a basic communal understanding and agreement on what a 'wizard' or a 'dwarf' or whatever is is a DESPERATE need for tribalism, the exact kind of need that drives people to form subcultures to begin with. "We all agree a wizard is this at its core, because we all have the same basic context" is a plea for sameness.
On the other hand, passive aggressive responses aren't much use either. Simply vomiting snide rebuttals gains no one anything except for a clear, defined sense of superiority, a particular breed of dominance that is one of the few of its kind available in this modern age of nuance.
This doesn't make the similar reply of "That is a vague question, please explain better what you are looking for" passive aggressive, though; trying to engage with the OP and actually foster discussion is one of the primary purposes of this board to begin with, and calling someone out for exercising that kind of will to interface is ridiculous.
tl;dr Everyone's an asshole, but we're all assholes in different ways.
>>48013937
I dunno,
>>48013638
seems completely accurate, as demanding a one-system thread means that there will be little to no cross contamination, effectively making the thread an (X-system) general.
>>48013393
Someone's angry his shitty question got shitty answers.
>>48013658
>>48013694
>>48013705
You all god damn know the OPs in question are just trying to bait anyway.
>>48014034
No, anon.
I feel like they are trying to get a discussion started.
Not all light discussion starters are bait, anon.
>>48013966
No one's demanding a one system thread. The answer 'depends on the setting' isn't saying 'we should be talking about Forgotten Realms wizards, not Dragonlance Wizards', it's saying 'I have no real answer to that question because there are literally hundreds of answers to that question'. It's a passive aggressive way of saying 'please write a better question because the question you just asked amounts to 'what color scales does a fish have'.'
>>48014064
>write a better question
With the tacit implication that a "better" question would involve specific system.
Thus, being a demand for one-system threads.
>>48014064
but anon, "what color of scales does a fish have" is a valid question and fish discussion starter.
All sorts. Some even have GLOWING scales. Check it out!
>>48014077
No, that's idiotic. Make your question, state your setting, then people can talk about other settings. It almost always pans out that way.
>>48014141
But anon, the same thing happens if you don't specify a setting, with the exception that a few hipsters will come in to snark about depends on the setting, pat themselves on the back, and leave.
And happens more reliably, since you prevent the one-system-thread trap.
>>48014108
That's the problem when you're an optimist willing to work for conversation surrounded by lazy, picky pessimists.
>>48014153
Jesus christ. Have you considered that people sometimes ask questions because it's relevant information and not because they want to actively undermine a thread?
>>48014172
I'm not talking about people asking questions, I'm talking about people giving canned snark responses like some kind of badly written sitcom character.
>>48014187
If I make a thread saying "coffee smells like chocolate", is it wrong to say it depends on the specific type of coffee? It's a non-issue. You're simply interpreting a completely innocuous question as people being assholes because you apparently can't fathom how being more specific could nurture discussion. Or, god forbid, it could lead to the WRONG type of discussion.
>>48014077
...no, a better question would be, for example "What are wizards like in your setting?", "How old are most of the wizards you guys play?", "How do you feel about modern wizards against fantasy-setting wizards?", "Do you guys tend to use wizard towers in your campaigns, or do you prefer to use arcane colleges, or both? Why?", "How isolated are wizards in your setting?", "What was the last kind of wizard you played?", "How prominent do people like to have their wizardly orders be?", "How do people usually view wizards in your campaigns?".
Please note, I'm only talking about OP questions that are miserably vague. Anyone responding with 'depends on the setting' to a question like the above is just being an ass, but we both know that people post OPs like "My dwarf just got a quest to deal with a wizard, wat do" all the god damn time, and those kinds of questions are useless.
Hell, the OP of this thread itself never even specified the kind of threads that they see 'depends on the setting' in; it's almost like OP was deliberately vague, and created two 'opposing' sides of an argument that probably actually agree.
>>48014108
See, but there's the thing. No one replies with "Depends on the setting" answers to:
>Fish Thread
Hey guys, I'm doing an Aquatic game for my group soon and I need more ideas for my fish! What are some radical fish colors and designs? Also, fish discussion, go!
But they give passive aggressive "Depends on the setting" answers to a retarded image of an anime fish with the OP just:
>What color scales do fish have?
Like everyone has been trying to point out for most of the thread, it's not the question that's asked, it's about HOW the question is asked and how much information is provided to better refine the answer.
>>48014217
Anon, your example is the definition of strawmanning, as you take the asking a vague question idea to a ludicrous extreme by not even having it be a grammatically correct sentence.
Though, that aside, I'm fine with people asking questions, since you can give the answer "whatever system you are into right now".
>>48013966
People complaining about this stupid variety of OP aren't asking for the thread to be about just one setting.
For instance, consider the following:
Instead of asking
>What do wizards do? Should they be better than fighters at everything, or just most things? Why don't they just take over the world?
say
>What roles and powers do magic-users have in your games? Is there a setting you thought had an interesting take on them, or a particular way you've liked to use them in your own settings? How did it handle the power balance between magic-users and non-magic-users, and what- if anything -stopped them from just running the world? I know it varies depending on what kind of setting you want, so just share something you liked or thought was interesting.
Not only is this completely immune to the depends-on-the-setting problem, but it's actually less specific to an implied setting than the D&D-ish assumptions of the first OP.
>>48014242
I've seen "depends on the setting" answers to shit like the example you posted.
They're EXTREMELY picky little bastards, and demand their discussion be handed to them on a silver platter.
>>48014252
those are the same questions, just in the second example you made yourself sound more self important and talk down to the reader like they are unable to form conclusions on their own.
>>48014240
I like those vague questions. They lead to good discussion about various types of dwarf and wizard.
I guess I have the inborn power to insert "in your setting" to vague questions, as it is strongly implied by not specifying a setting.
>>48013859
>>48013890
I'm usually productive, it justdepends on the setting
>>48014323
>not being productive regardless of setting
Get with the PROGRAM, dweeb
>>48014245
>>48014264
Ah, I understand now. You fixate on this because by some unquantifiable property, the very specific fact that discussions on /tg/ don't always progress to vague question to each person giving several diffeernet answers, to people giving specific answers once the meta-discussion is over all while putting an active effort to keep it going regardless of the amount of interest they have on the topic, irks you to the point you literally go around complaining that people want "the discussion to be handed to them" because they don't always follow that order.
>>48013593
I'd rather someone do that than give one of the most pointless non-answers out there.
>>48013393
"depends on setting"
means OP should specify what setting(s) he wants to know about so that anon doesn't have to answer the question for hundreds of different settings you fucking RETARD
>>48014342
Jesus christ, use periods occasionally you smug cunt.
>>48014369
Ok.
>>48014365
What do you do when the OP wants answers from many settings, and is OK with your "useless" brainstorming?
You know, because it's part of the creative process.
>>48014282
The first can be answered with "depends on the setting", because it's asking a question about what is correct.
The second can't, because it's asking a question about what you liked or thought was interesting. I was trying to make that as obvious as possible.
Of course they're asking the same thing. That's the point.
>>48013393
Depends on the thread.
>>48014391
>We both know they are asking the same thing, but I think "depends on the setting" is okay with one of them because it's fine to be a pedantic asshole
Whatever happened to attempting to be a good conversationalist?
You have two ways to control how the OP behaves.
You can use legitimate discussion to guide them towards being more informed and improve the board as a whole.
Or you can shitpost about it, and lower general board quality.
This holds true for most, if not all, problems like this. I'm sure if I thought hard enough I could find exceptions, but I'm not going to.
>>48014309
Sure, and that's your preference. A lot of people have a different preference. A point of rebuttal: what would you lose when someone made the question less vague? What would you, yourself, lose by being slightly more specific in the framing of your questions?
>>48014412
It's never been a thing on a informalsetting
Even less so on 4chan. I don't know why you would ever expect it
I was never one of those people who would answer "depends on the setting" most of the time, but now I'm going to do it a lot more just to watch all the butthurt anons in this thread get even more buttblasted.
>>48014439
exactly as much as someone would lose by a thread being too vague for their preference.
Exactly one thread of possibly productive conversation.
That's why it's not worth it to ever drop into a thread you don't like to shitpost.
>>48013393
Getting tired of a meme here an oldie but goldie.
OP is a faggot.
Seriously people really should put system and setting in alot of these questions.
>>48013451
depends on the salad
>>48014452
I at least would expect people to hide that they are not trying to be good members of the board.
I'm gonna take a different approach to this nonsense.
After seeing "Depends on the setting", repeated endlessly, I've noticed a few OPs add "in your setting" to the end of their post.
Those anons are alright chaps for avoiding all this crap.
>>48014477
People usually don't try to be good or bad members of 4chan. The main draw it's that the site is responsibility-free, no questions asked by virtue of being completely anonymous. I would get your point if this was a serious forum
>>48014505
It's a sad necessity to deal with all the argumentative pedants we have on this board.
Nobody does the implication and innuendo anymore.
>>48014282
If reading that made you feel talked down to, you probably have self esteem issues.
>>48014526
>not trying to be a good member of a non-serious forum
Come on, people try to be basically good, right?
Riiight?
>>48014526
I wouldn't concede the point, he doesn't have one. You're being too nice.
>>48014540
I think the need to over-explain everything and tack on "in your setting" when it should be understood implies some issues with basic human conversation.
It's like these people have never made small talk before.
>>48014386
>What do you do when the OP wants answers from many settings
If he specifies that then I will attempt to do so to the best of my ability if I can be bothered.
But ask nebulous questions and get nebulous answers.
>>48014561
I think "come on guys, at least try to be good posters" is a fair point.
>>48014567
Small talk is mostly an automatic thing done out of politeness, not an ideal people pursue as a scale model of human interaction
>>48014583
Ideally, nebulous questions should be answered with numerous specific answers, as each anon gives an answer to the best of his ability in his area of specialization. You know, take advantage of the varied community a large site like this has.
>>48014583
>But ask nebulous questions and get nebulous answers.
yeah i agree
the more effort you put into your thread the more effort people will put into their answers
if you said "in dragonlance, how do you feel about this political plot hook i've drawn for this group" you'd get some pretty specific answers
but having some anime pic and one line of greentext only warrants a report and hide
>>48014605
It's still a very low hurdle that these people have stated they are not willing to attempt to jump.
>>48014567
>It's like these people have never made small talk before
Not everyone here spent half their life socializing with people, you know. It all depends on the person.
>>48014630
Anon, don't abuse the report system like that.
If you know it won't get deleted, don't report it. It just spams up the report channels and distracts the janitors and mods from actual problems.
>>48014543
Remember when /tg/ was good?
>>48014607
Do you ask yourself "What is the ideal answer I can give to this question based on the current context?" before giving any answer?
>>48014652
I try to, assuming I have the presence of mind.
I'll settle for "pretty good" in most cases, though.
>>48014652
Doesn't everyone?
>>48014648
i didn't think of it that way, you're right
>>48014649
Yes, but then again, there are always the people who insist everything is bad who will disagree with me.It's still good, even though parts of it may miff me as they are counterproductive
>>48014607
>Ideally, nebulous questions should be answered with numerous specific answers
I disagree.
When it comes to fiction people can know a lot of contradictory things about one subject.
>Where do wizards get their magic from?
I could probably go through a dozen settings explaining where each branch of wizard within gets their powers, but I do not want to waste my time on such a post when the question is so shit. Even if I did I do not know if any of what I wrote is anything the OP is actually interested in. If he specifies a setting of interest then I can do better work and he will get better results.
If he wants a scatter shot answer then he should ask something like
>What is your favourite way for wizards to get magic, what is your least?
>>48013393
Ya'll ever hear of the phrase "put garbage in, get garbage out?"
Applies to Internet forums as well as computers.
>>48014717
I am glad we can at least agree on responsible reporting practices.
Though, it can go awry if you and everyone else in a thread are CERTAIN one guy is going against the rules, but he gets off on a technicality.
>>48014461
This is literally what I do.
>>48014688
>>48014671
Most people don't. It's at most an unconscious decision that goes with the natural flow of a discussion, which are almost never made mostly in a state of self-awareness. This shouldn't even need to be stated and at this point I'm pretty sure you're keeping this back-and-forth going for humblebrags
In this thread, we have two parties.
The realists, and the idealists.
They aren't very compatible.
>>48014773
I dunno anon, trying to think of an appropriate answer to the question is pretty much universal to working conversations.
And is a functional synonym with trying to find the ideal response.
>>48014505
I'll give you a simple and easy example for why "depends on the setting" is the best answer to a question: good necromancy.
>>48013393
RTFM
>>48014776
It's a remarkably civil disagreement though.
>>48014771
>>48014461
>people who do things specifically to make other people mad
Bad. Bad anons.
>>48013555
Once upon a time, when /tg/ was still young, everyone assumed 3.x generic fantasy land was the default. Then the edition wars came, and /tg/ ceased to be a near monolithic collection of nerds with exactingly similar interests. 'Twas the beginning of the end.
>>48014567
I think getting an inferiority complex over a hypothetical post on an anonymous image board implies some issues with basic human interraction.
>>48014827
>muh Greyhawk
Most people point to low-effort DMs importing the usual D&D pantheon as evidence that most games of D&D take place in Greyhawk.
>>48014802
>And is a functional synonym with trying to find the ideal response.
"Appropiate" isn't synonymous with ideal. I don't answer "Elephant" when people ask me what my favorite flavor of ice cream is. That is not appropiate. If I say "I'm not sure", that's appropiate but not ideal. If I could say something like "vanilla" without stopping to ponder on the ice creams I'm most fond of, which is an amount of effort I'm not going to put for that kind of small talk, as minuscule as it may be, that would be ideal.
>>48014858
Restating your point doesn't really change anything, anon.
>>48014874
I am going to save us both a VERY long discussion on the meanings of words and bow out of this specific line of discussion, as we're both going to come out of it unconvinced of the other parties arguments.
>>48014879
I know, I'm still right.
>>48013393
Well, people want to know if the OP wants D&D info (which he should just google if he does) or non-D&D information (which users can share).
Why put effort into describing the Elves/Dwarves/Halflings of an obscure small-press Vietnamese RP setting if OP just wants TSR/WOTC "canon"?
Even within D&D there are some wildly divergent areas that require additional details (cf. Ravenloft, and Dark Sun).
>>48014893
That would be the whole post and not one line, but fine.
>>48014821
Well, really, who is going to start shitposting about the conversation?
The realists?
The idealists?
Neither are likely to do that.
Like, maybe some shitposting might be coming from people who want to just make guys mad, but they're not the prime, uh... what's the word. For the sides that are most active in a conflict.
Belligerents? Is that it?
>>48014631
'Small talk' is not a hurdle. 'Small talk' is the kinds of conversation you have to reinforce tribal togetherness, quite literally. It's deliberately vague, deliberately background, and deliberately irrelevant. The whole point of small talk is to have, at worst, tiny, unimportant disagreements that you can essentially 'agree to disagree' on because you're all operating from the same basic understanding of Thing.
That's the point of contention in this thread. People with OP's point of view act as though there is some consensus basis that is the standard from which these discussions begin, thus any vagaries in the question can be waved away because 'you know what I meant', because we all have the same basic understanding of these topics, right guys?
When someone says 'wizard', the first thing that comes to mind for me is Raistlin Majere. For another anon, it could just as easily be Elminster, Gandalf or Merlin. NONE of these characters have anything in common other than Knowing A Lot Of Things, Most Of Them Old (and, frankly, Raistlin doesn't really fit that shoe very well). None of these characters use magic the same way, none of them have similar social inclinations, none of them have similar character arcs, but they're all deeply archetypal characters of the type 'wizard'.
Hell, even if everyone answered 'Merlin', they might all be thinking of completely different characters.
The point I'm trying to make here is this: the less you make assumptions, and the less you lean on the social contract, the more actual discussion you'll end up having. While I understand the point you're trying to make (a vague question will lead to numerous, varied responses that will coalesce into (potentially multiple) varied conversations), I don't think that's in any way superior to a more focused band of discussion, and I don't think one excludes the other.
I've seen both types of OPs function just fine on numerous occasions, but one does not preclude the other.
>>48015041
We all have some understanding of the topic of wizards, yes.
Hence the vague questions to get people to share those.
Sadly, there are lots of pedants on 4chan, hence the "in your setting" evolution that's been popping up.
Jesus fucking Christ. I haven't been on /tg/ in half a year, is it always this awful now?
Stop assuming everyone who posts that is part of some nebulous conspiracy designed to shut down cross system discussion. It's just as likely to be a request for information. And in the event that they are just being cunts, well holy shit, people on the interwebs can be assholes, news at 11. It's a single line post, why in the world would you not just ignore it? All you've done now is ensure those people will post "depends on the setting" in every thread from now til they find a new toy to play with. The people who want to be productive will be productive, and the people who want to be smartasses will be smartasses.
Fuck, I hope the rest of the board isn't as useless and babied as you.
>>48014860
More like they take place in a generic fantasy land featuring the greyhawk pantheon (or at least the parts listed in the core book) and no oher parts of the setting.
>>48015067
>complaining about people being babied
Funnily enough, that's the same thing the opposing side are complaining about, as the people who demand the more specific threads are very spoiled.
Both parties are arguing that one or the other side, OPs or responders, are incredibly spoiled and unwilling to put work into their actions.
>>48015067
When the majority of quests left, more shitposters filled in the void they left behind.
>>48015133
it's true.
Shitposters flocked in when it was realized that if you shitpost ENOUGH, you get your way.
>>48014822
>be me
>click on thread about BBEGs
>Post "Depends on the setting"
Every line triggers an autistic anon
(I only do the first two)
>>48015153
Hey, at least you aren't the guy who goes into BBEG threads and complains that people use the term BBEG and not villain, antagonist, or something else.
>>48014821
>It's a remarkably civil disagreement though.
I just had the mental image of a Canadian and a Brit engaged in literal shitflinging via mailing delicately and tastefully wrapped parcels of excrement, complete with thoughtful notes.
>>48015059
...your response is unrelated to mine. We DON'T all have 'some understanding of the topic of wizards'. Gandalf and Merlin don't even have spell books. Hell, Gandalf isn't even a wizard by most RPG standards. Neither is Merlin. Hell, Elminster and Raistlin are from the same *system* and they don't even use the same kind of magic. Of the four of them, only Merlin bears even a cursory resemblance to Thulsa Doom. To say 'yeah, wizards, they do magic with books' is to make a huge assumption about what it means to be a wizard that will be wildly incorrect for many definitions of wizard.
Your assumptions color your question very heavily, and the more vague the question, the more assumptions BOTH sides have to make.
>>48015101
More like you've all got a goddamn stick up your ass. It's an image board discussion about sitting in your parents' basement pretending to be an elf, not an academic gathering. Effort and quality will always be appreciated but will never be the norm. Step back and get some perspective instead of fighting over (and I'm gong to have to reiterate this, because it's really stupid) a one line post that has no impact on the thread.
>>48015133
>>48015146
If a one line post that borders on a legit request for information is what shitposting looks like now then we've achieved a fucking golden age, albeit a lame one. I don't know how you would have survived the edition wars if that's enough to set you off.
>>48015224
anon there is NO WAY you have been here for any amount of time and do not have some understanding of wizards.
It may not be the same understanding of wizards as someone else has, but you have an understanding of them. Wizards are a thing to you. You don't hear the word "wizard" and boggle at the word you've never seen before.
>>48015133
>>48015146
That has nothing to do with quests and everything to do with the time of year.
Back to your containment board butthurt questfags.
>>48015237
That started being enough to classify as a shitpost when "elf thread wat do" became enough to classify as a shitpost.
Sad but true.
>>48015244
You did it again. You're not even reading the entirety of the post you are replying to, or if you are, your reading comprehension is slipping.
>>48015256
>summer meme
But anon, it's been repeatedly stated by administrators that summer traffic doesn't markedly change.
In addition to that, all these problems predate the summer.
I mean, I know you want to call people butthurt, but come on now.
>>48013393
EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON VARIOUS FACTORS UNKNOWN TO US POSTERS THAT ARE ONLY KNOWN TO THE OP AND GOD ONLY KNOWS HE WONT SHARE THE DETAILS, ESPECIALLY SPECIFICS THAT MIGHT GET HIM AN ANSWER HE DOESNT WANT
>>48015272
The other parts of your post rely upon the first part to be relevant.
If you know gandalf, or merlin, or elimenster or any of them, you have some understanding of wizards.
Furthermore, not making basic assumptions in order to move a conversation along REALLY kills the pace of things and leads to the endless nerd-arguments.
>>48014412
Oh, sorry, you misunderstand.
I think it's pretty obvious that both questions are asking the exact same thing; the correct response to the first is also to answer with how it worked in a particular instance you liked and thought was interesting, and this should be really obvious to anyone.
Nonetheless, autists respond with the same one-line non-participating reply, so it's a good idea to avoid triggering them and just get that conversational hurdle out of the way.
Avoiding shitposting triggers and accidental bait is basically the key to starting a good thread on /tg/.
>>48015277
The traffic may not change but the quality of the content certainly does.
Some theorize that it may be equal parts people leaving as people coming in, I believe it's just people using the summer meme as an excuse to shitpost.
>>48015260
Elf threads wat do took up half the front page in the summer of 2010, which was at the time (pre-dating built-in catalogs) valuable real estate. They also bumped threads off the board, were glorified ecchi dumps at best, and were spammed bullshit that attracted /b/ posters like flies. Not even close to the same level of non-impact as a one line post that can be easily ignored, unless someone's got an accel-tier script dedicated to it.
>>48014527
True.
>>48014649
Pic related
>>48014807
>I'll give you a simple and easy example for why "depends on the setting" is the best answer to a question: good necromancy.
It's not the best answer to a question, it's not even an answer. It's a refusal of the question due to it's perceived vagueness.
>>48015308
well, I'm glad we both understand that it's obvious to anyone what the appropriate answer to vague threads are.
>>48015304
So you didn't read and are honest enough to admit it. Have a cookie.
>>48015330
net effect matters less than the actual post itself.
Which is, basically, the same level of shitpost as a "depends on the setting".
Especially if the depends on the setting has a snarky image, at which point they are brought to exactly the same level of attempted discourse.
>>48015379
Anon, I don't think you actually read the post you are responding to, it's a pretty direct disagreement with your points throughout the post.
>>48015402
I'm not who you apparently think I am
Depends on setting is not a shit post, it is telling the OP that he needs to clarify his post to be given worthy answers.
>>48015411
Don't worry, neither am I. That doesn't matter.
>>48015417
It's the pedant's shitpost.
It's why "in your setting" has become a sad necessity, since people refuse to use social graces.
>>48015424
Actually, no. I didn't assume you were anybody other than a person using 4chan, I just read your post. That is you making yet another incorrect assumption.
>>48015470
Anon, you're responding to the wrong person.
>>48015171
No, I'm not.
I actually specifically trigger both him and at least one autist triggered by >be me
Because I've had civil discussions with them and they've declared that, against all reason, they will continue to be an asshole raging against four dumb letters being used on a traditional games forum.
If they want to be enraged, well, I guess I'm an enabler.
>>48015340
Basically, everyone will always assume the dumbest possible interpretation of a post that leaves any ambiguity.
Ask a question that depends on the setting, without specifying one? OBVIOUSLY, you must just be under the illusion that there is One Correct Setting, and don't realize that creativity and variety are possible! You must be corrected post-haste! Or, perhaps, you're asking about a specific setting, but forgot to tell us which one! Better point out your mistake?
Tell a joke that leaves any ambiguity whatsoever as to whether it is a joke? Clearly, you are stupid and wrong, which is why you just said something absurd! This bait, it calls to me...
>278 replies and 75 images omitted
>>48015256
Why would we? Quests aren't banned on /tg/ and the ones that left honestly thought /qst/ was a good idea
>>48015489
>everyone will always assume the dumbest possible interpretation of a post that leaves any ambiguity
Thank you for specifically mentioning a thing that has been bugging me for so long.
Can't we just start a gentleman's agreement to assume the other party ISN'T a troll asshole for at least like, a few posts into the thread?
>>48015402
>>48015304
>>48015379 is not me.
The point I was making is that the 'basic assumptions' you are talking about are going to be wildly different, depending on what an individual's context is. Again: none of the five characters I listed, all relatively 'famous' examples of wizards in fiction, have *anything in common*, and very few of the version of Merlin (the only one old enough to have multiple well known versions) have much in common, either. Just about the only consistent factors between all five characters is they all wear robes and they all use 'magic' (which is barely true of Gandalf, and means completely different things for the other four).
When you ask a vague question, everyone is going to scrabble together a set of assumptions based on their context and super impose them for their answer, and it is in fact likely that those assumptions will not match up with yours. The more specific your question, the fewer assumptions anyone replying has to make, which includes the assumption 'they want a specific answer', *which a lot of people are going to make*.
>>48015479
I actually expected this right after I sent the post, so let me clarify
i did not make any assumptions about the identity of >>48015402
>>48015518
>Can't we just start a gentleman's agreement to assume the other party ISN'T a troll asshole for at least like, a few posts into the thread?
Statistics disagrees.
>>48015449
>It's the pedant's shitpost.
It's not. It's a request for clarity on incredibly broad subjects so that results can be made more applicable.
>It's why "in your setting" has become a sad necessity
That's not sad at all, if people want to know what I'm doing in my settings then they should specify that they would like to know.
>>How long is a piece of string?
>What is it being used for?
>>Oh my god, please use some social grace
>>48015528
Gandalf is a intrinsically magical being by virtue of being an angel or minor god. He doesn't often do magic MAGIC as understood in other settings because that goes against his purpose on the world
>>48015532
Sorry, that's the wrong guy.
>>48015664
Upvote
>>48015528
My point is that it doesn't matter at all that they have nothing in common, because you still have some understanding of wizards as long as you have heard of ANY of these things that have nothing in common.
It is not only acceptable but desirable in numerous scenarios for everyone to scrabble together a set of assumptions based on their context and impose them for their answer. I sure as heck appreciate it when that happens, as I like talking about various types of wizards.
>>48015649
That's... kind of exactly the point I'm making, yes.
It's also worth noting that, in the context of someone who grew up purely with DnD, Gandalf is 100% divine caster, when he's a caster at all, which, again, is exactly the point I'm making.
>>48015557
>how long is a piece of string?
>depends on the string
>oh my god, please use some social grace
>>48013393
If you want a productive answer then be more specific you fucking retard.
>>48015702
That's fine, anon.
These differences? These discrepancies? They are acceptable and good for discussion.
>>48015695
There is not a single true way to make a discussion. You can like some more than others, that doesn't mean they're all invalid other than the one you prefer.
>>48015791
I don't think I argued that?
I think I argued that it was not only acceptable but desirable in numerous scenarios to have this specific type of conversation.
>>48015809
It is desirable from your point of view for specific situations. The thread is about a single one. Making a broad statement about what may or may not be good for all discussions in general is somewhat pointless.
>>48015856
anon.
Anon.
"Desirable from your point of view"?
Is scenario.
>>48015865
>>48015856
or, less snarkily, It's real good to have many differing skillsets and ideas for several things, easiest to come to mind being brainstorming.
Or a robust technological base.
It applies kind of widely.
>>48014821
Oh yeah? Well FUCK YOU
>>48015865
It's common knowledge to the point of intuition that being non-specific can be useful for discussion in some situations. It is not what is being argued, as far as I'm aware. The argument is about /tg/ and a specific post
>>48015930
wait, I thought it was about a category of posts, being "Ops that ask vague questions that vary from setting to setting".
Which specific post are you talking about?
>>48015951
I'm talking about OP. Checking up the earlier comments I get it now
>>48015999
I see. Sort of.
Good enough.
>>48015951
...
>>48015380
Woah, somebody posted a mean picture, you've really been stopped cold. Tell me, what happens if you just try not responding to this magic thread ender of a post?
This is so incredibly obvious I can only assume you are autistic or trolling. Or both - touhoufag, is that you?
>>48015951
>>48015999
>>48016009
THIS IS LITERALLY EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT AAAAARHAISDNFIAUBDASBFASNDFLAHSBLBGD
At what point did this get so meta and disjointed people don't even know what everyone else is talking about?
>>48016039
An acceptable consequence for the benefits to be drawn from a varied system.
>>48016059
From the OP, actually, which is exactly what this whole god damn thread is about and why it's so long. I mean, look at that piece of shit. The whole argument is prefaced with
>thing
I mean, for fucks sake.
>>48016028
Right over your head there.
>>48016083
>reasonable and polite discourse that comes to a relatively satisfying conclusion between main participants
I'm OK with it, actually.
>>48016012obligatory
>>48016106
I'm not satisfied, just tired and frustrated.
>>48016130
I'm pretty satisfied.
>>48016089
No, I get exactly what you're saying. It's just wrong. Net effect is self evidently more important. The posts that you're getting worked up about may be low content posts, but those have been around since before /tg/ and are never going to go away. The impact of the effect on /tg/ as a whole is what people worked up over the elf spam.
>>48016165
I will agree to disagree with you here, as based on my observations of people who get mad at similar threads that have little to no consequence, it really is all about the post's content itself, and not the effect on the board or lack of discussion in the thread.
At this point the discussion is substantial enough that I think we could just take some keywords from our posts and say "you just don't get it maaaaaan" and it'd be the same
>>48016200
As has been thoroughly discussed, that would be inviting even lower quality posters to come along and attempt to undermine the thread.
It's important to maintain a vineer of civility and include disclaimers, even though anyone can tell what to without those.
>>48016232
DUDE, civility. Quality, it's undermining, you just don't get it man
>>48016266
You need to work on your hippy talk, anon. They don't talk like lolcats.
>>48013887
Or just add 'in your game/setting' to the end of the question. Then you get a variety of answers, and it only took four little extra words.
>>48016130
Funny, OP's mom said the same thing.
