| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been reflecting on the unusually large number of locked threads lately, most of which are about whether GMs or players suck more, but a few have been political or ideological. Some of the same behaviors are present, if not as pronounced, in other threads that have not been locked.
The common dynamic in all of these threads is passion.
I generally think passion is a good thing. I'm a passionate person in just about everything I do. But, as oxymoronic as it might seem, I do try to be passionate in moderation.
I doubt it is possible to avoid passion when it comes to ideology and politics. Or religion I suppose. That sort of goes with the territory.
But is the level of passion I see on these boards about game rules, character builds, and GM or player preferences a good thing?
I dunno. Maybe it's just that I'm getting older, but I find it hard to get all worked up any more about how someone else plays this or any other game. I do get worked up about how people treat each other, but that's different.
I would like to hear from some of the people who have been so passionate on these subjects exactly why it is so important to them that the game be designed, adjudicated, played and enjoyed certain ways.
So I'll pose a few questions:
1. Why is it so important that you play a specific character concept? I understand that you might WANT to play something special, and that you feel it shouldn't be a problem to do so, but that's not what I'm asking. Why do you get so emotionally invested in it?
2. Why is it so important that classes be balanced? At the worst an unbalanced design would mean some characters can do more than others in a mechanical sense. But this is a role playing game, supposedly. There are plenty of ways to enjoy playing a less powerful character, and if you simply can't deal with playing a less powerful character, then why don't you just play a character that satisfies your desire for a certain level of power and move on?
3. If you have a special game world you've built yourself, why is it so important to you? If you are routinely telling players that the world can't accommodate certain concepts, why is that? Is it the work involved that is making you push back? Or is it something more closely associated with the creation and ownership of your world?
4. If a particular rule is interpreted in a way you don't agree with, why is it so hard to simply accept it and move on? There are plenty of ways to adjust characters, why would one rule adjustment cause emotional responses?
I could post more, but here's what they all boil down to:
5. Why do people get so upset and angry about an activity that they are presumably doing to relax and have fun?
That's what I really don't get. Where does the "I do this to have fun with my friends" get lost in the shuffle and "If I can't have my way I get pissed" take over?
|
This is the only one I really get passionate about, and it has got me into trouble with the devs:-
4. If a particular rule is interpreted in a way you don't agree with, why is it so hard to simply accept it and move on? There are plenty of ways to adjust characters, why would one rule adjustment cause emotional responses?
There are some rules that could be reasonably interpreted in two ways. This is when we have to think things through. Our opinions on the conclusion may differ wildly, but this is understandable.
But there are other rules where one interpretation makes sense and the other doesn't! Where it seems as though some people are arguing that black is white and up is down! And sometimes the devs themselves rule for the 'other' interpretation!
For me, Always rule the way that makes sense. I get very frustrated when the way that doesn't make sense gets advocated.
This is very subjective, of course. Objectively, it must be that others don't see it the way I do, but subjectively I can't help but question their motives sometimes. I have to work to avoid such accusations. Not always successfully. : /
(***What do you mean, I can't attack him with my reach weapon in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor no matter where I stand!!!***)
2. Why is it so important that classes be balanced? At the worst an unbalanced design would mean some characters can do more than others in a mechanical sense. But this is a role playing game, supposedly. There are plenty of ways to enjoy playing a less powerful character, and if you simply can't deal with playing a less powerful character, then why don't you just play a character that satisfies your desire for a certain level of power and move on?
This is the one that I'm the most consistent with and the most passionate about, so I'll take a whack at that one.
First and foremost, it's because I think games should be balanced. The type of game is irrelevant, you should strive to make all of your options as equal as possible.
Yes, there are ways to enjoy a less powerful character...but why should you have to sacrifice effectiveness to play what you want to play?
Why should a design flaw prevent you from having fun AND being just as effective as your friend...who has the same level of enjoyment from playing with a less flawed class (or class option) but also has superior effectiveness?
Games should be balanced. It doesn't matter whether it's cooperative, competitive, or even single player, unbalanced options are a flaw. And as a game designer, you should strive to eliminate flaws in your design wherever possible. Yes, this is difficult. Yes, it will fail sometimes. But the attempt is worth it...and that's what patches or errata are for, fixing those flaws you shipped the game with because of deadline constraints or whatever other reason. Re-balancing is as much of a valid use for that as clarifying unclear abilities.
I personally don't see why people are AGAINST balance. Balance does nothing but help the game, especially when buffing an underpowered option (assuming it is done PROPERLY).
The people who like that option are happy, because the thing they like is now more viable.
The people who were apathetic toward that option may be more inclined to try it now that it is better.
The people that disliked that option are unaffected; They can continue to not like it and not use it.
That is a no-lose scenario given that it is done right and doesn't end up being overcompensated for its former weakness.
I get invested in the balance of every game I take a strong liking to. It's just how I am. I have just as much fun arguing balance as playing the game itself, in many cases. Though I guess I'm slightly biased since game design is a profession I'm trying to get into myself, so I try to look at flaws with a bit more of a critical eye so hopefully I can avoid them myself in the future. That and snarking at people who don't see things as clearly as I do is fun.
It's a pet peeve of mine in anything, really. I don't see the point in doing a job if you don't do it right. If you're going to build something, build it as good as you can. If you're going to clean something, make it CLEAN. If you're making food, make it taste good.
And if you're making a game, it needs to be BALANCED, as well as fun. Anything else is a half-measure. Sometimes half-measures are unavoidable. But that's not the majority of the time, I think.
At least to the best of your ability. There are limits to what anyone can do, and I understand that, but dammit you should at least TRY to the best of your ability.
#4 I occasionally get mad about but not to the same degree. Usually when it's either A.) Something that screws up something else (i.e. balancing done WRONG), B.) Something unnecessary (like the Free action FAQ. It changed NOTHING and just restated the text in the book. SO WHY WAS IT MADE?), or C.) Has to do with codifying subjective things into hard coded rules (like anything to do with alignment. Especially "Always Evil" actions. Especially especially ones that make no darned sense when taken in the context of other things.)
Rynjin and Malachi, thanks for responding. I appreciate you honestly addressing the questions.
I understand why the things you mention would strike you as odd, or even frustrating. What I find difficult to understand is why they might make someone angry.
One of the reasons I am pursuing this is that I had what I think was a bit of an epiphany today about why I seem to get into so many impassioned debates on these boards. So I'm posing these questions to see if my epiphany was accurate. I'm really very interested in how emotionally invested people are in these things. And I am very curious as to why.
So why does it matter so much? It's not really explanatory to say "It matters." I'm really interested in why it matters.
I mean I personally find the magic item creation rules to be patently absurd and borderline idiotic. I've posted many times that it is my personal opinion that the creation of those rules is near incompetence that should have been dealt with immediately. I find the absurdity and stupidity of that part of the game rules to be downright breathtaking.
But I don't really care that much. I mean sure, I'd like to see them fixed, and when the subject of crafting magic items comes up I'll share my opinion, but if Paizo never fixes them it won't cause me even the slightest bit of loss of enjoyment in playing the game. I don't make money from playing the game, I don't have any investment in my personal self-worth associated with making magic items, it's just a perplexing aspect of a game I generally find more playable than competing game systems. But some people really care about this stuff.. And that's what I think I'm finally learning. But why? How does it create any personal threat or damage to their lives such that they start seeing red when the issues come up?
I will say that, really, it doesn't make me angry per se. But I am stubborn that when I think I'm right, I don't tend to back off and say 'whatever'; I keep taking another whack at it.
I try not to go personal. I try allot of 'reframing the question. Enter ally, I honestly care less about if mine is viewed as "the one and only proper perspective on the player/GM contract then as ~a~ valid opinion. I also suspect that for many people part of the reason is that an anonymous internet thread is a place they can be as passionate and stubborn as they like largely without personal consequence.
Must resist...urge to...correct usage of "allot"...
I've offered wondered this myself AD
I understand why people can get quite vocal about certain aspects of the game but i get confused when people can get very argumentative about things ( mostly rules interpretations )
Generally when they don't go in there favour which is a little sad because I'm fairly certain that if it was in there favour they would keep quite about it
And as you said it is after all a game and ment to be a fun way of spending your free time with friends
Must resist...urge to...correct usage of "allot"...
Thank yah.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. I design settings/campaigns with a specific goal. I want a certain atmosphere, ambience, conflict or theme to the setting, or I want to focus on any number of possible design elements. The stuff I do include, I want to have a role that functions well with the rest. Let's take an example. I once designed a setting that was contained in a vast, unending primeval forest. The standard races would live there, plus a number of forest-related ones such as forest goblins, some fey-blooded, and so on, but a lack of metal made the equipment charts rather different. Since I wanted a more primitive feel, I banned Clerics, Paladins, Monks and Wizards, instead adding in Scouts, Favoured Souls, Hexblades and Shamans. I wanted to focus on fey, animals, Barbarians, Druids, Rangers, alchemy, and similar things. Say I have a bunch of players agreeing to play this, and one of them tells me "I wanna play a noble wizard with a focus on high court meddling and artifice". I have basically three choices. I can deny it, saying "Choose something else, that guy will have to wait for another campaign". I can say "Hmmm, maybe you could be a druid, those guys are the most organized people who use magic in this setting. Artifice won't work, but maybe you could, like, animate objects or summon monsters instead? And while there is no formal system of nobility, you could be someone important." Finally, I can say "Sure. I'll just add in the feudal system that being a noble comes with, the formalized learning and research of wizardry, and the infrastructure and technology required to do artifice. Guys, I guess we need to change the setting completely - so I will need more time to prepare, since none of this was stuff I counted on doing." The issue is whether the player accepts a compromise. If he doesn't, I end up either having to deny him, or wreck every single part of the concept for the campaign I had.
That is why it's important to me.
1. Why is it so important that you play a specific character concept? I understand that you might WANT to play something special, and that you feel it shouldn't be a problem to do so, but that's not what I'm asking. Why do you get so emotionally invested in it?
It isn't. If I feel that strongly about a character, I'll go write a short story about them instead :)
2. Why is it so important that classes be balanced? At the worst an unbalanced design would mean some characters can do more than others in a mechanical sense. But this is a role playing game, supposedly. There are plenty of ways to enjoy playing a less powerful character, and if you simply can't deal with playing a less powerful character, then why don't you just play a character that satisfies your desire for a certain level of power and move on?
I don't need mechanical balance in RPGs. To me, it'd just feel like trying to balance Frodo with Gandalf - too artificial, completely unnecessary for the story, and would likely ruin the entire party concept.
3. If you have a special game world you've built yourself, why is it so important to you? If you are routinely telling players that the world can't accommodate certain concepts, why is that? Is it the work involved that is making you push back? Or is it something more closely associated with the creation and ownership of your world?
I usually go with predesigned campaign worlds rather than my own, however the same things still apply to both for me - the vision I have for the campaign is the main motivating factor I have to get things done. Compromising that vision depletes my motivation, and leaves me with a game I'm not that eager to play any more. A GM without motivation results in a bad game for everyone. My solution therefore is to find players that share my campaign vision, rather than ones with contradictory desires. If I get an urge to run a campaign about elven rangers, then I want players that are also interested in that, not players that are not, but just want to play Pathfinder and see an opening they feel they can use.
4. If a particular rule is interpreted in a way you don't agree with, why is it so hard to simply accept it and move on? There are plenty of ways to adjust characters, why would one rule adjustment cause emotional responses?
For me, the rules have to feel somewhat realistic. Now, before someone comes up with the old overused "but magic doesn't happen in real life!" quote, I mean realistic to the campaign. If I'm playing a super-hero game, for example, then we're talking different "game physics" to a fantasy game. I tend to go for "gritty medieval with added monsters" in fantasy games, so I don't like to see human beings doing things beyond their physical limitations, for example. I'm quite happy with bending those physical limitations to breaking point for the sake of the narrative, but not with breaking them altogether. Heroine leaping onto a dragon, climbing to its head, and plunging her sword through its head is good. Same heroine lifting the dragon above her head and hurling it down the mountainside isn't. Wizards throwing fireballs - that's what wizards do. Superhero bleeding after being thrown through a building - not if I'm going for a "golden age comic feel" superhero game (but absolutely yes in a dark gritty antihero supers campaign)
That's why the shared vision is important. The GM and players need to work together, not all be pulling in different directions. When one player is playing a different style of game to the others, stress happens. The GM's job is to ensure they're all on the same page, and sometimes that means being the one who defines which page that is.
5. Why do people get so upset and angry about an activity that they are presumably doing to relax and have fun?
Good question. I think that's why I try and control my environment, by trying to assemble a group that share the same vision and will work well together, to reduce the chances of any problems that could cause stress.
Must resist...urge to...correct usage of "allot"...
Alot no understand why sharing feelings with.
Alot just want to be left alone.
Must resist...urge to...correct usage of "allot"...Alot no understand why sharing feelings with.
Alot just want to be left alone.
You sound so lonely. I care about this alot.
You sound so lonely. I care about this alot.Must resist...urge to...correct usage of "allot"...Alot no understand why sharing feelings with.
Alot just want to be left alone.
Okay, Alot like you too.
|
I disagree with you about the locked threads being about passion. Those that respond to them may feel passionate about the topic. Or the hobby in general. The op that starts them is to me trying to push a agenda that is less about passion and more to be validated about his style of running a game. When there is not one not two not three but more threads on the same topic reworded differently it's not to me at least about passion for playing in the hobby. Espcially when every time battle lines get drawn. gain it's not so much about something mattering. So much as already having one mind made up about a topic. And nothing will change that. While trying to portray everyone else with a difference of opinion as being wrong. That's not debate. That's wanting to have a echo chamber than getting displeased when others disagree. A decent amount of posters come to a consensus on a topic in a thread. Yet the same ones just can't let it go and play the same broken record. I don;t know why. Just to psuh posters buttons and to get a reaction.
Your thread to me displays passion. As some newer ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AD, your OP is interesting and I will try my hand at this when I have some more time.
For the moment, what gets me argumentative/virulent in my postings is when I feel that there is a lack of respect, either for myself or for other posters (usually but not always those who share my view).
Raven, this is pretty much it for me too. At least that's my view of myself. I am sure other people have a different view. In my opinion when I start dishing out the snark or do a thorough fisking of another's post to demonstrate the lack of logic or common sense, I always believe it is because I am reacting to unwarranted disrespect.
But going back and rereading some of the threads I've gotten involved in with the new perspective of my epiphany, I am being forced to realize that that's exactly how some of these other posters must feel about some comment I made that I thought was either funny, clever or just a casual comment on the subject.
And that's because I didn't realize how much someone had INVESTED in the subject. I sort of assumed everyone had the same "it's a game I like to play and I enjoy talking about it with like-minded people" attitude I have. But while that may be generally true, I'm beginning (finally) to realize that what I see as a simple and obvious approach to or comment on a subject is a direct attack on someone's high emotional investment in that subject, and so they read a comment I may have tossed off in a casual and, I think, discussion advancing way, and see a direct attack on their self-worth or their belief system.
I mean I always knew that sort of thing happens in the political, religious or ideological threads, you can't say anything halfway reasonable in those areas without all the rabid demagogues leaping for your throat, but I guess until yesterday I never really thought that people approached the game design, the rules interpretations, the play styles or the group dynamics of playing that way.
But they do. This stuff really MATTERS to some people.
So I apologize to all of the people who I have angered with my comments. I don't really know exactly what to say other than that I really, honestly wasn't trying to start a fight, I was just trying to be part of a discussion and I didn't realize my opinion would hit so many nerves.
I am going to try to remember that going forward. Maybe that will reduce the number of locked threads since I seem to be involved in several of those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they do. This stuff really MATTERS to some people.
So I apologize to all of the people who I have angered with my comments. I don't really know exactly what to say other than that I really, honestly wasn't trying to start a fight, I was just trying to be part of a discussion and I didn't realize my opinion would hit so many nerves.
I am going to try to remember that going forward. Maybe that will reduce the number of locked threads since I seem to be involved in several of those.
I know exactly how you feel. I caught myself just in time the other day from replying angrily to someone who said it was okay to play in a restricted setting if you enjoy it. The word "restricted" really grated on me due to it's negative connotations - personally I'd use "structured", which would likely anger the opposite audience just as much as to them it'd probably feel I was implying their games were unstructured messes :)
Most of the time we just have to take a step back and ask ourselves - is this person intending to insult, or is it a by-product of the terms they're using in the discussion (such as in the snowflake thread where the main issues stem from everyone having a different definition of a "special snowflake") If there's no intent, then there's no real harm - although perhaps a polite "would you instead mind using the term _______" may well be in order.
|
|
I appreciate the apology AD yet imo it's not needed. Your not one of the posters I would consider ones that go around causing trouble on the boards. At least one can have a decent conversation with you on the boards. Nor do you approach a open ended thread already picking a side. Then refusing to acknowledge the other side. When a poster keeps insisting that 2+2 =5 and the majority on the board agree that its 4. Then the same group of people say were are wrong and insist that it's 5 and we all need to go back to school to learn math. Is when it gets toxic. I'm not a perfect poster I admit. Yet I would not be able to have a discussion with some posters in public because imo they simply are not interested in hearing another opinion but their own. While considering everyone around them wrong. So what would be the point.
5. Why do people get so upset and angry about an activity that they are presumably doing to relax and have fun?
I took some real time to consider this, as I just recently encountered a thread that did make me angry, and after really searching through my own feelings it was because I was afraid. That was hard to admit at first, but the truth of the matter was that fear led to my anger. In this case, it was fear of seeing damage to my favorite hobby, RPGs, through assertions that RPGs are inherently racist. To me, this was the exact same as the dialogue in the 70s and 80s that people who played RPGs were advocating witchcraft and devil worship. I started playing RPGs when I was 12 and had the great sorrow of losing close friends who could not accept my new hobby based on that perceived view of witchcraft and devilry in the hobby from people who were projecting their own fear onto RPGs, which I believe is similar to modern claims that RPGs are racist. Luckily, I found many great friends with the same hobby of RPGs, but the initial loss of friends was very hurtful and I still get afraid when I perceive the same type of witch hunt mentality occurring again, and I'm afraid for the young people of today that are just getting into the hobby and the prejudice they might experience in this era the same as I experienced as a kid. I want to express a deep appreciation for the comments made by Wesley Schneider in that off-site forum, they calmed my temper, helped me to understand the importance of the valid dialogue that should occur, and provided a great example of how to approach issues like this that make me afraid. There are still a great many things that I want to say about that conversation, but I do not want to take this thread off topic and I hope that anyone with those concerns will take them to a new thread. I'm just addressing the basic question of "what makes you angry about a hobby that should be fun" and my answer is my own Fear.
Bombadil, I appreciate your comments about the racist RPG thread. While I wasn't responding due to fear myself, I was responding due to disgust and outrage, and more than a little outright amusement by what I believed was really going on.
That thread has been pretty thoroughly beat down and I was quite frankly encouraged to see the response of gamers indignant at the thinly veiled accusations that were being slyly aimed at them.
Hopefully we won't need to resurrect that mess again. I think that thread actually falls into the political/religious/idealogical category anyway, not the sorts of subjects I was really curious about in this thread. I'm pretty sure I know why people resent being called racists.
What I find difficult to understand is why they might make someone angry.
I can answer that. It goes way beyond frustration over a ruling or any personal preference over a play style. No, it all has to do with the way you are talked to. If someone is dismissive, rude, or even indirectly attacking a position you hold then it is only human nature to get angry at that person.
What I find difficult to understand is why they might make someone angry.I can answer that. It goes way beyond frustration over a ruling or any personal preference over a play style. No, it all has to do with the way you are talked to. If someone is dismissive, rude, or even indirectly attacking a position you hold then it is only human nature to get angry at that person.
Aranna, is it your assertion that the only reason people get angry is because someone was rude to them and attacking a position they hold?
Because while I see plenty of yammering rudeness back and forth, but when I track it back to the initial comments that started the flame war, it usually doesn't seem to start with "You think flanking makes sense? You're a jackass." That's usually a later phase of the "discussion". In my experience anyway.
But I think this does go back to my epiphany where things are said by one person in an innocent manner, but the subject is so important to another person that they perceive the comment as rude or dismissive and respond in kind.
Yes and No AD... I was deliberately being all inclusive in the sorts of things people find offensive. Typically it starts as some variation of "I think anyone who uses rule X is playing the game wrong." That is NOT a reasonable post even though no moderator is ever likely to notice it or care if they did. But it is the root seed that turns a brief exchange of ideas into a long flame war style thread.
Yes and No AD... I was deliberately being all inclusive in the sorts of things people find offensive. Typically it starts as some variation of "I think anyone who uses rule X is playing the game wrong." That is NOT a reasonable post even though no moderator is ever likely to notice it or care if they did. But it is the root seed that turns a brief exchange of ideas into a long flame war style thread.
Aranna, this is part of what I am trying to explore. I know that I've said things in the past like "I think that rule xxxx has a problem" And the response I've gotten is sometimes something like "Why do you want to wreck my fun? Why are you saying it's badwrongfun?"
And I look back at my comment and I don't see "I think anyone who uses rule X is playing the game wrong" anywhere in it. But the person responding totally saw it there.
Are you sure? It is hard to argue in vague terms...
Sometimes all you have to do is imply that it is wrong. Perhaps you used examples that gave people the impression you were attacking what they do.
Aranna, this is part of what I am trying to explore. I know that I've said things in the past like "I think that rule xxxx has a problem" And the response I've gotten is sometimes something like "Why do you want to wreck my fun? Why are you saying it's badwrongfun?"And I look back at my comment and I don't see "I think anyone who uses rule X is playing the game wrong" anywhere in it. But the person responding totally saw it there.
Bombadil's earlier mention of fear could apply here, of course. They're afraid of a rule they've come to rely on for their character's effectiveness being changed, or afraid in general of the game moving away from their playstyle. Deep down, we'd all like to see Pathfinder cater to our own style as its default, I think.
Am I sure? Well, that's how it felt to me.
Sometimes it's an attempt at humor that goes wrong. I think there was a time that XP was being discussed and I popped in and said something like "XP? Just say no." And then went on to explain that I stopped using XP a long time ago. The "Just say no" was, I thought, a pretty clear play on the old "Just say no" campaign against drug use. But if I recall, someone took it as me telling them not to use XP, and they felt like their game style was being called "wrong".
There was a rather famous huge thread about Paizo's participation in the user forums a year or so ago, and somebody posted such a glowing admiration for Paizo's staff that it struck me as humorous, and I posted something I thought was clever like "LOL, that sounds like a fanboi" or something.
OMG. That's probably the one that stands out the most really. I still regret that even after publicly apologizing to the poster and Paizo staff both. Sigh... Now I'm depressed again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am tempted to write something 'passionate' when another poster takes what seems to me to be an extreme position and seems a bit arrogant in promoting it. It makes me want to either promulgate an opposing view for balance, or urge a stance that is more respectful of other views. I've found it is usually better to 'not engage' unless there is a compelling reason to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
AD, your OP is interesting and I will try my hand at this when I have some more time.
For the moment, what gets me argumentative/virulent in my postings is when I feel that there is a lack of respect, either for myself or for other posters (usually but not always those who share my view).
Raven, this is pretty much it for me too. At least that's my view of myself. I am sure other people have a different view. In my opinion when I start dishing out the snark or do a thorough fisking of another's post to demonstrate the lack of logic or common sense, I always believe it is because I am reacting to unwarranted disrespect.
But going back and rereading some of the threads I've gotten involved in with the new perspective of my epiphany, I am being forced to realize that that's exactly how some of these other posters must feel about some comment I made that I thought was either funny, clever or just a casual comment on the subject.
And that's because I didn't realize how much someone had INVESTED in the subject. I sort of assumed everyone had the same "it's a game I like to play and I enjoy talking about it with like-minded people" attitude I have. But while that may be generally true, I'm beginning (finally) to realize that what I see as a simple and obvious approach to or comment on a subject is a direct attack on someone's high emotional investment in that subject, and so they read a comment I may have tossed off in a casual and, I think, discussion advancing way, and see a direct attack on their self-worth or their belief system.
I mean I always knew that sort of thing happens in the political, religious or ideological threads, you can't say anything halfway reasonable in those areas without all the rabid demagogues leaping for your throat, but I guess until yesterday I never really thought that people approached the game design, the rules interpretations, the play styles or the group dynamics of playing that way.
But they do. This stuff really MATTERS...
Same here. I guess I just have an abrasive way of speaking; I don't like to sugar-coat things. I'm very blunt.
There's another thread going on right now, where all I did was state something I preferred, and why I prefer it, and my tone struck several nerves; no name calling, no individuals mentioned, but by sheer force of projection, I'm somehow attacking everyone else's style play simply because I have my own preferred style of play. Disclaimers of "opinion," "YMMV," "what works for your group is fine" fall on deaf ears.
The more I try and explain, the more my words get picked apart. If some of the posters here spent a fraction of as much time playing Pathfinder, as they do theorizing about it, the world might be a calmer place.
I'm starting to empathize with super-villains.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I try and explain, the more my words get picked apart. If some of the posters here spent a fraction of as much time playing Pathfinder, as they do theorizing about it, the world might be a calmer place.I'm starting to empathize with super-villains.
"Oh no! That old lady is about to be run over by that bus! DO NOT FEAR, OLD LADY, I SHALL SAVE YOU!"
Our hero leaped out into the road. With one hand he shoved the old lady aside, while he extended the other towards the bus - which ran into it with a crunch of grinding, twisting metal.
"There! You are safe now, Old Lady!"
The sound of crying came from the school bus, where a couple of the children had fallen out of their seats, and a crowd started to gather.
"Did you see what he did to that school bus?"
"Reprehensible!"
"Evil Fiend!"
Our hero stared at the crowd in shock.
"But... But I was only trying to save the old lady, she was about to be r-"
"OI! Have you any idea how much that front fender is gonna cost to replace?"
The driver stepped off the bus, tire iron in hand. "It's not comin' out of MY pocket!"
Our hero looked from face to face in the crowd, hoping for support. The old lady he had just saved stepped up beside him, and he sighed in relief. At least she would be able to explain it.
"I was trying to stop that bus! My grandson forgot his sandwiches!!! You knocked me over and now they've fallen in the mud!"
".... but"
The crowd gathered around menacingly.
"Oh, _____ this. I'm done with this superhero crap." he exclaimed, snatching the old lady's purse and taking to the skies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This recent turn of discussion pleases me immensely.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes all you have to do is imply that it is wrong.
There has been more than one occasion where I've made a post which contained no words of my own - merely a quote of someone's question/assertion followed by a quote from the CRB - and been accused of making personal attacks and having an agenda and whatnot.
So yeah, some people really don't like being wrong, to the point of feeling attacked just by being shown a sentence from the rules.
Another time, a FAQ came out that contadicted a certain poster's interpretation of an ability. He was incensed, saying that the FAQ was basically the devs telling players how "bad" they are. I asked what about the FAQ could be construed as calling anyone "bad", and he explained how since the FAQ presented one interpretation as correct, then it's saying all other interpretations must be wrong.
"Sure, but how does that translate to calling anyone 'bad'?"
We went through a handful of cycles of me asking how declaring which interpretations were right/wrong equated to anyone calling anyone else "bad", and him reiterating his (completely true) assertion that the FAQ labeled his interpretation as wrong. I eventually gave up and hid the thread; I can only presume that he was incapable of separating "your idea is wrong" from "you are bad" and didn't get that you can have the former without the latter.
------------------------------------------------------
So to answer the OP, who is pondering something that's been on my mind as well, I think often the reason that people get so worked up when they're contradicted is that they interpret contradiction as an attack on their own personal worth. I have various theories about why this might be; for instance, for a "typical nerd" who was perhaps a social outcast and non-athlete in school, with "smarts" being the only thing they felt good about, perhaps they've attached their worth to having the right answer so that they wouldn't feel bad about what they didn't have - which makes it pretty understandable why taking that away would be so threatening. Or maybe someone's had a bad experience where they were ridiculed for being a newb at something, and don't ever want to be in that position again. Or they grew up in an environment where any time you were wrong you were also attacked, so they think the two are intrinsically linked.
I'm sure there are lots of other possibilities as well, but those are my thoughts at the moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh, remember, in "The Incredibles" the reason the Superheroes got disbanded was because of the lawsuits against them for collateral damage done while saving the world.
As far as people misconstruing your words, I could give you chapter and verse of not only people deliberately misrepresenting what you say but using that deliberate misrepresentation to attack what you must think, and therefore, what kind of person you must be.
But even acknowledging all this sort of behavior, I still find myself grasping at straws when attempting to understand the most basic question of all, which is "Why does it matter so much to some people?"
I suppose I may never understand it.
Another time, a FAQ came out that contadicted a certain poster's interpretation of an ability. He was incensed, saying that the FAQ was basically the devs telling players how "bad" they are. I asked what about the FAQ could be construed as calling anyone "bad", and he explained how since the FAQ presented one interpretation as correct, then it's saying all other interpretations must be wrong.
"Sure, but how does that translate to calling anyone 'bad'?"
We went through a handful of cycles of me asking how declaring which interpretations were right/wrong equated to anyone calling anyone else "bad", and him reiterating his (completely true) assertion that the FAQ labeled his interpretation as wrong. I eventually gave up and hid the thread; I can only presume that he was incapable of separating "your idea is wrong" from "you are bad" and didn't get that you can have the former without the latter.
This is the problem some people have with objective truth - that by definition if one interpretation is correct, any interpretations that contradict it must therefore be wrong. It's a cake and eat it thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But even acknowledging all this sort of behavior, I still find myself grasping at straws when attempting to understand the most basic question of all, which is "Why does it matter so much to some people?"
This is what I was attempting to answer; I think to some people, being contradicted is tantamount to being attacked. Whether because the two were consistently coexistent during their formative years, or because they've wrapped up their self-worth in their ability to be correct about things (perhaps due to not possessing any other qualities that those around them were willing to validate), they've somehow come to see "correct" and "worthy" as being one and the same. Therefore, challenging the former challenges the latter.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is the problem some people have with objective truth - that by definition if one interpretation is correct, any interpretations that contradict it must therefore be wrong. It's a cake and eat it thing.Another time, a FAQ came out that contadicted a certain poster's interpretation of an ability. He was incensed, saying that the FAQ was basically the devs telling players how "bad" they are. I asked what about the FAQ could be construed as calling anyone "bad", and he explained how since the FAQ presented one interpretation as correct, then it's saying all other interpretations must be wrong.
"Sure, but how does that translate to calling anyone 'bad'?"
We went through a handful of cycles of me asking how declaring which interpretations were right/wrong equated to anyone calling anyone else "bad", and him reiterating his (completely true) assertion that the FAQ labeled his interpretation as wrong. I eventually gave up and hid the thread; I can only presume that he was incapable of separating "your idea is wrong" from "you are bad" and didn't get that you can have the former without the latter.
But how does that call anyone bad? You can be wrong about something without being a bad person.
Unfortunately, some people can't separate the two. That can cause problems. :/
Maybe so Jiggy. That would certainly explain some reactions I've seen.
And, of course, there is always the reality that some people just enjoy arguing, and the real goal of their engagement isn't to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion, but to demonstrate what superior arguers they are. In some cases I suspect the issue at hand isn't important to those people at all, just finding something to cross metaphorical swords over is enough to keep them engaged.
Ah well... people being people I guess.