Still Hate D&D?

This article is in response to certain developments surrounding another, previous article located here:

Why Some People Hate AD&D (A 20 Page Heated Exchange Of Me vs. Some AD&D Hating Gamer.)

It was recently pointed out to me that the person I had this 'debate' with was still spreading his lies about AD&D. And no, I do not mean his tendency to dislike D&D was wrong in and of itself, or that he is lying when he claims he hates it. It is, rather, his tendency to claim any who liked it are obviously mentally deficient in some regard that is suspect and basically dishonest, as well as disingenuous, and much of what he claims on his page is, in fact, based in lies. He still apparently hasn't grasped the elementary distinction between innate superiority and what is a matter of personal preference. Anyone who disagrees with him that AD&D isn't what he essentially calls a worthless roleplaying endeavor or incredible waste of time obviously isn't as smart as he seems to think he is, or as smart as he seems to think mature people ought to be.

I'm saddened when such a person refuses to see, but we all know there are none so blind as those who will not see.

And no, to 'see' is not to come to one's senses and suddenly enjoy AD&D if you didn't before, as he now claims in his latest edition. That particular roleplaying game has many little problems here and there, and though none of them are insurmountable, warming to it is not an inherent problem or some character-flaw in an individual as this man seems to think. Many do not like AD&D, and that's fine with me. I do not think they are defective for this. But to 'see' merely means to at least be honest and recognize different people have different needs and desires, and perhaps develop the ability to distinguish truth and innate superiority from something that is merely highly subjective and a matter of personal preferences. He can't seem to fathom this fact of life.

As for his lies, he has repeatedly been told many counter arguments to what he continues to post, but instead of acknowledging them and saying "Oh, that's a good point," as he claims proponents of AD&D refuse to do, he, himself, is guilty of this failing. Many good points were given by me alone, and it was often demonstrated to him many of the AD&D rules do not actually say what he claims they say, or the conclusions he arrived at do not necessarily and exclusively follow from the rules. Instead, he continues to claims it all falls under some previously dealt with category and refuses to do more with it, or answer it, even when it's clear he hasn't addressed the points at all.

It is overly obvious to me this man hasn't really grasped the basics of AD&D since he continually and repeatedly says and posts things about it which are demonstrably false. So is everything he says wrong? No. But so much of it is based on erroneous assumptions and misunderstandings as to make the whole work of dubious value, as well of revealing the source to have questionable motives. At best, the piece is so misleading as to make one feel he is deliberately trying to misinform the public.

But instead of admitting to these 'good points,' he avoids them, picks and chooses limited areas or common misconceptions about AD&D - probably the only place he feels he can win an argument - and continues to claim all players of that particular game are morons. He claims that these misconception are actually gospel truth found in the rules, and all AD&D players feel that way or believe that way. He further claims such people only offer spurious attacks against those who - like him, in a quest of altruistic honesty and righteousness - are only guilty of trying to help those less fortunate than himself and who have not yet agreed that AD&D isn't really fun. In fact, most players of AD&D don't resemble what he claims at all. Some do, but not all of them. Probably not most of them. And quite honestly, his proclivity for lying to make his point seem more justified is curious, as well as tedious.

Normally I wouldn't further bother with one of his ilk, but like I said, it was recently pointed out to me he actually acknowledged communications with me and put a link to my page - to the forerunner of this very argument - and without notifying me, by the way, in case you're still wondering what sort of man he is. Thus, I now feel free to reciprocate, whereas before I had no desire to use his actual name or link to his page. So, in case you wished to see it, here it is:

Mark Hughe's Irrational Rant

And assuming he follows the golden rule, I won't bother to inform him of this reciprocal link, though others may ;-)

I don't even mind him calling me a psycho. Considering the source, I'm a bit flattered. But I do mind when he lies and says no logical arguments were given to counter his apparent rage-filled POV simply because he failed to understand them, answer them, or even acknowledge them. It again is merely indicative of the man himself and how he views things from his little world. It also once again shows him to be a hypocrite, for anyone claiming to disdain ad hominem attacks on one hand while making them with the other is certainly all that and a bag of chips.

I, at least, admit some of my arguments got personal, though I claim to be on higher moral ground as I did not cast the first stone in this manner, nor ever claim or imply to not have attacked this man's so-called character or to be above such things. Besides, I always included valid logical points along with any such barbs, and no where does any counter argument depend on calling this man's character into question - which is the true definition of an argument ad hominem. It was just fun giving tit-for-tat, that's all. It's not my fault he ignored the logical arguments and dwelled elsewhere, totally unable in his rage to see past the amusing quips.

Even more recently, he posted another section claiming I wrote to him some Email, or at least he seemed to be saying this since his link to a 'psycho's' page comes to my article, and thus implies the same psycho wrote back. I assure you, I have not written back to him, and Mark Hughes is either blatantly lying to everybody again, or he is simply confusing me with someone else.

In honesty, I feel his character is well worthy of attack. Criticism is one thing while constructive criticism yet another, and despite his claims, he isn't being constructive. Besides, I also feel his arguments against AD&D are often thinly veiled ad hominem attacks vs. some few AD&D players and some of their few methods of play in the first place, rather than any actual comments on the AD&D rules themselves or AD&D players as a whole. But he doesn't seem to mind bearing such false witness. Go figure.

Frankly, he deserves no better treatment until he apologizes, or at least removes the lies from the net in lieu of an apology. If he has honest opinions about flaws in AD&D, let him give those instead. I'm sure they are out there. I have more than a few opinions of AD&D flaws myself, but then I never claimed my favorite system of gaming was without flaw, or felt threatened if someone simply did not like it or didn't agree with me, nor would I ever get bent out of shape if someone didn't share my preferences in gaming. This guy does, however, and that's suggestive.

Also, I think you can see when he calls AD&D players his 'enemies' - as opposed to people who just disagree with him - you get a clearer idea of how this moronic self-proclaimed kamikaze actually perceives those who disagree with his limited point of view, and his only apparent response for this eventuality. ATTACK!!!

I will end here by addressing those comments within his latest posted section on that page. Owing to his questionable link to my page - which he failed to inform me about - you may now link back to his page. Though the bulk of his page remains unchanged even after years of feedback, which also sort of indicates the nature of a closed mind, you may finally read that as well. My private email correspondences with him, however, are only available as the previously given excerpts.

Below, his comments are in BOLD while mine are in normal text.

Popularity does not equal quality. Popularity is based on marketing. Successful marketing does not make something good.

As I pointed out to him earlier, this popularity of AD&D simply means it is far more likely to find a game to join or easier to run a game by finding players who already know it. Perhaps others out there equate popularity with quality and make claims to him that AD&D is good because it is popular, but I was not amongst them. I claimed it was good for other reasons, and its popularity merely had this added bonus while most other systems, so far, even though some of them may be available for free, simply do not enjoy this advantage. And, in fact, this advantage is a valid reason why one might favor AD&D over another system, all other things being equal, or at least, equal enough, if you know what I mean.

And the final one repeated over and over is that it's a role-playing game (I guess the implication is that the rules and what's in the books therefore doesn't matter, but I can't be sure, as none of them ever explain what their point is).

If I recall correctly, I explained my point to him quite clearly, but perhaps it was too subtle for one such as he. My point was the game mechanic merely supports any roleplaying and is not the primary reason or purpose of playing, nor a substitute for roleplaying. He seemed to feel without a nigh flawless game mechanic - that was perhaps nauseating in detail to many - roleplaying became an impossibility or something like that. Honestly, best as I can glean from his ranting, this man is a roll-player, and not a role-player, and simply desires to play in a system that gives one their role rather than relying on the individual imagination of each player or each GM, perhaps so he may roll a dice to make up his PC's mind, or have a rule as to his PC's background, all to take the place of his apparent lack of imagination.

D+D, all editions, are all about combat. That's what you get 99% of your experience for.

I still feel AD&D is all too often played in a combat heavy manner, but then a lot of roleplaying games are like that. This is particularly true of inexperienced players, yet this does not equate to a failing of the D&D rules in and of themselves. Even 3e - which tends more is this direction, doesn't force it on anyone, and more experienced players easily play without engaging in nothing but battle after battle.

The fact of the matter is there are plenty of ways to gain experience points sans combat. This is especially true in games run by experienced Dungeon Masters. Yet, this man fails to grasp this, almost as if he's never been in such a game, and he, himself, exhibits all the signs of a newbie hacker who never seemed to grasp the fact there is more in a roleplaying game than the combat it might afford - unless some rules force one to 'act' otherwise. Truthfully, many players partake of countless AD&D scenarios virtually free of combat or treasure, yet may gain copious amounts of experience points while doing so for their roleplaying endeavors.

Also, since he failed to rectify his misunderstanding and continues to think - according to his page - that evil characters can't be high level - since killing good things yield xp penalties and not xp advancements, and killing evil, if you happen to be evil, isn't worth any xp as well - that such things are a contradiction. Clearly, he hasn't clue one as to how the AD&D experience system works in this regard, and many things he has said indicated to me his actual roleplaying experience with the D&D game was severely limited in scope. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he had tried it once and didn't like it, or even just read it and didn't like it without benefit of playing it even once, though I admit it's more likely he probably is a veteran of at least one or two poorly run campaigns by some terrible DMs, and he never got that bad taste out of his mouth.

But what does he call for instead? Rules that tell you how to play your PC's personality or make up their background? Rules for that? Rules? In many ways, that's the essence of roleplaying, making this stuff up of your own accord. It isn't roleplaying to have some rules or table or dice tell you your PC has a family, your father was a blacksmith, your mother was murdered by orcs, or you have a propensity to dislike dwarves and enjoy wearing green clothing. If the rules give you that, you can play it, sure, but then it's more like acting a role rather than inventing and roleplaying one of your own creations. Of course, this man did seem rather limited in his imagination, so I suspect he'd feel better being given a role rather than forced to create one from such limited cognitive powers. It might also explain his willingness to foist GM created characters on new players, rather than them taking the time to explore new rules and create characters of their own, when trying to quickly indoctrinate them into some other 'unfamiliar system,' as I recall he had previously said. Not that I'm claiming you can't learn a new system, but to do so takes a lot of time one doesn't always have. If he wishes to ignore this clear advantage, that's fine, but he should quit slamming it as meaningless.

But if you don't want to try better systems, if you're happy just doing hack-and-slash, well, fine. But stop mailing me these 500-line messages saying, "You're mean!"

Better? Again, that's too subjective for any reasonable man to claim. IMHO, anyone who claims one system is 'better' than another like he has done - without any qualifiers - should have his head examined. I've yet to see any system that didn't have advantages and weakness over others, and even those were subjective to one's personal tastes and not intrinsic properties of the game.

Alas, I never felt this man was mean so much as plain stupid and dishonest. As I said earlier, the very powerful and the very stupid do have one thing in common. They don't tend alter their views to fit the facts so much as they try to alter the facts to fit their views. This man was certainly guilty of it this before, and apparently continues to be guilty of the same now, even after years of reflection and honest communications and feedback pointing out his logical fallacies. He just refuses to acknowledge them or post them.

So does all this mean anyone who doesn't like AD&D is crazy? Hell no. Does it mean anyone who likes another system better is foolish? Certainly not. Does it mean anyone who disagrees with your personal gaming preferences is different? Yes. But only that. Different. It does not mean they are immature or stupid or foolish or blind or somehow arrested in their development, or that they even need serious help or guidance, least they fail to have fun. So my problem with Mark Hughes here - aka, this man - isn't that he doesn't like AD&D, but is, has been, and continues to be, that he doesn't seem to be able to live with the idea others may enjoy D&D and probably have good reasons to do so. And to go out of his way to invent lies about it continues to be a curious mystery and perhaps offers profound insight into this man's psyche.

So, if you do read this page, or his page, or you are Mark Hughes himself, and you'd like to question some of my thinking or something about AD&D, or have a question about what either of us has claimed, feel free to write to me.

Email Jim Your Comments (Send Praises, Critiques, Complaints, Suggestions, Ideas, or Submissions).