Why is it that I see SO many debates on these forums that go something like this:
"If you follow this interpretation of the rules, than the game is more fun. If you believe in--and follow--the other, then it takes away from the game."
"That doesn't matter. MY interpretation is the correct one. If you play it any other way, you are doing it wrong."
I would think that if two or more interpretations were possible, people would simply choose the one that most enhances the game, or is the most fun, or takes the LEAST away from it.
That does not seem to be the case though. People in this community will stubbornly fight TOOTH AND NAIL to prove that they are right, even if their interpretation would hurt the game somehow.
Just. Why?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer: Human nature.
Slightly longer answer: Because sometimes the "most fun" answer is the one least in the spirit of some other rules (even assuming the "most fun" means the same thing to everybody, which is a very dubious assumption).
Don't forget, too, that what may well be perfectly fine in a home game isn't necessarily applicable to a PFS setting. I'm quite happy to house-rule selected interpretations in my own games, but there are some things I can't do when I'm judging a PFS scenario (even if I wanted to).
Reference: Stop Having Fun Guys
More seriously, I'd like to know too. I guess some people are just too stubborn to admit they might be wrong (in that their way isn't the only way), but that doesn't cover all the cases.
If you can accept that what's fun for you isn't necessarily fun for everyone else, then you're already well ahead of this particular curve. Also, most of the people in question never seem to mention PFS.
What I don't get is the people that want everyone ever to play the game their way (without regards to PFS, where you've agreed to play the game a certain way beforehand). That mindset is just too strange to me.
Depends on what 'fun' and 'right' is.
If it's someone that wants to do something cool but it'd not completely covered in the rules, I'd rather they have fun.
If it's someone that wants to do something cool but the rules don't allow it and balance-wise, I believe it is reasonable, I'd rather they have fun.
If it's someone whose idea of fun is screwing over the party in a way that the players dislike, I'd rather be right and say "No, you can't do that."
If it's someone that wants to do something but it is against the rules and I believe that changing it would affect balance horribly, I'd rather be right and say "No, you can't do that." and tell them my reasoning behind it.
If it's someone that wants to play something you've never seen before (third party class, a non-core class, etc.) and you are unsure, I'd use my duty as a GM to look at the class and if I felt it fit with the setting and meshed well with the rules, I'd allow it and let them enjoy it.
I believe GMs should allow their players to have fun. But I also believe GMs need to know when to stick to their guns and say no. Everyone gets to have fun, even the GM. A player shouldn't throw a temper tantrum just because a GM says no to a class or race. I've only had one person get truly mad because I said no to an idea. He wanted to be a half-dragon and I said that I want to stick with core races only. He literally pitched a fit. And he was older than me by a good eight years. I was 19, mind you.
The truth is there is no definitive answer to picking one or the other. As a GM, it is your duty to play each scenario by ear. And as a player, sometimes you just have to understand that no means no and you should respect the GM's decision and reasoning instead of getting angry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that I see SO many debates on these forums that go something like this:
"If you follow this interpretation of the rules, than the game is more fun. If you believe in--and follow--the other, then it takes away from the game."
"That doesn't matter. MY interpretation is the correct one. If you play it any other way, you are doing it wrong."
I would think that if two or more interpretations were possible, people would simply choose the one that most enhances the game, or is the most fun, or takes the LEAST away from it.
That does not seem to be the case though. People in this community will stubbornly fight TOOTH AND NAIL to prove that they are right, even if their interpretation would hurt the game somehow.
Just. Why?
Because when someone claims that an interpretation will "make the game less fun", they are making a subjective claim.
When someone claims that an interpretation is in line with the literal wording of the rules, they are making an (allegedly) objective claim.
I believe it is easier for people to agree on what is right than what is fun.
Not to mention...for some (maybe many) people, being right IS fun. :)
If this has something to do with the thread i was in RD its not so much i have to be right it more of a don't start a thread on the rules forums and argue RAW using one Ambigious sentence. Especially when your basing your opinion off of already skewed views on how the skill works in general as seen in your previous thread.
So sorry for any inconvience and distress I may have caused you today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that I see SO many debates on these forums that go something like this:
"If you follow this interpretation of the rules, than the game is more fun. If you believe in--and follow--the other, then it takes away from the game."
"That doesn't matter. MY interpretation is the correct one. If you play it any other way, you are doing it wrong."
I would think that if two or more interpretations were possible, people would simply choose the one that most enhances the game, or is the most fun, or takes the LEAST away from it.
That does not seem to be the case though. People in this community will stubbornly fight TOOTH AND NAIL to prove that they are right, even if their interpretation would hurt the game somehow.
Just. Why?
What hurts the game is subjective. :)
Even if something is universally agreed to hurt the game that does not mean we should ignore it if it is true. You can't fix a problem until it is identified.
|
I think it comes down to peoples inner values, the things that personality profiles try to measure. Some folk are just rule/detail oriented/driven, and its no surprise that rules heavy games like this one attract more than their fair share of folks with that kind of mindset. It's not right or wrong, its who they are.
I think its worth looking at the personality type tests definitions which help you get a handle on it - for example Myers Briggs Intuitive vs Sensing types and perhaps noting the difference between INTJ and ISTJ personality types. Though of course its a continuum rather than a one or other thing.
I'll second the human nature answer. It stems from a base desire that some people, on occasion, simply can't get past.
I see it way too often in over-the-phone tech support. People would rather be right than happy. In a general example: rather wait over a week for a service call than attempt simple powercycling of their equipment, because "it's not their router".
If this has something to do with the thread i was in RD its not so much i have to be right it more of a don't start a thread on the rules forums and argue RAW using one Ambigious sentence. Especially when your basing your opinion off of already skewed views on how the skill works in general as seen in your previous thread.
So sorry for any inconvience and distress I may have caused you today.
Why is it there are people who somehow manage to make everything about themselves?
lol. j/k.
Don't worry Talonhawke. If it were possible for mere forums to distress me in the way you describe, I would not go to them. I'm here for fun and discussion, not for inconvenience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original question here is an interesting one, because it makes a few assumptions.
I'd analogize it to someone making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and adding pickles. Can you do it? Yes. Does it make the sandwich taste better? Perhaps to you it does, but I'd say no it doesn't. I could argue that you making the sandwich that way isn't good because it will taste bad (isn't fun). Or, I could argue that you are doing it wrong; the very name of the sandwich is peanut butter and jelly, not peanut butter, jelly and pickles.
Of course, I could lose that argument either way. Firstly, because the person making the sandwich is the only one that needs to enjoy the taste. Secondly, if they've adapted their peanut butter and jelly sandwich by adding pickles, I can tell them they're wrong all day long, but when it comes right down to it, they are still eating a sandwich that has peanut butter and jelly on it, thus it is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Now, I realize that's not a precise analogy, but I think it does a pretty bang up job of getting at the essence of what Raving Dork is talking about. If that is true, then in the end everything that is argued on both sides is futile, because while correctness can be established, correctness of rules that are designed to be adapted for each individual table is only a baseline anyway.
Just my 2 coppers.
As an aside, I really freaking love toast with strawberry jam on one side, butter on the other, and the sharpest cheddar cheese slice money can buy in the middle.
Is there a difference?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, when I get involved in a rules argument, it's usually to make it clear to third parties observing that whatever the person I'm arguing with is saying is not universally accepted, or the way the rules actually work.
I don't think I've ever argued that people shouldn't play a certain way as long as everyone was having fun, just that (depending on what we're talking about) they should note that how they are doing it isn't the actual way the rules work, and thus might not apply in other people's games.
I have also argued game balance, which strikes me as a reasonable continuation of 'as long as everyone's having fun' as, IME, unbalanced rules are less conducive to fun than balancd ones, all other things being equal.
This is especially relevant in the Rules and Advice forums.
.
.
.
I note these, not to be self-centered, but because I suspect my motivations are not uncommon among those who argue about what's 'right'.
|
It's not about the satisfaction of being right, it's about trying to play the game by the rules as much as possible because let's face it, we have rules for a reason.
Rules are supposed to be there to keep everyone on an equal footing when they step into the game. The game can't decide on it's own what is fun for each and every individual out there so it presents what it has and then each individual decides if they like it or not. Some people may find AC and hit points not fun but the game requires them anyway. Houseruling is fine and dandy but not everyone has the capability to throw in houserules and keep the game balanced.
For some people, like me, it's about playing the game as written. My legitimate concerns may not be legitimate for someone else by they are for me and I want them clarified if a ruling isn't clear. I pay to have a game that is as complete as possible and if I want hodgepodge then I will just create my own and save me some money.
I leave it up to MY dm not a bunch of strangers on the internet. I got my degree in history not RAW... if we have a huge question we make a post in our saturday night RAW questions forums and take the answer that seems the least crazy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That does not seem to be the case though. People in this community will stubbornly fight TOOTH AND NAIL to prove that they are right, even if their interpretation would hurt the game somehow.
Just. Why?
To play a game like this requires consensus; each player including the DM should be playing by the same definition of rules or things really do fall apart.
The problem is that since the rules are written in English instead of C++ or algebraic formula, there's plenty of room for interpretation. Different people have different backgrounds, moods, and agendas, so differing interpretations of rules are inevitable.
That someone interprets things differently than you do is borderline intolerable because the "wrong" folks might spread their "wrongness", teaching the innocent "wrongly". It's insulting, the idea of more players out there Doing It Wrong. Some day they might be at your table, arguing and cheating and it's all anarchy.
So we post. And educate.
If you are having fun, but what you are doing is not right, then you are an abomination, the utter embodiment of evil, and shall be smitten.
</overdone paladin>
I see that there are two different games going on; one is Pathfinder, where it's up to the GM to interpret the rules as necessary to ensure that everyone at the table has fun, and "everyone has fun" is the very definition of "is right."
The other game is "arguing about the rules on the Paizo messageboards." That game has drastically different goals and norms than Pathfinder. I don't think it's common for people arguing about rules on here to say "you can't play it that way in your home game;" it's understood that, in any particular game (PFS excepted) the GM can rule however they want.
Other than that, Deadmanwalking pretty much summed up my opinion. Nice to know we agree on something, man. :-)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not so much being right imo as in someone already convinced about a topic then posting a thread. Say for example a poster starta a thread called "pathfinder rules bloat does it exist". The poster feels very strongly that it does. More often than not most posters who reply in a usually disagree as opposed to agree with the poster then it goes downhill from there. I see too many threads started as yes or no threads by posters that are really "this is how I feel about this topic and you better feel the same way". Then when the opposite happens those who started the thread in the first place don't like the responses given to their thread. Not always of course yet it happens way too often. My advice is this if your mind is set on a certain topic and nothing will change that then imo don't begin a thread if your not going to like responses to said thread. I respect that posters have a difference of opinion then mine yet a big difference between having a different opinion and starting a thread to feel validated on a certain topic a poster feels strongly about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not so much being right imo as in someone already convinced about a topic then posting a thread. Say for example a poster starta a thread called "pathfinder rules bloat does it exist". The poster feels very strongly that it does. More often than not most posters who reply in a usually disagree as opposed to agree with the poster then it goes downhill from there. I see too many threads started as yes or no threads by posters that are really "this is how I feel about this topic and you better feel the same way". Then when the opposite happens those who started the thread in the first place don't like the responses given to their thread. Not always of course yet it happens way too often. My advice is this if your mind is set on a certain topic and nothing will change that then imo don't begin a thread if your not going to like responses to said thread. I respect that posters have a difference of opinion then mine yet a big difference between having a different opinion and starting a thread to feel validated on a certain topic a poster feels strongly about.
Unfortunately, as a general rule, people ask for others' opinions of their thoughts looking for agreement, not for a debate.
|
|
I've done it one or two times. Gotta watch myself to not repeat that mistake.
+1 BTW.
Nothing wrong with posting or starting a thread where you mind is made up on a topic already. It's making it open ended with a yes or no and then getting angry or dislike the fact that posters don't agree with your OP.
To be fair and honest on occasson I have done it myself.
Unfortunately, as a general rule, people ask for others' opinions of their thoughts looking for agreement, not for a debate.
True yet to me that is not someone interested in a debate. It's someone looking for validation on something they feel strongly about. Which ususally is not going to happen. Too often I see poster assuming they are going to get posts agreeing and then get unhappy when that does not happen. What's the point of posting if as poster you don't want to hear a view different from your own. Just seems counter productive and just asking to make yourself miserable as wel as other posters.
as it's fun to be right, yes, being able to agree that everyone is right is more important than only me having fun.
No really, we all know the right answer to your question and I don't see the fun debating it just to see if the other people also got it right. Funny, isn't it?
as it's fun to be right....
I was right several times this week. More than once, I wish I hadn't been, and just because it wasn't fun being so.
Behavior on these messageboards cannot be presumed to indicate actual game play behavior or real-world personalities. People will argue things on these boards from a theoretical or hypothetical basis of what they wish their games were like, but in an actual game play they will go with what the group finds to be the most fun.
Usually.
There probably are some few totally arrogant jerks who behave in the real world the way they behave on these boards, but I suspect those are quite rare. They have been in my experience.
A similar dynamic occurs when players discuss games outside of the actual gaming where the goal of the endeavor is to promote individual preferences and interpretations, and has nothing really to do with gaming in the real world. I frequently have intense conversations with some of my gaming buddies over specific rules interpretations that have similar dynamics to some of the threads on these boards, but when we actually game, that never happens. While gaming we have a different goal, that goal is to enjoy the game, not to win an argument.
The whole thing boils down to what motivates the behavior, and on these boards the motivation is not to cooperate and participate in a fun activity with people we know well, it's to win an argument against faceless strangers we barely know at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing RAW is a folly of the greatest order. The game isn't meant to be played RAW. When the first rule of the game is basically "use houserules", to say otherwise just shows how hilariously out of touch you are with the game.
|
|
Does your "fun" ruin the "fun" for the others at the table by throwing off the balance of the game?
Most of us are trying to find some consensus so when we sit down at a table with strangers, everyone is on the same page.
Unfortunately many of us avoid sitting down at tables with strangers, because a number of them want to manipulate rules so they can have "fun" without considering if anyone else at the table thinks they are being obnoxious rules lawyers.
I would love to play PFS. I would bet I would have a great time at most PFS tables. Paizo would love us all to play more PFS. Unfortunately some people want to "win" the table and so many of us make sure we screen who we play with so we don't constantly want to slam our heads against a wall when we have to tell them "No you can't play a Drow Noble with no level adjustment who is universally loved, despite being a drow with a 5 charisma..."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think that if two or more interpretations were possible, people would simply choose the one that most enhances the game, or is the most fun, or takes the LEAST away from it.
In many cases, one side* is (often, knowingly) seeking to take advantage of a loophole in the rules, or something that could have been worded better, in order to give themselves a means of beating their GM or other players over the head, in a never-ending vendetta of tit-for-tat oneupmanship.
Enhancing the game is the last thing on their mind. Rather than the longterm goal of interpreting the rules in a way that everyone can enjoy, they want the short-term victory of hogging the spotlight, marginalising the other PCs, trivialising encounters, and making the game suck for everyone else.
The GM version of this person wants passive players, with powerless PCs, who can't interfere with his perfectly-crafted story, and Mary-Sue NPCs.
So when anyone cries out about 'FUN!', the first thing to consider, is, whose fun they are petitioning for? Their own, or the group's?
*not neccesarily anyone in this thread, so don't get your panties in a knot.
You need to be right most of the time and house rule it otherwise. I find the argument about rules loopholes has more to do with liberal interpretation of the rules which should house rules. Then the player want to keep the game like that at other tables and conflict arises. I think this takes away from the fun.
|
|
Arguning wit the intention to actually debate something is one thing. Start a thread on a forum or a conversation in real life when your already made up your mind and unwilling to budge on your position just seems like a waste of time. If a poster starts a thread about the falcata being overpowered it's one thing to say "I think the Falcata is broken and here's why". That person is being honest about how he feels and not starting a debate to validate his point. Too often here and other forums and in real life someone says "falcata broken yea or nay" then when posters or a person disagrees gets angry or is unahppy that the posts or people he talks to don't agree or support his position. To me anyway a major difference to debating a topic when a person wants to hear both sides or enters a debate firmly on one side. The first more imteresting and fun to read. The second not so much because ineviatable it comes down to I'm right your wrong back and forth to no conclusion.
Granted yes as a species we like to argue. That being said though a bit of a cop-out imo. We are not unthinking animals. We think we rationaloize and can make the decision whether to debate or argue for the sake of arguning.Or to post or do something to get a reaction. Nor is anyone holding a gun (at least I hope not) to anyone head when posting or having a discussion. So it's not like a person is forced to post a certain way. What bothers me in these situation is a lack of responsability when a poster beahves badly or starts thread to get a reaction. Too often here and elsewhere it's either "what did I do" or "to hell with you I'm hiding behind freedom of speech". Which is fine post what you like just remember that your responsible for what you post. Which also applies to myself. I'm no saint I have made a few posts that I wish I did not. Just tired of hearing "well what are you going do right".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring the possibility this may be a trolling attempt, I will say this: I prefer to have fun, but it decreases my fun when I'm planning on playing by the rules and the GM gets them wrong. Over the years I've gotten better at handling it, but it can still be frustrating.
I believe it is easier for people to agree on what is right than what is fun.You may very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Then why did you?
I will say this: I prefer to have fun, but it decreases my fun when I'm planning on playing by the rules and the GM gets them wrong. Over the years I've gotten better at handling it, but it can still be frustrating.
+1 to this. I have no problem if a DM houserules things, but PLEASE, discuss it with your players first so everybody is on the level. And if you have an oddball interpretation of the rules, be willing to discuss it with your players like a reasonable person.
Why is it that I see SO many debates on these forums that go something like this:
"If you follow this interpretation of the rules, than the game is more fun. If you believe in--and follow--the other, then it takes away from the game."
"That doesn't matter. MY interpretation is the correct one. If you play it any other way, you are doing it wrong."
I would think that if two or more interpretations were possible, people would simply choose the one that most enhances the game, or is the most fun, or takes the LEAST away from it.
That does not seem to be the case though. People in this community will stubbornly fight TOOTH AND NAIL to prove that they are right, even if their interpretation would hurt the game somehow.
Just. Why?
Sometimes the issue is "what do the rules say". The rules say what they say- regardless of whether or not it is good, bad, fun, not fun, or whether it in fact ruins the game entirely.
Knowing WHAT the rules say is the first step to trying to change any given rule to make sure its right for your campaign.So yeah, sometimes knowing "The Right" answer can be far more important than whether or not that rule is good/bad/balanced/etc. for the overall game. This of course comes with the caveat that someone is actually trying to gain understanding rather than just advancing some loophole as the way a rule was intended to be, or should work.
Alot of your posts are that way actually, RD. You come in asking if the RAW is correct- not to break the rules but to find out if the way you understand the rule is correct. So you can then either change it or talk to the DM about changing it- or just for the knowledge of knowing how its supposed to work.
Knowing "The Rule" is also extremely important for PFS. How someone would change the rule, or how something would be houseruled, or some variant way someone might choose to interpret a rule is less important than "The Rule" so that someone knows for sure whether or not any given build, idea, or whatever can work under PFS.
Unfortunately though alot of people roll around the forums looking for vindication of their pet idea or build and get really pissy when folks knock that idea down. "Hey, you may mean well but that idea doesn't work because the rules actually say X, Y, or Z". These are the folks who we usually see getting all uppity and mad that you don't agree with them. Its because they weren't really looking for "the answeR". They had the answer already- they were looking for agreement. Probably to shove in someone else's face and say "neener neener I told you so" or whatever.
Nothing you can really do for those folks- cept flag the thread (if appropriate) and move on after stating the rules. :)
-S
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slartibartfast: Science has achieved some wonderful things, I know, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day.
Arthur Dent: And are you?
Slartibartfast: No. That's where it all falls down, of course.
Arthur Dent: Pity, it sounded like rather a good lifestyle otherwise.
|
|
Then why did you?I believe it is easier for people to agree on what is right than what is fun.You may very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
See here, although if you didn't recognise the reference you'll miss a lot of the subtext.
Is being "right" more important than having fun?
No. And if you disagree with that, I will needle and nitpick you until you either concede or drop the argument. ;-)
Seriously, I think the question is ignoring distinctions relevant to the framing of the question that people are answering.
Honestly, too many posters don't seem capable of/interested in making that distinction.
If a question asked about 'RAW' functioning, answers which hinge on what is preferrable/more fun to play are nearly irrelevant.
Now if there is a question posed such as 'how do you like to play X rule in a home game/house-ruling allowed', then 'having fun' responses are the relevant answers and RAW is basically irrelevant (unless somebody find sticking to RAW simpler/more pleasant in it's own right... but that is a matter of taste, not RAW-derived legitimacy per se). Of course, 'having fun' is subjective, so claiming that somebody else's fun is 'wrong' would be silly... You can make claims of what statistically is popular, but that doens't involve right or wrong either.
"Having Fun" questions/answers are akin to 'What is your favorite Color'?
'What is Right" questions/answers are akin to 'What color has the highest contrast/visiblity in X lighting conditions'.
See here, although if you didn't recognise the reference you'll miss a lot of the subtext.Then why did you?I believe it is easier for people to agree on what is right than what is fun.You may very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Aha, an in-joke. I appreciate the explanation...and that looks interesting, and may bear further investigation.
Cheers. :)
