Training to Level Up is STILL Retarded

About a year and a half ago I wrote an article explaining in great detail why requiring a character to train under someone else in order to level up is absolutely retarded, but then several days ago someone on Twitter posted his woefully misinformed opinion, which prompted a reasonable and enlightened response from myself:

I would have been more than happy to leave it at that, but then numerous, equally intellectually challenged tourists waddled out of the woodwork, hoping that their deluge of flawed analogies, moronic musings, and bizarre comparisons would prove some sort of point. Here are but some of the highlights:

Obviously, this has absolutely nothing to do with training, but how XP is acquired and awarded. 

You can easily extend this flawed analogy to the absurd notion that a fighter could do precisely the same thing, and somehow that entitles him to seek out a trainer to punt him all the way to 4th-level despite never have even lifting a sword. Because not just anyone can go seek out a trainer to level up, oh no, only those that do nothing but scream at mountains to bury enemies under heaps of snow are awarded this privilege.

Seriously, this is an issue with XP that I would like to solve, though I think the bookkeeping would be more of a headache than it's worth. I think the simplest solution is to award additional XP based on class for certain activities. So, wizards gain bonus XP for casting spells, fighters gain bonus XP for killing monsters, and rogues gain bonus XP for skill usage. The only issue would be how it conflicts with multiclassed characters, as well as other classes like barbarians and rangers.

One reason would be that the character is actively adventuring enough to the point where training is no longer necessary merely to keep in shape. But then I never say that training has no purpose or benefit, just that it shouldn't be necessary to level up. I don't know if these people are retarded, disingenuous or both. Or are they just somehow imagining that I said something completely different and are arguing against that, like some sort of strawman variant?

This guy does the same thing:

Except he not only shows what I said, which isn't what he thinks I said, but then double-downs on it. Very generous of him to do the legwork proving himself wrong.

I'm not sure if that's better or worse than others who, through a combination of apathy and stupidity, just resort to the classic strawman fallacy:

You'll note that nowhere did I say or even imply that a glorified pest exterminator should be anywhere on par with a "master swordsman" (especially so early on), but smoothbrain's gotta smoothbrain.

Here's another:

Note that none of them use what would be considered even remotely normal examples of actual play. Characters don't routinely confront vermin or "nobodies", but mobs of goblins, kobolds, orcs, gnolls, skeletons, etc. They explore dangerous environments, overcome obstacles, slay monsters, and get whittled down to near death regularly.

To these people, none of that matters (because it would refute their inane stance): a fighter can spend days or weeks or even months systematically slaughtering the horrific denizens infesting a multilevel dungeon, yet his skill with a sword remains precisely the same as it was when he started.

Not that this was said or even implied (I'd ask what sorts of games these weirdos run, but I don't think most of them even play, and if they do I don't really want to know), but I find it hilarious that by Urrej's particular brand of logic you can go beat up an animal, then talk to a trainer, and that will magically make you stronger.

Again, you can't just go to the trainer and train up. No, you for some reason first need to beat up animals. Only then can the trainer unlock your potential, because only the best of the best can ever train themselves over the course of many weeks (which also still somehow costs thousands of gold pieces).

Coaches was another flawed explanation that people kept trotting out, because according to them a boxer can never ever improve on his own. He needs a coach to do...something. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that boxers train to remain in peak physical condition, since they aren't constantly fighting and engaging in adventuring activities.

It's not, but then Luke wasn't a fully-fledged Jedi Knight at this point, so really it's more like him learning skills and abilities to hit 1st-level in that class.

Also, when I asked the smoothbrain how he learned telekinesis, which was used earlier in the movie, all he could muster was a flippant response about an off-screen training montage with a different muppet. I still found the exchange amusing because his very example was disproven by the same movie. But then maybe he skipped the beginning?

Right, because "UFC guys" are constantly going out adventuring and fighting monsters. I'm sure that they would still need to train after a hard few weeks of trekking across the land, exploring ruins, and slaying monsters, and not at all due to the fact that they don't fight all the time and are merely training to remain in peak physical condition.

I'm starting to think that these smoothbrains can't actually defend their intellectually bankrupt position. Take this guy, who is so desperate and/or dumb that he attempts to assert that you cannot learn any skill without being instructed:

We're not even talking about complex subjects such as science and medicine, but a warrior becoming more skilled with the blade by engaging in and surviving actual combat.

It is separate in that training should grant XP towards leveling up, or make it quicker and/or easier to learn something new. But this is not something I argued against. What I did argue against was requiring a trainer in order to level up.

The examples imply that Rocky would never, ever improve as a boxer unless he fought a bunch of fights and then engaged in routine exercise under the supervision of someone else. That Luke could never, ever improve his force powers without someone telling him what to do (even though in that same movie he demonstrated force powers that he did not have in the first).

The Harry Potter one is...odd, because those are children in a school learning magic and related skills, and this seems like a reasonable background for a wizard character (he attended a wizard school). However, it also implies that this is the only way wizards can learn new skills and spells: not by hitting the books and practicing on their own (I learned a lot in school without needing teachers), but solely by having an instructor tell them what to do.

I'm not a Harry Potter fan by any stretch, but would curious if that's the case: can no wizard learn new spells or skills without a teacher telling him what to do? Are there no self-taught wizards, or even wizards who learned certain skills and spells all on their own?

The Avatar one is slightly better but still deeply flawed, as Aang doesn't require a teacher to improve in general, but specifically to learn bending techniques from completely separate elements. He doesn't need Zuko to instruct him on being a better warrior, or to refine his other bending skills, he only needs Zuko to help him to learn the basics of firebending.

As with Star Wars, this is also funny because Katara not only learns the basics of waterbending on her own, but was able to get Aang started on waterbending, they both learned a few new techniques on the way to the North Pole, and even the master waterbender acknowledged her talents. All without an instructor.

These people think that Gygax is gospel, that AD&D is a perfect system that cannot be improved upon, period, and boy oh boy will they sperg out if you dare criticize their most holy text in any way. And I think that's what angers them the most: they know on some level it doesn't make sense, that it serves no purpose, and when you point it out there's a flash of awareness, and if only briefly they realize how fucking stupid they are.

But instead of admitting it and, gasp, changing the rule, they lash out. Some claim that you just don't understand, man, even though they can't explain it. Others twist your words into a 1/2 Hit Die strawman so they can pretend to be victorious to other morons, or throw up their hands and declare that the game isn't for you, as if you were playing it in the first place. The whole thing It reminded me of The Emperor's New Clothes, just with game mechanics. 

Anyway, XP for gold is also retarded.

UPDATE

I almost forgot about this guy:

He for some reason responded to a different thread, claiming that a guy who didn't answer a question did answer a question, but this isn't the only time he demonstrates his inability to read (or write). Note that I ask him a simple question, which he refuses to answer:

Now, he never mentioned these skills, and I certainly never criticized him for not knowing any particular skills, and given how defensive he is I'm skeptical as to how proficient he actually is. But at least he admits he is a dumbass (not that his admission is needed).

As with many others, he resorts to a strawman, though it's confusing because he went on about all these skills he claims to possess without undergoing training by someone else, which is what I'm advocating for characters being able to do, so...why?

The entire time I've been arguing that people should be able to learn and improve at skills without requiring someone to train them, and somehow he translated that to me being opposed to training in any capacity. I think it's at this point he finally realizes how retarded he is, so of course switches gears to claiming that I of all people am somehow woke.

Apparently expressing an opinion is an "attack" and a "typical woke marketing tactic", as if I have been marketing anything in the thread.

Now, what Crimzon8Numbers is doing is a woke strategy. It's really a strategy of retards in general, but woke people are generally retarded so there's plenty of overlap (some do it for attention and money). My opinion is an attack, not because it is any sort of attack but because he doesn't agree with it. Neither her nor the other retards can refute it, so he needs to depict me as a "bad guy". It's a way to make him feel better for losing and being a loser in general.

He again has no defense. I explained why he is behaving like a "wokie" and this is the best he has to offer:

The guy has a very unhealthy obsession with me, so he had to have known that, among other things, child grooming and mutilation is something I'm adamantly and openly opposed to.

And he still describes it as woke.

Consistently.

Disturbing implications.