Gary, I hate to point this out -- I'm all in favor of free speech -- but in the interest of maintaining a rational discourse (not to mention the ability to discuss actual game suggestions, instead of just who "deserves" to attack whom) you might keep an eye on the thread entitled, "Using Beta in RotRL (Stop buffing the fighter class)!!!"
|
The problem isn't really this particular thread. The real problem is that there are three or four posters here that have such an abrasive posting style that they divert the discussion onto themselves rather then the thread topic. Right now(about half an hour ago actually) one of these guys is over in the Cleric, Druid & Paladin forum doing his "I didn't insult you, I just said you made a crappy character" song and dance.
Contributing to the playtest would be a lot easier if we didn't need to poke around in the sewage looking for a dime.
Sam
Good god yes some moderation please (Even just a calm down message) I've all but given up on the playtest forums since half the topics are pretty much devolving into the mentality of "your wrong" "No your wrong and youre a silly do-do head" Its like watching kindergarden children arguing.
Yeah, I agree. It's that and "this is the most powerful combination/min/max/class anyone can come up with!" "no it's not this is..." I wish there were more constructive threads - like proposals for homerules, more homebrewed classes or conversions, or even ideas for running a game with the Beta Rules.
All of which brings back the issue of a continuing need for a "Report" button.
I have to admit, I stay on the Off-topic board almost exclusively because it's one of the only places a handful of bring-everyone-down posters seem never to visit.
Shhh! Don't draw attention to it.
Seriously. Someone down yonder needs a time out. It's the weekend though so I suppose we'll be stuck with it until Monday.
|
I'd suggest they look up the root of logic, which means "discourse".
Nobody is really violating the board rules, though.
Maybe the board rules need an extension?
Something like "There is more than ONE true way of playing the game"? and more specifically for the beta testing threads:
"Paizo decides which rules to include in which way. Repetitive postings and picking on other posters' opinions will not change any decision."
Regarding ignore vs. request for banning buttons:
I prefer the latter. Ignore buttons could help to suppress postings by abusive posters from your point of view, but you still see the results of these postings (i.e. thread jacking, flaming in the thread etc.) => "Thread quality" wouldn't really improve.
Cheers,
Günther
Regarding ignore vs. request for banning buttons:
I prefer the latter. Ignore buttons could help to suppress postings by abusive posters from your point of view, but you still see the results of these postings (i.e. thread jacking, flaming in the thread etc.) => "Thread quality" wouldn't really improve.Cheers,
Günther
The problem is sometimes moderaters don't bother to actually read the context and jump on the person who is only repeating what was already said. I'm thinking of a discussion on the 4e boards about the dragon cartoon. A poster mentioned that some people use a certain phrase to make fun of players using an older version. Another poster said they had never heard phrase the board before. The thread was then locked and the person who just repeated the phrase and said they never heard it was singled out as the one bringing it up (basically told the phrase was out of line). It takes a lot of time to really do a fair job of moderating banning is something that shouldn't be done haphazardly.
The problem isn't really this particular thread. The real problem is that there are three or four posters here that have such an abrasive posting style that they divert the discussion onto themselves rather then the thread topic.
Style is irrelevant. Your feelings are irrelevant. You will be assimilated. Your game table will be adapted to service ours. Your designation will be Lemingoid_of_Logic. Resistance is futile.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
More seriously, I find some posters to be abrasive, full of faulty assumptions about other people's game play, and more focused on damage output to the detriment of other aspects of the game. At the same time, I think they can make a contribution -- not as great a contribution as they seem to think they are making due to their ironically illogical arguments -- but a contribution nonetheless. Maybe an occassional reminder that personal insults will not be tolerated and a bit of well-deserved parodying will do the trick.
|
For poops and giggles, look at Post History rather than just that thread. That's a LOT of posts (and generous portions of spewed bile) this weekend. I think the count was at 200-odd total posts on Friday when I peeked in on the thread and checked the profile, wondering if all the fuss was involving a long-time participant in the forums that I'd overlooked. Another 200 posts in a couple of days...? I don't know what to make of that.
|
|
More seriously, I find some posters to be abrasive, full of faulty assumptions about other people's game play, and more focused on damage output to the detriment of other aspects of the game. At the same time, I think they can make a contribution -- not as great a contribution as they seem to think they are making due to their ironically illogical arguments -- but a contribution nonetheless. Maybe an occassional reminder that personal insults will not be tolerated and a bit of well-deserved parodying will do the trick.
I'm not too worried about anyone's assumptions or focus. It usually doesn't bother me when somebody posts something incorrect of even foolish. What's bothering me are these frequent attempts at derailment.
Another 200 posts in a couple of days...? I don't know what to make of that.
Stirring the chamber pot? Vandalism? Trolling?
Sam
|
|
Relax.
That thread is actually pretty good in parts. Some people are abrasive, but I presume that everyone else can man up and take it (it's not like it's a new phenomenon and the fact is that some of the most valuable posters on the boards, from the playtest and knowledge point of view, are included in the group of 'abrasive' posters).
Also, he might be 'abrasive', but CoL is owning the thread with help from Squirreloid. CoL's responses are indeed varying between tough and insulting, but he's winning most every damn point and explaining himself really well. Squirreloid makes excellent arguments, too.
We all want the game to be better through discussion and personally I care about that a hell of a lot more than hurt feelings, because the game will last for years and the feelings for minutes. Look at CoL and Squirreloid's posts and read the analysis and it's good to read (also it's entirely on topic given the thrust of the thread, which is about not buffing fighters). Heavy-handed moderation makes a place unpleasant to post at (and if there was going to be any moderation, removing the moronic anti-4e sentiments that sometimes appear would be a better target -- I say that as someone that really dislikes 4e and wants PFRPG to do great and has committed a fair amount of funds to the whole Paizo Pathfinder endeavour -- except that would also leave a bad taste in the mouth. Ironically, there are some people at rpg.net that claimed that the nasty anti-4e Paizo forums drove them away from purchasing Paizo products, in which case they are also epic wimps, in my opinion). At least the comments and analysis from CoL (and Squirreloid and LogicNinja and P_R, although LogicNinja appears to have disappeared) are valuable even if some don't like the tone.
The discussion makes the game better, and that's the important thing, because I trust that Jason and the others will read it and think about it even if some other posters get upset by it. Additionally, the game's a lot more important than feelings of posters on the boards.
CoL's responses are indeed varying between tough and insulting, but he's winning most every damn point and explaining himself really well.
At some point, though, the effort needs to shift from winning debate points to meaningfully improving the Pathfinder game, and that shift is very slow in occurring. Unfortunately (right or wrong), CoL has basically stated that "Paizo must replace the fighter with the warblade, and the paladin with the crusader" -- any other suggestions at all, he's very quick to piss on. Given that neither of his proposed fixes are OGL, that leaves us with no suggestions whatsoever.
|
|
Also, he might be 'abrasive', but CoL is owning the thread with help from Squirreloid. CoL's responses are indeed varying between tough and insulting, but he's winning most every damn point and explaining himself really well. Squirreloid makes excellent arguments, too.
Out of curiosity I looked at the last page, to see what "owning the thread" and "winning every damn point" means.
The reply to Gurubabaramalamaswami is a fine example of owning, winning and explaing oneself really well.
Yes, it's sarcasm.
Additionally, the game's a lot more important than feelings of posters on the boards.
As we're on the boards of a publishing company that has the relationship with its customers and boards community as one of its strong points, I'd say just NO.
|
|
At some point, though, the effort needs to shift from winning debate points to meaningfully improving the Pathfinder game, and that shift is very slow in occurring. Unfortunately (right or wrong), CoL has basically stated that "Paizo must replace the fighter with the warblade, and the paladin with the crusader" -- any other suggestions at all, he's very quick to piss on. Given that neither of his proposed fixes are OGL, that leaves us with no suggestions whatsoever.
That's a fair point -- although in that thread the main thrust should be and is refutation or support of the OP's position; even though it's put in the playtest forum, it's a call for a design position -- and it may be that responsibilities are divided in that endeavour. I don't mind the idea that there are some people that try to break stuff or show how it might be broken or take it to it's logical conclusions and others that do the suggestion and creation of game structure. I mean, both are essential functions, after all. Inevitably, Jason and the Paizo guys are going to be doing more of the suggesting and creating, anyhow, particularly of the big changes from the base OGL material.
As for replacement of classes, I'm OK with the idea that other classes provide strong guides, but as I mentioned elsewhere, I am happier if other classes are buffed above 3.x to hit a sweeter spot than the spell-based powers of the overpowered base classes getting nerfed (I am, however, bemused at the spellcasters getting a power-up in PFRPG).
|
The problem is that the discussion gets lost in the static. I literally could not take CoL's posts seriously until he dropped the know-it-all tone in his post on page 4.
Unfortunately, he seems to let himself get fired off by other people rather than ignore them, which I view as hypocritical as you can see him baiting Aubrey in much the same way.
The moment you start yelling, no one can hear you. You cannot discuss if the other party is set against you, especially if you set them that way.
|
|
Gary, I hate to point this out -- I'm all in favor of free speech -- but in the interest of maintaining a rational discourse (not to mention the ability to discuss actual game suggestions, instead of just who "deserves" to attack whom) you might keep an eye on the thread entitled, "Using Beta in RotRL (Stop buffing the fighter class)!!!"
Begun the Flame Wars have.
|
|
Out of curiosity I looked at the last page, to see what "owning the thread" and "winning every damn point" means.
The OP makes a point about "don't buff fighters any more". This becomes, as it should, a discussion of the merits of that claim, principally a discussion of the premise that fighters are strong enough as they are, for some suitably amorphous metric of goodness (and there is also some conversation about that metric, which is no surprise as it is almost inevitably a key issue underlying these discussions). CoL (and Squirelloid) makes the best case for their position, is my point. Now, yes, that's entirely down to opinion and that's mine and you may have another one, but I am bemused that you would if you can read their posts without being affected by the snark (which I tend to, not least because most of the snark is amusing, which I like); of course, as ever, chacun à son goût.
As we're on the boards of a publishing company that has the relationship with its customers and boards community as one of its strong points, I'd say just NO.
I agree that it's a strong point of Paizo -- I love the company and the way they operate -- but more important than the development of the game? Firstly, CoL and people like him shouldn't affect how you feel about Paizo any more than the anti-4e sentiment here (which I personally feel is silly, and I really dislike 4e myself) affect some of the weenies complaining a while back at rpg.net and saying that it put them off Paizo, and even though there are some people that get upset by this sort of thing, the idea that their feelings are more important than getting good analysis seems pretty silly to me. How I feel about Paizo's not affected by what some other posters on their boards say; I don't hold them responsible for other people being [insert insult here] and in fact I admire them for their relatively hands-off approach, which makes the forums far more interesting than they'd otherwise be.
Paizo chose a public playtest and discussion for excellent reasons and I think that it's paying off so long as people like CoL get to make their contribution. That you may not like the manner of that contribution is, to me, orders of magnitude less important than the contribution itself. It won't be to you, obviously, but surely the final game matters more than the tone of the discussion of its design?
|
|
The moment you start yelling, no one can hear you. You cannot discuss if the other party is set against you, especially if you set them that way.
Not 'no one'. I read all the CoL posts in that thread. It's certainly true that it'll turn some people off (although I trust that the most important people, who work for Paizo, will be paying some attention to the arguments on merit regardless of the snark, given that argument merit is the reason they are having an open playtest and development period).
If CoL stopped being often pretty funny in his attacks, I guess I'd be somewhat less interested, but the analysis and justification is my main interest in any case.
|
|
Not 'no one'. I read all the CoL posts in that thread. It's certainly true that it'll turn some people off (although I trust that the most important people, who work for Paizo, will be paying some attention to the arguments on merit regardless of the snark, given that argument merit is the reason they are having an open playtest and development period).
If CoL stopped being often pretty funny in his attacks, I guess I'd be somewhat less interested, but the analysis and justification is my main interest in any case.
Just something I've come up with these last seven years in the service. If you come out the gate screaming at someone, nine times out of ten their own pride deafens them to what you are saying. A level tone results in more reasoned discourse.
Admittedly, a properly mature person can ignore the tone and focus on the message. But looking at our world, the ratio of mature to immature is pretty bad.
|
|
I continue to believe that the best way to handle abrasive posters is with humour, honesty, and by pointing out what they do well. The banhammer has never been my preferred option.
I'm down with that, so long as it's not premised on the idea that it's only worthwhile if it succeeds... some people are just abrasive.
I would add that not taking things too seriously is also pretty important, but that's a general Life Rule, I suppose.
|
|
the idea that their feelings are more important than getting good analysis seems pretty silly to me.
The problem, for me, is that they *aren't* providing good analysis.
They are providing 'gotcha' phrases and assertions that something is 'broken' or 'full of fail' and then use as proof of their positions ridiculously convoluted examples that involve playing leapfrog over a half-dozen books, most of which aren't core.
It's like the whole 'CoDzilla' thing. Sure, *if* you've got Persistant Spell from one book *and* you've got Divine Metamagic from another book *and* you're not using the Pathfinder version of Righteous Might *and* you've got Nightsticks, *then* you can make a Cleric with full BAB, which, whoopty-crapdidity-doo, does not make him a Fighter. At 20th level, he's got a +5 BAB over some Cleric who *didn't* do all of that crap, and he's still doing junk for damage, when he could be summoning a damn Elder Earth Elemental instead to handle that melee combat junk with a nice Power Attack / Cleave / 15 ft. reach combination.
The 'analyses' are so overwrought and histionic and irrelevant to any actual gameplay experience that any *valid* points they might have are being outright dismissed, *which is bad.*
Holes should be plugged. But running around screaming about 'setting feats on fire' or 'retarded gameplay' or whatever only draws attention *away* from the problems and towards the people who are busy calling names and shouting abuse.
If someone can't talk like a grown-up, is it incumbent upon me to treat them like one? I don't think so.
|
|
Just something I've come up with these last seven years in the service. If you come out the gate screaming at someone, nine times out of ten their own pride deafens them to what you are saying. A level tone results in more reasoned discourse.
Admittedly, a properly mature person can ignore the tone and focus on the message. But looking at our world, the ratio of mature to immature is pretty bad.
Heh, I was a schoolteacher. Taking things personally or worrying too much about tone and presentation in that job is an invitation to continued and persistent unhappiness*.
*Of course, one sometimes may decide to pretend to be taking it personally, and be concerned about tone and presentation, for effect.
|
|
Heh, I was a schoolteacher. Taking things personally or worrying too much about tone and presentation in that job is an invitation to continued and persistent unhappiness*.
*Of course, one sometimes may decide to pretend to be taking it personally, and be concerned about tone and presentation, for effect.
You have my condolences. ^^ And I can totally agree with that idea.
In the vein Set was pursuing, my main problem is how CoL and other people seem to feel if you can't put out enough damage to drop an enemy, you're doing it wrong. I like my combat taking more than one round. In my view, the wizard's fireball isn't supposed to take out an enemy, it supposed to damage a few of them. The party should be working together to eliminate the enemy. Is SoD more efficient? Yes, but it's damn boring to me. They state that melee's are useless in the game as if it's fact. My personal experience tells me otherwise. So when they tell me I'm wrong and stupid, I don't care to talk to them, and that doesn't help the discussion here.
They are used to a forum with different groundrules. I just think they did not research the lay of the land here, and imported some habits of discourse from the gamerden. There is a strong streak there of wanting to be martyred on the altar of the Paizo boards so they can be rewarded with understanding and comisseration from the others on the gamerden. It is a very different place to this.
|
|
The problem, for me, is that they *aren't* providing good analysis.
They are providing 'gotcha' phrases and assertions that something is 'broken' or 'full of fail' and then use as proof of their positions ridiculously convoluted examples that involve playing leapfrog over a half-dozen books, most of which aren't core.
I don't agree with that characterisation, but that's fair enough. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, either. Also, the arguments underyling their points are generally clearly made so that whether or not you agree with them, it's easy to understand what they mean.
It's like the whole 'CoDzilla' thing. Sure, *if* you've got Persistant Spell from one book *and* you've got Divine Metamagic from another book *and* you're not using the Pathfinder version of Righteous Might *and* you've got Nightsticks, *then* you can make a Cleric with full BAB, which, whoopty-crapdidity-doo, does not make him a Fighter. At 20th level, he's got a +5 BAB over some Cleric who *didn't* do all of that crap, and he's still doing junk for damage, when he could be summoning a damn Elder Earth Elemental instead to handle that melee combat junk with a nice Power Attack / Cleave / 15 ft. reach combination.
Well, again, I don't think that CoDZilla is just an expansions issue (and do its proponents always claim that it's the best course to pursue, for that character and their party?), but that argument is certainly worth having (with someone that knows more about it than I do).
The 'analyses' are so overwrought and histionic and irrelevant to any actual gameplay experience that any *valid* points they might have are being outright dismissed, *which is bad.*
One might make the case that the points could be made more effectively in the sense of getting agreement, although I'm not entirely sure that the improvement would be as much as might be wished -- people in general are very good at ignoring stuff, for various reasons -- but my main point is that them posting this way is better than them not posting at all and I just don't think they're going to change.
Also, of course, their style often amuses me enormously, which helps.
Holes should be plugged. But running around screaming about 'setting feats on fire' or 'retarded gameplay' or whatever only draws attention *away* from the problems and towards the people who are busy calling names and shouting abuse.
Some people will ignore it that wouldn't otherwise have ignored it (although as I say, I think that some of the people ignoring it would have ignored it however it was presented) but given that they post they way they want to post, I'd rather they did it this way than not at all. And, again, they make me laugh, which is always good.
If someone can't talk like a grown-up, is it incumbent upon me to treat them like one? I don't think so.
Well, this is where we do disagree, if 'treating them like one' includes 'considering what they say'. I mean, if you think their points are bad, as you say above, that's a decent reason to not bother too much about them, but it's hardly as if they're so offensive that filtering the snark requires significant effort.
|
|
Gary, I hate to point this out -- I'm all in favor of free speech -- but in the interest of maintaining a rational discourse (not to mention the ability to discuss actual game suggestions, instead of just who "deserves" to attack whom) you might keep an eye on the thread entitled, "Using Beta in RotRL (Stop buffing the fighter class)!!!"
A quest, a quest from the lord, god be praised!
I'm generally in favor of calm interaction (refutation if necessary) with posters such as are being described here.
However, I would be very interested in an Ignore button for the few intractable ones.
|
Contributor
|
Reading the various posts by CoL, I am reminded of myself when I was 14 and the "internet" was accessed through a few ISPs (GEnie, anyone?) via dial-up modem. My friends and I used to engage in the kinds of arguments going on in the example thread(s), and then congratulate each other on how badly we had crushed anyone who disagreed with us...never considering that the impression we gave was that we were just rude net-savvy punks with a very narrow view of the world. That was 21 years ago.
CoL's behavior doesn't bother me, specifically because I've grown beyond that point in life. I don't have to be right or even have everyone agree with me if I know I'm right. CoL is arguing from a position that he is an unquestioned authority and that he has the "right answer" and therefore must win, even at the expense of his own dignity. I can say from personal experience that such a position is a very lonely and insecure place. Even the alias practically screams, "I DARE YOU TO CHALLENGE ME!" (With the unspoken addendum of, "So that I can prove I'm worth something!")
Honestly, CoL's references to zergs (from Starcraft, right?) and heavy usage of the MMPORG slang should be a clear indication of the social circles in which he travels. There's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but my impression of that arena is that it breeds hypercompetitive behavior and a tendency to look at all online interaction as a game which must be won. It certainly doesn't encourage one to elevate one's discourse or to even treat people with a modicum of respect...it's preferrable to "own" someone or something. Riight.
As I've said in other, even more long-winded posts, I play table-top style RPGs (vs. the software based "roleplaying game") in order to have fun portraying a character...or multiple characters, since I'm usually the GM. I like telling a story and advancing the story. I am not interested in exploring the nuances of every class, feat, skill, power, spell, and item combination in order to achieve a state of PC or NPC perfection.
I see no reason to invest a large quantity of emotion in these discussions. Quite frankly, I can already tell that I'm going to enjoy the hell out of PFRPG, regardless of the final form that the design team imparts to this or that power.
I'm assuming that I'm in the minority when I say that I didn't really think 3.5e was "broken." I think that there are major areas where things could have been more clear or easier to run, but the foundation is absolutely solid. Paizo's tweaks and changes are going to appeal to some people and disappoint others, and I seriously believe that each person will have his or her own opinion about where changes were necessary. But ultimately, I think that PFRPG will be fun...if (and here's the real catch) you are willing to LET it be fun.
If you constantly remind yourself and everyone around you about how this or that rule can be bypassed or how one class seems to outshine another at any particular moment, then you are never going to be able to get past that and enjoy the fun of just playing a character who can do some really cool things that you'll never be able to do in real life. You'll never be able to enjoy the thrill of discovering the lost city or delving into unknown depths, because you're too busy bemoaning the fact that you can't do that extra 10 points of damage to the enemy in front of you.
Heck, even the computer-based roleplaying games have a story to them. I realize that progressing through the plot is usually secondary to killing as many enemies as you possibly can, but the promise of the story is inevitably what pulled me into the few games I bothered to purchase and install. Let's not lose sight of the story in the rush to "fix the game."
Most importantly, let's not lose sight of the fact that every single member of these boards is a real person. In no way, shape or form, should any attempt to improve the PFRPG be made at the expense of someone's dignity or rights. While it is true that one cannot have meaningful discourse if the foremost concern is to avoid offending someone, it is equally impossible to have truly meaningful discourse if there is no concern for other people.
After all, we are talking about a game that is meant to be played with other people. How can we further the cause of and improve a game built on social interaction if we cannot conduct ourselves with civility in the process of seeking out ways to improve it?
Paris, I agree with you. I think 3.5 has a very solid base to build on, and that's why we're all here. I am running RotRL with beta and we are all having a blast. I feel the game is in good hands and I'm not going to worry about little tweeks to powers or feats.
btw, I like starcraft. :)
|
Contributor
|
btw, I like starcraft. :)
Thanks, Blope. And I should have put in a disclaimer that I, too, like Starcraft...that's probably the only reason I understood the reference. However, I also never played the multiplayer, online version...I stuck to the single-player "plot-driven" game, myself.