|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've narrowed down what really irritates me on the boards.
Honesty.
We all house rule in one way or another. The game is not one size fits all, and you adjust things to fit your table. Some tables want more than others, some players need to be reigned in more to fit the room, some need to be given some rope while they learn...
We all adjust the table to fit the room and to try and have fun.
But when you come on the boards, be honest about it. Say "We did this, it probably wasn't RAI, but it was fun."
Ravingdork is one of the most over the top theorycraft posters on the board, but I like his posts because they start from the premise of "I know this is crazy, but I think the rules let me do 'X'"
He never tries to say if the rules should, or if the rules meant to, it is more like "Hey guys, can you believe this may be allowed!"
That, I think, is awesome.
But when you come in and say "The game is broken because it allows 'X'" you should have a sense of relief when people say "No it doesn't"
Because that means it isn't actually broken.
If you continue to say "Yes it does, it is totally broken, you don't know how to read the rules" you are no longer saying the game is broken, you are saying "Look how smart I am, I broke the game, how dare you tell me I'm not smart and didn't break the game!"
At which point I want to stab you. With something dull. Because it will hurt more.
Where the game is "broken", we should try and fix it. When a Dev says "That isn't what we intended" that basically means, well...that isn't what they intended. If you don't like the effect, house rule it out until we can errata it.
But you aren't cool and smart if you find ways to break the game and then go "No, it was totally supposed to be broken, I am smarter than the Devs!"
You are just annoying. And dishonest. And unhelpful to the dialog.
We are all trying to create a better game. That game isn't going to be one size fits all. But if your game has problems, that isn't something to be proud of.
You aren't clever because you broke your game anymore than you are clever because you blew up the engine on your car when your were messing with it.
And you are kind of a jerk if after breaking your game you go to a forum and tell people how you did it so they can also break their games, and then yell at people who say "But that is going to blow up your engine!"
Aren't we all here to try to find ways to improve our home games and/or encourage modifications that make the base game better, including more balanced?
well said.
|
|
I don't mind people saying something is broken with the intention of trying to find a way to fix it. Particularly in the context of "This is a made up world".
I think the monk threads, for example, are full of people with good intentions about finding ways to "fix" what they perceive as "problems" as well as people who think the "problems" are overstated.
That, I think, is useful.
What isn't useful is commentary about loopholes you allow in your game causing problems and you complaining about them. Or worse, advocating them as RAI, implying the Devs meant for the game to be broken.
Then posting walls of text about how anyone who says otherwise is dumb.
Then we are into stabbing with a dull object territory.
I have noticed that people who are adamant about something being broken are usually only looking at it from one angle/strategy, and they tend to completely disregard any attempts at working with it. It's either that or they say something is completely broken because of one bad experience with it. They don't look at all the other success stories.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have noticed that people who are adamant about something being broken are usually only looking at it from one angle/strategy, and they tend to completely disregard any attempts at working with it. It's either that or they say something is completely broken because of one bad experience with it. They don't look at all the other success stories.
I agree with this, and I find the conversation gets derailed by the person who "found" the broken thing being more interested in showing how smart they are rather than going through the vetting process to test the hypothesis.
The messageboards can be a great place to test drive ideas. Unfortunately some people don't want "testing" but "affirmation"
Agreed. I've always thought that pulling your hair and screaming to the Heavens because a particular rules interaction causes an unforeseen effect or is not mathematically perfect is giving yourself free ulcers.
I know our hobby is quite prone to obsessions, but we do have one great advantage over most other hobbies: We are free to fix things on the spot. And while the constant flow of input and feedback is what makes great games even greater, one thing is to identify the issue, and another is to consider it the end of the world. I am often gobsmacked by how something as little as, say, the whole thing with the Vow of Poverty for the Monk, can end up being interpreted as the nail on a game's coffin.
It's a game; it's your game. Fix it if you can, point at the issue, and continue to have fun. Obsessing too much over it is, in the end, counterproductive for yourself. Nothing worse than getting pointlessly angry at the thing you love.
|
|
Don't get me started on Vow of Poverty...adding an additional option is only a problem if the option is overpowered.
If you think something is underpowered, don't use that option and it will have literally no effect on your game. But if it is overpowered it can cause tons of issues.
The Devs, wisely, err on the side of caution and *boom*
Very nice post with a lot of truth. What is written in the books is a starting point, and unless Paizo has a lot more resources than I think, they cannot afford to come to everyone's house to mandate play. And yes, there are a lot of people that are more interested in showing how smart they are or breaking things and then jumping up and down and saying it is "broken" than playing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you continue to say "Yes it does, it is totally broken, you don't know how to read the rules" you are no longer saying the game is broken, you are saying "Look how smart I am, I broke the game, how dare you tell me I'm not smart and didn't break the game!"
There's definitely a type of "player" who thinks the point of the game is to be so smart that you think the game is stupid.
It seems that more than half of the gamers I meet in random contexts (classes, forums, etc) seem to be of this type.
I once had a chap explain to me that 3.5 wasn't worth playing because you could create a "peasant rail gun" or somesuch. It actually hurt my brain.
Luckily, these people are very forward with their strange beliefs, and this is a valuable indication that you should not game with them.
The Peasant Rail Gun is a thought experiment along the lines of Pun-Pun or the Twice-Betrayer of Shar or the uber-Knowledge Check guy that I can't remember the name of. It's pointing out a sillyness in the rules that any GM with half a brain wouldn't allow. It's never meant to be played or anything other than "look what I can do, heehee".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually avoid any thread that deals with this topic, as sadly it tends to devolve into petty arguments. But I like what you said, Ciretose.
You know what really bums me out, though, is....when exactly did the game become nothing short of an ongoing math exercise?! Why are so many players suddenly obsessed with optimization? Why is it that a character that can't down dragons in one hit, but is exactly what the player envisions him- or herself to be in a fantasy world, not worth playing?
I miss the old days when players' stories were more "...and then the orc chieftain said 'prove your worthiness to bear the crown of Zeleres' and the wizard replied 'prove to us your worthiness to judge us'! and then..." and less "because I have X and Y feat I dealt 89 damage to the mob with one swing".
I'ma go back to my lurking now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Peasant Rail Gun is a thought experiment along the lines of Pun-Pun or the Twice-Betrayer of Shar or the uber-Knowledge Check guy that I can't remember the name of. It's pointing out a sillyness in the rules that any GM with half a brain wouldn't allow. It's never meant to be played or anything other than "look what I can do, heehee".
I wish this were true, but there are people on this board who would argue not only was that type of thing intended by the Dev, but you would be cruel to not allow your players to do it.
I have an ongoing...let's call it "discussion" with a poster who believes the Devs completely intended for you to be able to create a genie simulacrum who can grant you unlimited wishes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Peasant Rail Gun is a thought experiment along the lines of Pun-Pun or the Twice-Betrayer of Shar or the uber-Knowledge Check guy that I can't remember the name of. It's pointing out a sillyness in the rules that any GM with half a brain wouldn't allow. It's never meant to be played or anything other than "look what I can do, heehee".I wish this were true, but there are people on this board who would argue not only was that type of thing intended by the Dev, but you would be cruel to not allow your players to do it.
I have an ongoing...let's call it "discussion" with a poster who believes the Devs completely intended for you to be able to create a genie simulacrum who can grant you unlimited wishes.
*facepalm*
|
|
@ Cannon Fodder - The problem is playing with someone who play purely for numbers, which is often the same person who wants people on the boards to see how clever they are.
I think it is great when people want help to make a concept work so that a concept can be, for lack of a better word, competitive with the rest of the group.
But when someone in the group is just trying to max numbers while complaining if you ever do anything that goes to the weaknesses they create with the min part...
It is the win factor vs the play factor. You shouldn't be competing against your party, you should be working with them to defeat the challenges the GM puts up.
And of course, having fun.
Agreed.
The over-emphasis on character build strategies, optimization, and exploitation of the rules sets to make unstoppable death machines just makes me sad. Give me a solid character concept, then design the character from the concept.
Any time a poster refers to a character's "damage per round" I stop reading the thread and must resist an urge to either slap someone or take a pull from a bottle of Jack Daniels.
Some of these Uber-Cheese discussions almost make me want to switch back to 1st-edition AD&D.
Exactly, Haladir. I've regretted asking people to help with a character build. They try to build it purely for combat, when combat is usually the last thing on my mind (unless it's a character who is meant to be in the fray).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Along the lines of this thread: I have a personal pet peeve with people that say "don't bring your reality into my fantasy" and "it is a game, the mechanics aren't logical". Both statements fail to see the basic premise that the rules are there to act as a mechanical interface between the real world and how it behaves and the fantasy world in our head.
For example, stealth, is supposed to allow the kinds of things that we can conceivably do in real life. Where the rules fail to live up to that expectation (or are interpreted in a way that makes them fail), the rules are wrong. Fortunately this particular example has been addressed somewhat by the devs a while back.
There are roughly, 3 kinds of posters on message boards:
1) The people who want agreement/empathy
Their posts are often emphatic ("this is broken!") -- which speaks to their passion to want to believe in this subject and what this belief affirmed, to borrow ciretose's term. And/or if they ask a question, the question is either "Am I the only one who..." or "Does anyone agree that..."
I often do my best to avoid threads with these words in the subject line.
Sometimes I will respond to an emphatic statement with a response, but if the poster starts arguing, then they've made it clear they're not looking for help or discussion, and again I do my best to leave the the thread.
Note these posts can be harmless but it depends on how desperately the poster is seeking agreement.
2) The people who want to provoke others into anger
Better known as trolls. Their statements are all the more emphatic and usually involve namecalling ("Pathfinder is broken and ur an idiot if you don't see it"). I think we otherwise know what these look like, and why they're best ignored.
3) The people who want to actually discuss something or the answer to a question.
Their threads usually begin with a question or direct request for help -- "This really crazy thing happened in the game session. Am I interpreting this rule right, and if so, what can I do to make sure this crazy thing doesn't happen again?"
This kind of language shows the person is open to suggestions, clarifications, and discussion of different play styles and interpretations. Sometimes 1 and 2 can cleverly disguise themselves as 3 but will reveal themselves as soon as they start posting "la la la I don't believe you" sort of posts and start trying to shut down reasonable disagreement. And then of course you leave the thread.
I try to pay attention to the poster's style and if I think they want a substantive response, even if it's disagreeing, I'll respond and otherwise I try to stay away. Sometimes I take the bait, we all do, but the best way of course to avoid the negative results of 1 and 2 is just to stay away from them entirely.
There's a 4th form of post which is purely intended to be informational, and sometimes those posts can turn into the above, but sometimes after people say, "cool" or "meh" it goes away when it's no longer relevant.
|
I don't mind people saying something is broken with the intention of trying to find a way to fix it. Particularly in the context of "This is a made up world".
no, no, I was speaking literally. I literally broke the core rules (at least my copy of it). It is a sad looking thing as it stands. ;)
Still agree with everything you have said so far. :)
The Peasant Rail Gun is a thought experiment along the lines of Pun-Pun or the Twice-Betrayer of Shar or the uber-Knowledge Check guy that I can't remember the name of. It's pointing out a sillyness in the rules that any GM with half a brain wouldn't allow. It's never meant to be played or anything other than "look what I can do, heehee".
I'm just upset because I read about Colonel Sanders' Undead Chicken Cannon one time, and I can't find it anymore. :(
I don't mind people saying something is broken with the intention of trying to find a way to fix it. Particularly in the context of "This is a made up world".no, no, I was speaking literally. I literally broke the core rules (at least my copy of it). It is a sad looking thing as it stands. ;)
Still agree with everything you have said so far. :)
Well of course it's going to break if you keep snatching it with tentacles!
Jeez, you mindflayers! No sense of property preservation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I approve of the OP's diatribe. I'm a proponent of Houserule it; and get over it.
EDIT: in fact, I think I'll start saying hri;goi.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure the Hrigoi must be some kind of horrible undead creature from somewhere in Eastern Europe that eats kidneys or something.
I'm sure the Hrigoi must be some kind of horrible undead creature from somewhere in Eastern Europe that eats kidneys or something.
Nah, it sounds Asian.
I'm sure the Hrigoi must be some kind of horrible undead creature from somewhere in Eastern Europe that eats kidneys or something.Nah, it sounds Asian.
Well, Asia starts where Eastern Europe ends. Maybe he's from the countryside.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind people saying something is broken with the intention of trying to find a way to fix it. Particularly in the context of "This is a made up world".no, no, I was speaking literally. I literally broke the core rules (at least my copy of it). It is a sad looking thing as it stands. ;)
Still agree with everything you have said so far. :)
I dropped one of my book in the washing machine once. Found it the next morning. I manged to salvage it but it's about 3 inches thicker than it used to be and literally bursting out of its seems. Now that's what I call rule bloat!
@ deathquaker
There's a fifth type of poster:
5) The people who just found something witty to say and want to share what they think is a brilliant joke, but an otherwise impertinent post (like this one).
[edit] oh, and I agree with OP.
There's a fifth type of poster:
5) The people who just found something witty to say and want to share what they think is a brilliant joke, but an otherwise impertinent post (like this one).
Dammit, Laurefindel! You revealed my MO!
[edit] oh, and I agree with OP.
I agree with Ciretose but I am not sure if honesty (or lack of thereof) is the right word to describe what he is complaining about. Someone who he describes might be honestly believing that being smartass who breaks the system is the right way to play this game - the problem would be egotism of some (rare) posters not dishonesty.
@ Cannon Fodder - The problem is playing with someone who play purely for numbers, which is often the same person who wants people on the boards to see how clever they are.
I think it is great when people want help to make a concept work so that a concept can be, for lack of a better word, competitive with the rest of the group.
But when someone in the group is just trying to max numbers while complaining if you ever do anything that goes to the weaknesses they create with the min part...
It is the win factor vs the play factor. You shouldn't be competing against your party, you should be working with them to defeat the challenges the GM puts up.
And of course, having fun.
Amen to that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may be the most sensible thread I have ever come across. Whenever I see a thread containing the words "broken" "sucks" "weak" "overpowered" or "fix" I pretty much just merrily skip right over it.
If you don't like RAW, either play it RAI, RAO, or HRI-GOI. Just don't come to the boards to show of your mad math skillz.
Man, I hope I said something pertinent there.
This may be the most sensible thread I have ever come across. Whenever I see a thread containing the words "broken" "sucks" "weak" "overpowered" or "fix" I pretty much just merrily skip right over it.
If you don't like RAW, either play it RAI, RAO, or HRI-GOI.
That Hri-goi sounds better and better with each repetition, either as a name for a monster, demon lord, or even a vile deity (or maybe an Great Old One).
Now I started to think about some sort of insectoid/arachnid monstrous race fit for Distant Worlds campaign and their alien god from which they would take their name.
I don't understand.
Understanding is not required. Only obedience.
|
|
Part of the reason I removed my anonymity.
Well as a result of our transaction, you know where I live :)
I think some posters would love to give up the anonymity as they believe they know the rules better than the Devs and that people should clamor for their publications...
Attention seeking behavior is seek attention...well at least positive attention...
I have noticed that people who are adamant about something being broken are usually only looking at it from one angle/strategy, and they tend to completely disregard any attempts at working with it. It's either that or they say something is completely broken because of one bad experience with it. They don't look at all the other success stories.
Reminds me of a thread about the Stealth skill awhile back, where the OP tried to prove that the skill was broken and worthless using a scenario where a hungry rogue was attempting, in broad daylight, to sneak past a farmer and his dog sitting on the front porch of a farmhouse in order to get to the chicken coop to steal a chicken.
|
I have noticed that people who are adamant about something being broken are usually only looking at it from one angle/strategy, and they tend to completely disregard any attempts at working with it. It's either that or they say something is completely broken because of one bad experience with it. They don't look at all the other success stories.Reminds me of a thread about the Stealth skill awhile back, where the OP tried to prove that the skill was broken and worthless using a scenario where a hungry rogue was attempting, in broad daylight, to sneak past a farmer and his dog sitting on the front porch of a farmhouse in order to get to the chicken coop to steal a chicken.
Dungeons. And. Dragons. :)
I have noticed that people who are adamant about something being broken are usually only looking at it from one angle/strategy, and they tend to completely disregard any attempts at working with it. It's either that or they say something is completely broken because of one bad experience with it. They don't look at all the other success stories.Reminds me of a thread about the Stealth skill awhile back, where the OP tried to prove that the skill was broken and worthless using a scenario where a hungry rogue was attempting, in broad daylight, to sneak past a farmer and his dog sitting on the front porch of a farmhouse in order to get to the chicken coop to steal a chicken.
Except, that thread did more or less lead to a prospective change in the stealth rules.
Not everyone with a beef with the rules is a jerk. Nor are they necessarily wrong. Some people are right about the rules AND being a jerk. Some people are just right about the rules and it is difficult to phrase diplomatically.
Let's not all crowd together on this high horse.
Yes, there are occasions where the person complaining is actually right, but those are not the norm. Hopefully, we can learn to recognize such situations and not lump them in the same category as those this thread is complaining about.
That thread was before my time here, what ended up changing about stealth if anyone cares to answer?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, there are occasions where the person complaining is actually right, but those are not the norm. Hopefully, we can learn to recognize such situations and not lump them in the same category as those this thread is complaining about.
That thread was before my time here, what ended up changing about stealth if anyone cares to answer?
I'm not sure how it finalized, or if.
The basic premise was that you need cover or concealment to get stealth, which makes sneaking "behind" someone impossible, since you auto-fail stealth the moment you leave concealment. So sneaking from pillar to pillar, for instance, was impossible. I think we can all agree that the rogue should have a chance to Tenchu up behind folks and stab them, especially if the target is really statistically oblivious.
What's more, the stealth rules in general are a mess, spread out over several clauses in different chapters — skills, combat, vision and light, and so this problem went unnoticed for a very long time.
Of course, I had a house rule in place, so I never felt the burn quite so badly. Some people are more sensitive to such things.
I only replied because that was one of the best examples of a complaint thread doing some good, despite its contentiousness and the obstinacy of the original poster.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, there are occasions where the person complaining is actually right, but those are not the norm. Hopefully, we can learn to recognize such situations and not lump them in the same category as those this thread is complaining about.
That thread was before my time here, what ended up changing about stealth if anyone cares to answer?
I'm not sure how it finalized, or if.
The basic premise was that you need cover or concealment to get stealth, which makes sneaking "behind" someone impossible, since you auto-fail stealth the moment you leave concealment. So sneaking from pillar to pillar, for instance, was impossible. I think we can all agree that the rogue should have a chance to Tenchu up behind folks and stab them, especially if the target is really statistically oblivious.
What's more, the stealth rules in general are a mess, spread out over several clauses in different chapters — skills, combat, vision and light, and so this problem went unnoticed for a very long time.
Of course, I had a house rule in place, so I never felt the burn quite so badly. Some people are more sensitive to such things.
I only replied because that was one of the best examples of a complaint thread doing some good, despite its contentiousness and the obstinacy of the original poster.
I agree with Evil Lincoln on this one. That thread was someone who saw a problem asking for a solution or fix. And some good conversation/changes came out of that one.
I am talking more about people who find (or create) loopholes, then get upset when you say it is a loophole, or that they are wrong about the rule and the loophole doesn't exist.
If I remember correctly, that poster was actively looking for solutions to a problem, not saying "Look how awesome I am that I found this!"