| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly and I don't have a big pool of people to game with, it's just something I do with my little brother and his friends. It wold be nice to be able to hear from the community at large about how to wok through these differences, without everyone getting so wound up about it.Same here.Why does it have to be "Let it die on page 1" or "In before the lock!"?
This is a topic I have actually had to contend with in my home-group.
I think what you're seeing is why - for some people - working through those differences isn't an option. Hence why the article warns about the dangers of being too quick to say "yes" without thinking through the ramifications and why GMs should consider saying "no, but" instead, in order to protect the game.
Some people just can't tolerate X with their Y, especially not with Z mixed in as well. Some people can't tolerate X in any shape or form, and some people just have to have Y in there or it isn't right.
I honestly don't know the solution to "making it work". For me, it's always been "get the right group of people from the beginning" but I appreciate that isn't always an option. Personally, I'm not sure I'd ever want to play the game badly enough to accept I had to say "yes" to players because I needed them to play and they refused to unless they get their own way. I'd rather go read a book by myself than play a game I was uncomfortable with.
I guess my recommendation is to ensure everyone gets a turn at being GM, and when that person is GM everyone follows their lead, and respects their position enough to accept the "no" when they say it. In return, the GM should be appending a "but..." to that "no" to help them find an alternative.
Well, I was wrong. We are right back on the polarized extremes where there are only GMs who want to tell their frustrated writer story to a captive audience or else a player who can only play a wizard-pony with rainbow eyes.
I am so glad I game in the real world instead of the world described on these boards.
Rainbow eyes? Now you are just being absolutely ludicrous. I've seen rainbow manes, and rainbow tails, but rainbow eyes? Stop being silly!
Oh, wait, I know what you're talking about. My bad.
That pony wasn't a wizard, though. A bard, maybe...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me there isn't any difference between the two. Its just a variation of the your wrong in the later case.Vincent, I saw a lot of negative stuff on the locked thread, but I never saw "you're wrong for not liking my restrictive/unrestrictive playstyle."
What I did see was something along the lines of "you're wrong for not sufficiently accommodating my personal playstyle" and "you're wrong for demanding I be more accommodating of your personal playstyle." That seemed, to me, to be the core of the debate.
It seems to me that not being able to tell the difference between the two things I stated above could very well be the core of the problem here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Carmachu--the difference is inconsequential. The real problem is that two players are not accommodating each other. GMs need to accommodate players, but the reverse is also true. In short, just cooperate. Closed settings can be just as much fun as kitchen sink settings--I don't think anybody's arguing that, since it's a matter of personal taste.
Really, the whole debate is just another version of "can't trust the players" vs. "can't trust the GM".
And really, my post here is just another version of my pretentious garbage where I act like I'm above the debate even though I do have an opinion and quite often share it. ;)
|
It seems to me that not being able to tell the difference between the two things I stated above could very well be the core of the problem here.To me there isn't any difference between the two. Its just a variation of the your wrong in the later case.Vincent, I saw a lot of negative stuff on the locked thread, but I never saw "you're wrong for not liking my restrictive/unrestrictive playstyle."
What I did see was something along the lines of "you're wrong for not sufficiently accommodating my personal playstyle" and "you're wrong for demanding I be more accommodating of your personal playstyle." That seemed, to me, to be the core of the debate.
Works in reverse as well. The fact you cant see that there really isn't any difference between the two. By saying your not accommodating my personal playstyle or your wrong for demanding I be more accomadating......is still just another way your wrong for not liking my playstyle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is that accommodating a playstyle does not require LIKING it.
Understand?
Probably not. It is quite different to say I am wrong for not accommodating you than it is to say I am wrong for not LIKING what you want me to LIKE.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it's funny these thread keep mentioning pony wizards and stuff as "special snowflakes" that "are weird".
(Just pointing that out. Somewhere in the comments they talk about the game system and everything.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It all originated as a reference, actually, so not so strange. ;D
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it's funny these thread keep mentioning pony wizards and stuff as "special snowflakes" that "are weird".
(Just pointing that out. Somewhere in the comments they talk about the game system and everything.)
"Can I play a friendly-aligned Diamond Dog?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A kiss on the hand can be quite continental,
but diamonds are a girl's best friend.
It all originated as a reference, actually, so not so strange. ;D
Ah. If I'd actually participated in any of these threads since that one I was in for a while (I don't think I participated in the locked one, did I?) I might have known. Whoops.
Ah well. Back to leaving these things alone, I suppose.
A kiss on the hand can be quite continental,
but diamonds are a girl's best friend.
A kiss may be grand, but it... won't pay the rental~!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole pony wizard thing I find interesting. I have used the Leadership skill to allow players to get intelligent mounts for characters that don't normally get them. I've had blink dog rangers and such cohorts. I'm sure I could work something out with an intelligent pony. Hell, in earlier editions, weren't there these guys? Doesn't seem like it would be that hard of a stretch to a pony. Might need to take a feat that acts like the natural spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Al-Quadim!
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue for me isn't odd being the problem, it is "LOOK AT ME!" being the problem.
When I am a player, my focus is on my character. Which is fine. I want the GM to make a world that is interesting and exciting for my character, and therefore for me to play in.
When I am the GM, my focus is on trying to make 4+ people all have a good time and hopefully be excited about exploring a world we are creating together.
When one player pulls the focus away from the group and onto themselves, for any reason, it causes problems. If we are playing a Kitsune game, and you want to play a human...that can be a problem.
Some players can play "odd" without making the game about them. Some, frankly, can't.
I don't want the game to be the "Steve the Awakened Pony Show". I want everyone at the table to feel like what they made is a part of the world we are exploring and creating. I want everyone to be integrated into a group that is a part of the world.
So when someone makes something that is difficult to integrate, they make it more difficult to do my job. They make it harder to make a game that "makes sense" and involves everyone.
My group is wonderful in that we always make a party, not just characters. The GM suggests an outline, gets approval, and 90% of the time the players talk and find a way to create connecting threads and reasons everyone is in a place willing to become a party.
The snowflake is a problem not because of weird ideas, but because they want to be the special unique snowflake unlike anyone else. Look at me, I'm different and special. Accommodate me. You change to meet my needs.
What most of us want in our fellow players and GMs are people who are trying to work with us.
What this article warns people about is that sometimes that person doesn't care as much about being helpful as you do. Sometimes that person only cares about what they want, and doesn't understand why you won't give it to them.
Some people believe they are the unquestionable hero of their own personal life narrative. Some of them have read fountainhead one to many times and think they are a genius and people who don't like the things they want to do are close minded and blind to their genius.
These people...IMHO not worth gaming with.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want the game to be the "Steve the Awakened Pony Show". I want everyone at the table to feel like what they made is a part of the world we are exploring and creating. I want everyone to be integrated into a group that is a part of the world.
This is pretty much the crux of the issue, right here. People get awfully defensive on this topic, but I think it's important to note that we're not attacking the guy who likes to play half-nymphs. The snowflake thread wasn't (at least initially) about people who like to play unusual things. It was about people who like to hog the spotlight to the detriment of the game.
I am going to assume that most of the people on the 'pro-snowflake' side of the fence aren't actually supporting a disruptive play style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want the game to be the "Steve the Awakened Pony Show". I want everyone at the table to feel like what they made is a part of the world we are exploring and creating. I want everyone to be integrated into a group that is a part of the world.This is pretty much the crux of the issue, right here. People get awfully defensive on this topic, but I think it's important to note that we're not attacking the guy who likes to play half-nymphs. The snowflake thread wasn't (at least initially) about people who like to play unusual things. It was about people who like to hog the spotlight to the detriment of the game.
I am going to assume that most of the people on the 'pro-snowflake' side of the fence aren't actually supporting a disruptive play style.
I said as much, multiple times. A 'special snowflake' is a snowflake whose specialness is detrimental to the game. Whether it is detrimental because it disrupts the atmosphere, because it's an attention hog - but where the specialness is the disruption itself. Yes, I realize people can be disruptive in other ways. That is irrelevant to the topic of special snowflakes; its its own topic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem with the article was that the author appeared to not have a lot of experience.
Do you mean the author of the KQ article?
The one who:
About the Author: Steve Winter has been involved in publishing Dungeons & Dragons in one capacity or another since 1981. Currently he’s a freelance writer and designer in the gaming field. You can visit Steve and read more of his thoughts on roleplaying games, D&D, and more at his website: Howling Tower. If you missed the earlier entries on the Kobold Quarterly site, please follow the Howling Tower tag to read more!
Because 34 years seems like a lot of experience to me. Just saying.
-Ben.
The only problem with the article was that the author appeared to not have a lot of experience.Do you mean the author of the KQ article?
The one who:
About the Author: Steve Winter has been involved in publishing Dungeons & Dragons in one capacity or another since 1981. Currently he’s a freelance writer and designer in the gaming field. You can visit Steve and read more of his thoughts on roleplaying games, D&D, and more at his website: Howling Tower. If you missed the earlier entries on the Kobold Quarterly site, please follow the Howling Tower tag to read more!Because 34 years seems like a lot of experience to me. Just saying.
-Ben.
I have to notice that its one side of the argument that keeps trying to call anyone disagreeing with them 'inexperienced' - as if anyone with any experience could ever and only reach the conclusion they themselves reached of where the proper lines for their game are.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been my experience that having a lot of experience has not resulted in consistently positive life experiences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been my experience that having a lot of experience has not resulted in consistently positive life experiences.
Absolutely. However, since the attempt was made to discredit the writer on basis of "inexperience", bringing it up to disprove that point is quite relevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been my experience that having a lot of experience has not resulted in consistently positive life experiences.
This is the second or third time I've seen you essentially denigrate the value of experience GDM. I'm curious, why is this a hot button issue for you? Do you really believe that we should not take experience into account when discussing things? Because if so that's an unusual perspective to say the least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The value of experience is that, the value of experience. If sighted as verification of one’s argument it is often called the Argument to Authority, which is a Logical Fallacy. Having experience will not, as Shallowsoul states (in and of itself) lend credibility. It can, but it also may not. The belief is that experience will make one wise, as in the words of William Blake, "A Fool who persists in his folly will become wise" – but as much as I would like to believe that my 37 years of experience makes me an authority on the game of Dungeons & Dragons, it does not, it only makes me an authority on my 37 years of experience.
Now, a venerable, wise, Dungeon Master, is certainly something to take note of, and treat with a modicum of respect, but as these boards so eloquently demonstrate, being “right” about anything relating to playing make believe is second to just about everything else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GDM, it has been my "experience" that the fallacy of "argument by authority" is not "I have experience" but is instead "according to Joe" when Joe is represented as an expert.
If appeal to experience is a logical fallacy, then logic is wrong.
Also, I just looked up the "appeal to authority" fallacy on wikipedia and it specifically indicates that it is fallacious in the case that the appeal is not to a subject matter expert, which implies strongly that it is NOT fallacious when the authority IS a subject matter expert.
Experience is a material.
An open mind will use it to build great wonders.
A closed mind will use it to shape an endless jail.
Now here is the follow up question; is a mind that insists they have to have every single color of paint available to make a pretty painting really being open minded?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no difference between these statements
"I was told by a “Wise, Old, Experienced” Dungeon Master that X is the answer"
"I am a “Wise, Old, Experienced” Dungeon master, therefore X is the answer"
Both are arguments to authority, and do not, by the evidence, demonstrate that X is the answer
If you want to show that X is the answer, then only by demonstrating that X is the answer will you succeed.
If on the other hand you are saying, “As a Wise, Old, Experienced Dungeon Master, MY experience is that X often works when Y does not”
You are saying something entirely different.
GDM there IS a difference if the person speaking IS a wise old experienced dungeon master.
But here we are again with a situation where the goal is to score rhetorical points to WIN a thread. I am so tired of this.
FIne GDM, you discount experience. I expect you'll get your heart surgery done by an intern then. Knock yourself out.
|
|
GDM, it has been my "experience" that the fallacy of "argument by authority" is not "I have experience" but is instead "according to Joe" when Joe is represented as an expert.
If appeal to experience is a logical fallacy, then logic is wrong.
Also, I just looked up the "appeal to authority" fallacy on wikipedia and it specifically indicates that it is fallacious in the case that the appeal is not to a subject matter expert, which implies strongly that it is NOT fallacious when the authority IS a subject matter expert.
Exactly.
Who would you rather have doing your brain surgery?
A doctor with 25 years of experience or the doctor fresh out of med school. While the experienced doctor won't always be right, you can bet anything that his opinion will hold more weight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not trying to win. I do not believe you understand or would want to understand that. I am only trying to say that experience is not a guarantee of proficiency and should not be the sole criteria for the determination of "rightness". I do not dismiss experience, though you keep putting those words in my mouth. I question experience. I hope that the difference is palpable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GDM there IS a difference if the person speaking IS a wise old experienced dungeon master.
But here we are again with a situation where the goal is to score rhetorical points to WIN a thread. I am so tired of this.
FIne GDM, you discount experience. I expect you'll get your heart surgery done by an intern then. Knock yourself out.
He's misapplying the logical fallacy in this argument. Here, we had a naysayer claim the author lacked experience to make his claims. Someone pointed out that the author had decades of experience.
The logical fallacy is not relevant. An Appeal to Authority is an argument where the validity of the claim rests solely on the claim being made by the authority.
Example: "The rogue has a full BAB progression. You can beleive me because I have ten years experience playing rogues."
This argument is an Appeal to Authority, since the claim is supported exclusively by the experience of the claimant.
This is not the same as saying that a person with three decades of gaming experience might not have insightful things to say about types of gamers or playstyles. In fact, since such advice is subjective, it's not even grounds for logical argumentation. Logical arguments (and therefore, the risk of logical fallacies) require that claims be premised around discern the truth of factual claims.
Opinions aren't facts.
That's not what AD was saying. GDM essentially said that experience means nothing which is a fallacy. Experience doesn't make you always right, but what it does is make your opinion more valuable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What confuses me is that experience was never brought up to show anybody was right, so why are we arguing about it? It's a bit off-topic, even for this debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GDM, this is the problem here. Someone says "I have experience, which should be meaningful in the overall investigation of this issue, and here is what that experience has led me to decide in this situation in the past."
Nobody is saying "And this is a GUARANTEE of ABSOLUTE CORRECTNESS." So there is no reason to immediately and forcefully REMIND everyone that experience is not a guarantee of absolute correctness.
Wise people value experience in weighing options. But that doesn't mean they always choose the same option as the one recommended by the experienced party. That is how both mistakes and progress is made.
What I don't understand is why you feel a need to remind everyone that experience is not an absolute guarantee when nobody thinks it is.
That's why I asked what happened in your life that turned this into such a hot button issue for you. It is just strange to me that you feel a need to shout this out every time it comes up.
We know it already GDM. We really do.
|
|
What confuses me is that experience was never brought up to show anybody was right, so why are we arguing about it? It's a bit off-topic, even for this debate.
GDM was implying that the writer of the article was inexperienced. Now GDM contradicts himself because if he wasn't worried about experience then why mention he was inexperienced?
Now the writer has 34 years of experience so he would have a valued opinion on the matter.
What confuses me is that experience was never brought up to show anybody was right, so why are we arguing about it? It's a bit off-topic, even for this debate.
It is. Someone was saying that the writer seemed to be exhibiting a trait of inexperienced gamers, that being classifying players into broad categories. A more experienced gamer understands that people are more nuanced than that. I believe the poster was suggesting if the writer is making such a broad statement about players, can we really trust their judgement on other things.
I think it would be best to look at any issues individually. Even a broke clock is right twice a day, as they say.
GDM was implying that the writer of the article was inexperienced. Now GDM contradicts himself because if he wasn't worried about experience then why mention he was inexperienced?
That was actually ngc7293. I believe GDM was talking about the issue of experience in a more general sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't remember raising the issue of the author's (the article, not the OP) experience. I remember getting into the conversation after it was mentioned that there was a lack of experience, and then a reference to that being incorrect, and then posting my opinion about experience.
I was not aware, as AD has cleared up for me, that I should refrain from expressing my opinion about experience because it is annoying and only reminds people of what they already know.
I don't remember raising the issue of the author's (the article, not the OP) experience. I remember getting into the conversation after it was mentioned that there was a lack of experience, and then a reference to that being incorrect, and then posting my opinion about experience.
I was not aware, as AD has cleared up for me, that I should refrain from expressing my opinion about experience because it is annoying and only reminds people of what they already know.
To be fair, I said there is no need to shout it out EVERY TIME someone mentions experience as an informative datum for the discussion.
There are times when reminding people that experience is not definitive might be warranted, but that would be when someone is saying "You have to listen to me because I'm more experienced than you." Which I don't think I've seen.
As I said the last time this came up, the vast majority of experienced GMs and players I see on these boards are reasonable, rational and generally humble about the value of their experience. (I'll except me before someone snickers "AD, humble? bwahahaha") But then again, I don't appeal to my experience that much, I tend to prefer dissecting issues with logic.
Now here is the follow up question; is a mind that insists they have to have every single color of paint available to make a pretty painting really being open minded?Experience is a material.
An open mind will use it to build great wonders.
A closed mind will use it to shape an endless jail.
Available? Yes, that's really being open-minded.
In use, because pretty paintings definitionally use more colors than ugly paintings? Not so much.
Now here is the follow up question; is a mind that insists they have to have every single color of paint available to make a pretty painting really being open minded?Experience is a material.
An open mind will use it to build great wonders.
A closed mind will use it to shape an endless jail.
Available? Yes, that's really being open-minded.
In use, because pretty paintings definitionally use more colors than ugly paintings? Not so much.
So it's being open minded to say you can ONLY perform under exact circumstances, those circumstances being that absolutely nothing whatsoever is made unavailable to you? You really going to stick to that position?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't remember raising the issue of the author's (the article, not the OP) experience. I remember getting into the conversation after it was mentioned that there was a lack of experience, and then a reference to that being incorrect, and then posting my opinion about experience.
I was not aware, as AD has cleared up for me, that I should refrain from expressing my opinion about experience because it is annoying and only reminds people of what they already know.
To be fair, I said there is no need to shout it out EVERY TIME someone mentions experience as an informative datum for the discussion.
There are times when reminding people that experience is not definitive might be warranted, but that would be when someone is saying "You have to listen to me because I'm more experienced than you." Which I don't think I've seen.
As I said the last time this came up, the vast majority of experienced GMs and players I see on these boards are reasonable, rational and generally humble about the value of their experience. (I'll except me before someone snickers "AD, humble? bwahahaha") But then again, I don't appeal to my experience that much, I tend to prefer dissecting issues with logic.
AD, humble? bwahahah- ... wait. Dang it people.
...
*goes and grumbles in a corner about never being able to mock people before they mock themselves*
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
GDM, it has been my "experience" that the fallacy of "argument by authority" is not "I have experience" but is instead "according to Joe" when Joe is represented as an expert.
If appeal to experience is a logical fallacy, then logic is wrong.
Also, I just looked up the "appeal to authority" fallacy on wikipedia and it specifically indicates that it is fallacious in the case that the appeal is not to a subject matter expert, which implies strongly that it is NOT fallacious when the authority IS a subject matter expert.
Exactly.
Who would you rather have doing your brain surgery?
A doctor with 25 years of experience or the doctor fresh out of med school. While the experienced doctor won't always be right, you can bet anything that his opinion will hold more weight.
Actually...
The length of time your doctor has been practicing medicine tends to correlate to lower quality health care, and you're more likely to die during a complicated surgery if your doctor is older.
While we like to think that the older doctor with 25 years of experience is going to use their wisdom to give us the best medical care, the unfortunate truth is that with knowledge about health care, the human body, the way disease works, etc. changing so rapidly, doctors can't keep up with the change, and your experienced doctor is likely to be operating on the basis of "knowledge" that's out of date, and people die because of it. For a lot of things, you're better off with that bright-eyed young recent graduate than the reassuring older doctor.
Now, RPGs aren't medicine, and they aren't based on a body of science that's continuously and dramatically updating, so doctors probably aren't a good analogy.
I think some of what's getting lost between the two sides of the debate here is that experience by itself is worthless. What turns experience into wisdom is learning from it -- and most people do that. If you are playing with a GM who's been running games for 25 years, they're more likely to be better at it than a first-time GM.
But it's not guaranteed.
A new GM might be really bright and creative, have spent a lot of time preparing, be great at improvising when the game requires it, and run a brilliant first game, and an experienced GM might have become set in ways which were bad to begin with, might have ignored all the experiences that should have taught them to change, and might be arrogant because of their long tenure, all of which can result in a terrible game.
So, I'd say that experience makes it more likely that you'll be a good GM, but experience alone isn't and shouldn't be treated as identical to expertise.
If you want to appeal to your experience to position yourself as an expert, you should probably be able to talk about what you've learned and why -- just putting the number of years you've been GMing out there isn't likely to sway people to take your word for things, and it shouldn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
\(*_*)/
|
|
GDM, it has been my "experience" that the fallacy of "argument by authority" is not "I have experience" but is instead "according to Joe" when Joe is represented as an expert.
If appeal to experience is a logical fallacy, then logic is wrong.
Also, I just looked up the "appeal to authority" fallacy on wikipedia and it specifically indicates that it is fallacious in the case that the appeal is not to a subject matter expert, which implies strongly that it is NOT fallacious when the authority IS a subject matter expert.
Exactly.
Who would you rather have doing your brain surgery?
A doctor with 25 years of experience or the doctor fresh out of med school. While the experienced doctor won't always be right, you can bet anything that his opinion will hold more weight.
Actually...
The length of time your doctor has been practicing medicine tends to correlate to lower quality health care, and you're more likely to die during a complicated surgery if your doctor is older.
While we like to think that the older doctor with 25 years of experience is going to use their wisdom to give us the best medical care, the unfortunate truth is that with knowledge about health care, the human body, the way disease works, etc. changing so rapidly, doctors can't keep up with the change, and your experienced doctor is likely to be operating on the basis of "knowledge" that's out of date, and people die because of it. For a lot of things, you're better off with that bright-eyed young recent graduate than the reassuring older doctor.
Now, RPGs aren't medicine, and they aren't based on a body of science that's continuously and dramatically updating, so doctors probably aren't a good analogy.
I think some of what's getting lost between the two...
I'm not talking about an old doctor. A 50 to 55 year old doctor is not usually someone you need to fear. That's not really the age where the mind goes and the hands shake.
My uncle is a 56 year old surgeon and he does just fine.
Edit: LOL!!! Seriously? You are going to post an article about a freaking 80 year old doctor. Let's not exaggerate too much okay?
Edit edit: You do realize that most doctors continuously read up on current medicine, especially pharmaceuticals.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I have to agree that the entire experience debate is rather off topic... I often marvel at how hot topic a mistaken statement can become, making everyone want to offer up their own two cents. Poor ngc7293...
I like the paint analogy. Choosing the perfect pallet can add a lot to a painting. Just like selecting the right characters can add a lot to a game.