| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules change, and it is vital to understand how they currently look. I am not saying that old rules are better... but not using existing rules in favour of no functioning structure is always a bad idea. Just as it would be to use "guzz" to refer to girl in official swedish.
Yeah. I'm all in favor of evolving language use, but not just because a portion of the population has latched onto a new trend when there were perfectly adequate terms available before. To put it another way, slang really needs to remain slang in the majority of cases, or we risk people a few hundred years from now being unable to understand what the hell we're talking about in historical documents.
There's evolution, and there's just plain weird unwanted mutation ;)
Pretty much what I wanted to say.
Yes, language evolves. But that's not an excuse to say "Screw the rules, I do what I want!".
Until the formal rules are changed, your slang is still incorrect (even if it is acceptable and probably even encouraged in informal conversations). Always be aware of that when you speak or type something.
There are few things so literarily painful as to see movies where previous generations focus on what used to be cool and new in their language. We have a huge amount of 40s movies in Sweden that make me cringe when I see them. As an example, "okay" got to Sweden during this period, and there was still no consensus on how it should be used. Seeing one of the big stars of the day brush someone off and showing his coolness by saying "oké?" is... a special feeling.
There are few things so literarily painful as to see movies where previous generations focus on what used to be cool and new in their language. We have a huge amount of 40s movies in Sweden that make me cringe when I see them. As an example, "okay" got to Sweden during this period, and there was still no consensus on how it should be used. Seeing one of the big stars of the day brush someone off and showing his coolness by saying "oké?" is... a special feeling.
You could have gotten "okeday" - so just think yourselves lucky :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't come up much in gaming products, but "y'all" should be formally adopted by and incorporated into the English language. The lack of a plural second person noun in English is painful. And I say this as a yankee, not a person who grew up with y'all.
Now, "all y'all" is a different kettle of fish. Ain't nobody got time for that.
But English has a second person noun - it's "you." What it lacks is a first person noun, at least it does since y'all stopped saying thee and thou to each other. ;p
"Up thine" has a touch of class that other vulgarities lack.
But please don't get me started on Dynaheir saying "thy called?" all the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think all y'all need to accept that "all y'all" is a perfectly acceptable phrase to use. It allows for a bit more nuance.
"Up thine" has a touch of class that other vulgarities lack.
But please don't get me started on Dynaheir saying "thy called?" all the time.
Shouldn't that be "Thou callest?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not in imperfect, you twit. :-) "callest" is present. "Thou called?" would, as I understand it, be correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. If you have a special game world you've built...
I'm not really a passionate person. Most of the time I just shrug and move on. However, I might have some theories to air regarding #3.
I am thinking that when you create your own game world, you're trying to do something unique. After all, there has to be a reason why you're not just playing in Greyhawk or something. I haven't done much world building myself, but the people I know who have, they tend to like to do something to set their setting apart from everything else (more or less successfully). People like to put their own personal mark on things.
An easy way to do that is to go, say, "this world doesn't have elves!". Bang, unique setting. Then, if a player then starts to complain that they want to be an elf and you're being unfair for not allowing them to play an elf or their alternative idea for a "human who was raised in the deep forests by sylphs and hey we could use elf stats for him".
To the player, the "no elves" rule seems unfairly arbitrary (and, make no mistake, when the setting was first developed, it was an arbitrary decision to exclude elves), while to the GM it feels like an attack on their creative efforts, and an attempt to force their unique world into a "generic fantasy" mould.
At the end of the day, both character building and world building is a creative process, and people tend to get super defensive when their creative efforts are being critiqued. The main difference, to me, is that the guy going "I want to play an elf!" hasn't actually started his creative process yet, whereas the GM's unique "no elves here" world has been in the works for probably months (if not years) at this point.
So I am honestly not surprised if there's a violent (oops, I'm not supposed to use that word. Read: strong) reaction to someone suggesting that the GM should always defer to player wishes and modify their campaign/world/whatever to any idea the player is currently fancying.
(That said, it's also never okay to literally shred a PC's backstory.)
Pretty much what I wanted to say.
Yes, language evolves. But that's not an excuse to say "Screw the rules, I do what I want!".
Until the formal rules are changed, your slang is still incorrect (even if it is acceptable and probably even encouraged in informal conversations). Always be aware of that when you speak or type something.
No one is saying throw the rules out completely. Just be mindful that acceptable usage changes faster than the rules usually do. If you are unsure then it isn't hard to research a word's usage these days.
3. If you have a special game world you've built...I'm not really a passionate person. Most of the time I just shrug and move on. However, I might have some theories to air regarding #3.
I am thinking that when you create your own game world, you're trying to do something unique. After all, there has to be a reason why you're not just playing in Greyhawk or something. I haven't done much world building myself, but the people I know who have, they tend to like to do something to set their setting apart from everything else (more or less successfully). People like to put their own personal mark on things.
An easy way to do that is to go, say, "this world doesn't have elves!". Bang, unique setting. Then, if a player then starts to complain that they want to be an elf and you're being unfair for not allowing them to play an elf or their alternative idea for a "human who was raised in the deep forests by sylphs and hey we could use elf stats for him".
To the player, the "no elves" rule seems unfairly arbitrary (and, make no mistake, when the setting was first developed, it was an arbitrary decision to exclude elves), while to the GM it feels like an attack on their creative efforts, and an attempt to force their unique world into a "generic fantasy" mould.
At the end of the day, both character building and world building is a creative process, and people tend to get super defensive when their creative efforts are being critiqued. The main difference, to me, is that the guy going "I want to play an elf!" hasn't actually started his creative process yet, whereas the GM's unique "no elves here" world has been in the works for probably months (if not years) at this point.
So I am honestly not surprised if there's a violent (oops, I'm not supposed to use that word. Read: strong) reaction to someone suggesting that the GM should always defer to player wishes and modify their campaign/world/whatever to any idea the player is currently fancying.
(That...
Yeah, and the clash of uniqueness. For example, "my elf is unique, I want to play that char", vs. the dm's "my world is unique. There is no elves or place for them. There is only ettercaps in the woods, endless ettercaps and dire armadillos".
Pretty much what I wanted to say.
Yes, language evolves. But that's not an excuse to say "Screw the rules, I do what I want!".
Until the formal rules are changed, your slang is still incorrect (even if it is acceptable and probably even encouraged in informal conversations). Always be aware of that when you speak or type something.
Don't forget regional dialects, and that the culture of the cities is not the culture of the country (as much as the cities and their courtiers would just love to police the periphery and be the holders of the one true language).
For that matter, the culture of the former colonial port holdings, is not the same as the post-colonial rural areas. :P
I never did trust those city folk.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
But English has a second person noun - it's "you." What it lacks is a first person noun, at least it does since y'all stopped saying thee and thou to each other. ;pIt doesn't come up much in gaming products, but "y'all" should be formally adopted by and incorporated into the English language. The lack of a plural second person noun in English is painful. And I say this as a yankee, not a person who grew up with y'all.
Now, "all y'all" is a different kettle of fish. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Second person plural noun! "Thee" and "thou" are formal second person nouns, not first person nouns.
I think...it's been a while since I knew anything about grammar.
Yeah, we're plenty good on first-person nouns - "I" and "we" cover that.
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 find a lot of it to be the interface we're on. For the most part (not all, the most part) people who are interacting about this face to face are less likely to fly off the handle because you can see the person and hear how they are saying it, which takes away some of the misinterpretations -- which sometimes aren't, they are just a good excuse for an argument.
I've spent years on these boards and seldom spoke until recently because there was just SO much arguing, over what boils down to opinion. Just screaming and yelling and hair pulling over how a rule works, or how a character should be built, or even if a word is correct or not. I'd say it is just the internet, but I think it is more a people thing. People want so badly to be right and won't let things go. Maybe I am showing my age, but I don't remember as much of this pre-Internet days. Or else I managed to stay away from some of the real arguments.
I try to read over my own posts and couch things in a less aggressive manner and try to make sure not to directly attack someone, to cut out the "you are wrong!" and so forth. It makes the conversation less irritating for me, and hopefully for others.
Of course, there are those who can take offense at "Hello" or "I like paladins", so there will always be arguments. I just try to express myself and let other people have their own opinions. I am unlikely to change how I play nor am I likely to alter someone else's hard-held opinions. It's all talking to make the day go easier.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I am showing my age, but I don't remember as much of this pre-Internet days. Or else I managed to stay away from some of the real arguments.
Funny, I was just pondering this today, as someone in another part of the forums said the same thing about another aspect of gamer behavior - that maybe he was dating himself, but he thought it was a factor of younger, post-internet players.
But unlike him, you, I think, hit on the real reason: "I managed to stay away from..."
(The following are general thoughts on alleged generational differences, not directed at you.)
RPGs have always been a kitchen table game that you play primarily with people you already know (or know through someone you know) in someone's home in a private setting. Just like Monopoly or any other game, except you play it a lot more.
And it's been around for decades, and only (relatively) recently started "opening up" via organized play and online discussions; suddenly, players have contact with complete and total strangers. Someone might have played the game with the same (types of) people for 30 years, then stepped into the broader world (i.e., moved to a new city and joined an OP campaign or found a new group, or whatever), discovered things that weren't a part of their personal history with the game, and then assumed that the unfamiliar element was "new" (and/or a minority, and/or "bad", etc). After all, if I've been playing a certain way for 30 years, that must be the norm, right? Everyone must have been playing that way too, until some other element got introduced to the game, which just happened to approximately coincide with when my awareness finally spread beyond myself, right?
Ironically, I bet most such gamers would be very quick to point out the dynamics involved in how small, rural towns/communities can be so full of old prejudices, due to being isolated from outside influence for so long that they've self-reinforced their inbred perceptions of what's normal. Which probably contributes to the difficulty some such gamers have in seeing that same dynamic in their own gaming history. Lots of gamers come from backgrounds where there was an established local "norm", and people decried the new/different RPG thing as clearly bad and weird. Can you imagine how ego-crushing it would be to realize that they do the same thing when they take their private gaming experiences to be the norm, and decry the new/different elements (powergaming, asian weapons/classes, guns) as being bad or weird?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Maybe I am showing my age, but I don't remember as much of this pre-Internet days. Or else I managed to stay away from some of the real arguments.
The closest thing that comes to mind is the Forum section of Dragon from back in the day. Those arguments could get really heated (I remember a multi-month long exchange regarding fortifying castles against magic).
Funny, I was just pondering this today, as someone in another part of the forums said the same thing about another aspect of gamer behavior - that maybe he was dating himself, but he thought it was a factor of younger, post-internet players.
But unlike him, you, I think, hit on the real reason: "I managed to stay away from..."
(The following are general thoughts on alleged generational differences, not directed at you.)
RPGs have always been a kitchen table game that you play primarily with people you already know (or know through someone you know) in someone's home in a private setting. Just like Monopoly or any other game, except you play it a lot more.And it's been around for decades, and only (relatively) recently started "opening up" via organized play and online discussions; suddenly, players have contact with complete and total strangers. Someone might have played the game with the same (types of) people for 30 years, then stepped into the broader world (i.e., moved to a new city and joined an OP campaign or found a new group, or whatever), discovered things that weren't a part of their personal history with the game, and then assumed that the unfamiliar element was "new" (and/or a minority, and/or "bad", etc). After all, if I've been playing a certain way for 30 years, that must be the norm, right? Everyone must have been playing that way too, until some other element got introduced to the game, which just happened to approximately coincide with when my awareness finally spread beyond myself, right?
Ironically, I bet most such gamers would be very quick to point out the dynamics involved in how small, rural towns/communities can be so full of old prejudices, due to being isolated from outside influence for so long that they've self-reinforced their inbred perceptions of what's normal. Which probably contributes to the difficulty some such gamers have in seeing that same dynamic in their own gaming history. Lots of gamers come from backgrounds where there was an established local "norm", and people decried the new/different RPG thing as clearly bad and weird. Can you imagine how ego-crushing it would be to realize that they do the same thing when they take their private gaming experiences to be the norm, and decry the new/different elements (powergaming, asian weapons/classes, guns) as being bad or weird?
I agree with the majority of this. In my own case, I've moved a number of times and gone from being the youngest person at the table (and thanks to the Lake Jackson group for not strangling me when I was younger!) to the old man at the table. I've seen a number of interesting house rules that I wouldn't have thought of myself or necessarily signed off on.
But I try, when I can, to limit the arguing over that, or most things. When it gets to the point where people are getting hostile over the small stuff, I'll either agree and just go with it or move on to a new conversation or call it a night.
As an aside, there are as many (or more!) older people and players that are just as argumentative if not more so. I don't attribute it just to the younger folk, but more that the Internet has turned us into one big room with very few walls, and even the smallest difference of opinion can enflame people. Like with a lot/alot above, let alone something like "X gives you +1"/"No it doesn't!"
he closest thing that comes to mind is the Forum section of Dragon from back in the day. Those arguments could get really heated (I remember a multi-month long exchange regarding fortifying castles against magic).
Right! I remember reading many of those and thinking, "Is this real? Are people really using a Push spell to knock Thor off a wall to steal his hammer? They really have AT-ATs taking over Greyhawk? Someone has a 78th level magic user? Am I playing wrong?"
|
|
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?
I mostly DM but I have dealt with players who were have been fixated on character concept. I think (for me at least), I think that it serves as an opportunity for some players to express their creative side via character generation. This hasn't been as much of an issue for me in AD&D/PF as it was in other games - namely, Gamma World. Now for those who don't know the first 4 editions of Gamma World allowed for a very wide variety of PC choice options - many of which had little to no rules to support one-off characters.
One memorable example I can give (I have a few) was when a player wanted to play a non-mobile AI unit as a Player Character. I had requests for Android characters (modified the cyborg and ultraborg/robot rules to accommodate that player) but I was a bit vexed as to why a player would want to make a robot that was just basically a computer with very little ability to manipulate the environment in a combat and exploration heavy game. The player in question was an experienced DM in his own right and knew that the rules governing this kind of PC were limited - he just thought it would be a cool idea to play a computer in GW. We never got around to making that PC - though in my re-write of the game I did develop rules for that kind of player character option (plus a few other weird ones).The point being is that he had a vision for a character type, which based on the system was would actually have been suboptimal in many scenarios - but it was something he had always wanted to play and GW was the big sci-fi/fantasy game we were playing at the time.
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 think classes should be balanced in power but they should be balanced in use and in-game need.
So a wizard can have incredible power, enough to kill with a single spell - but his powers (or combination of powers) should not dip into martial prowess and expertise on top of manipulating reality. He should still need fighters to protect him and rogues should be the most effective way to get around obstacles (mundane or magical) so the wizard can use his resources to deal with the X threat (again, with the help of the other classes). So to me it isn't that they should all be balanced against each other, but they should be balanced against the game and goal they are trying to achieve. This should also be a goal that game designers should try to achieve (role function).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?
When I design a game world I have both a feel and vision of what the world should be like - how it moves, where it's going, etc. So for me it is both my creative investment and my motivation that would have me protect it. So if I am running a dark post-apocalyptic game I may be open to Asian themed character types - road samurai, wandering monk (which I normally don't like in D&D) but I will disallow silly or comedic character types or choices - such as a self-aware, sentient soda pop dispenser - the reason why? Because that dark feel that I am going for is also my motivation to keep coming back to the campaign to develop more material and run the game. If the intent of the PCs is to turn the dismal PA campaign into high romance or pie throwing comedy then yeah, I will put the brakes on that before we even start up. Communicating with your players and your players knowing your GM style are HUGE factors in these "My character vision" vs. "My campaign vision" discussions.
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 don't do well with appeal to authority. If the game has some rules I don't like I will try them out via test runs in my head/die rolling or actual PC playtest. If they are really bad I just change them.
I have had some players complain about rules/rulings - we don't allow for arguments during the game (I err on the side of the players usually) but save it for an issue to be addressed in downtime. If a rule is causing problems I offer a fix or change and we usually roll with that. If it's a ruling then I discuss why I went the way I did and listen to the players argument. If he makes a solid case I will revise my rulings after the fact (it is a game after all). We (as a group) are WAY beyond the "but it's in the book" phase of gaming. We know that companies have their own (narrow) vision of how they want their games played and it is very rare that any of us (my players who also run games) to run them as RAW.5. Why do people get so upset and angry about an activity that they are presumably doing to relax and have fun?
I think it comes down to people wanting to tell other people how to live. I think most if not all play styles expressed on these boards are wrong - but hey, if they are having fun as a group why the hell what I think matter to them? If they come here with a problem then yeah, I may offer up my way (the correct way!) of gaming, otherwise I just read the posts of other play styles and remain grateful that I have the group of players that I have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great response Aux. I am very impressed with most of the responses on this thread (even some of the grammar ones). But the well thought out responses that tackle one or more (or even ALL) of my questions have been a real pleasure to read. I hope other people have also found the thread enlightening.
I will say this, as a GM after reading through this, I find myself more willing to go to extra effort to accommodate a player request. That means if someone wants to play a catfolk gunslinger, I'll make it work. But that doesn't mean "anything goes". I'm still going to find some lines to draw, just because of my own interests. But I have learned something here. So thanks to all who have participated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try my best to accomidate but some unique characters can be a pain.
I'll use a monster race as an example. Player A wants to play a Minotaur. Now as a GM I need to adjust every single social encounter. That's fine for a game or two but I just can't keep it up over the course of a campaign. It becomes a drag and limits the types of stories I can tell. Not just for him/her but the other players around the table since they have to travel with the monster. The party now can't go into the city with Jonny McUnique the Minotaur, can't talk to the sheriff, etc, etc.
And from my experience most players lose sight of the appearance of their characters. That's why so many of them use Chr as a dump stat. Because players lose sight of this it is up to the GM to remember McUnigue's beastly appearance. My GM Brain gets a bit full when actively playing and those types of details leak out my ears and into the great beyond. A failing on my part as GM I fully admit.
But if the player is forgetting and the GM is forgetting then for sure the other gamers are forgetting. So if no one remembers that a character is a Minotaur they are either not role playing worth a damn or they just took the race to cheese the game.
-MD
When the AD&D book of complete Humanoids came out our table was inundated with stupid monster characters. Ugh
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player A wants to play a Minotaur. Now as a GM I need to adjust every single social encounter. That's fine for a game or two but I just can't keep it up over the course of a campaign.
I'm actually doing exactly this right now for a home group. It has been a challenge, but it's been well worth it terms of a memorable campaign and story. Certainly it wouldn't be suitable for every group and game, but with some creativity it can be great. Point in case, when the party entered a backwater village the people feared the minotaur, but one timid farmer approached them with a sob story of how ol' bessie the ox just passed away and he couldn't plow his field and all the other farmers needed their animals to take care of their fields, and, well, maybe, would a kind adventurer like said minotaur be willing to drag his plow through the fields for a day or two? Probably not what the PC had been thinking his heroic minotaur would be doing to gain acceptance in the village, but an option none-the-less that made for some entertainment at the table. Plus, the 'bull in a china shop' has worked really well, make a Dex check!, half his loot has just gone to paying damages thus far. And, as a GM should, that PC still gets plenty of chances to shine as a hero, monstrous or not, so he can still fulfill the vision he had for a minotaur barbarian when he made the character.
Plus, the 'bull in a china shop' has worked really well, make a Dex check!, half his loot has just gone to paying damages thus far
OH MY GOODS AND SERVICES
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, the 'bull in a china shop' has worked really well, make a Dex check!, half his loot has just gone to paying damages thus far.
He's more like Tory Belleci than an actual bull, but your point has merit, so henceforth I'll let the barbarian minotaur get some form of an uncanny dodge bonus per that episode of mythbusters, though only if he loudly states "Rynjin! and lifts his beverage in toast prior to rolling the check.
I deem this acceptable. =p
I'll respond to the ones that are relevant to my own passion:
3. Since I my games are largely the same handful of friends as players with a few people rotating in and out, I've tried to built a stable world for them based on each game that's come before. When I started a few years ago I had absolutely nothing decided and players had 100% free reign on choices. Now, histories have happened and the world has been set, and I'm not going to hit the reset button for the one new player.
Now, that might sound awfully rigid, but I still allow almost 100% of paizo's content in the game. The only things that are outright forbidden are the Strix race (flying at 1st level is too good in my eyes) and a handful of archetypes. Everything else has a place somewhere in the world, wether the character is a pioneer of new technology (firearms) or a traveller from a land in the East (tengu). Then again, I created the world with the exact goal of giving my players as many options as possible while still having a stable setting, and some GMs want to make a world for themselves.
I'd also allow psionics but none of my players are interested :(
4. This hasn't come up much, but on the off-chance I'm playing in a game there the GM has interpreted a rule, or implements a rule differently, or what-have-you I don't mind if it's something I find inconsequential, like giving us altered WBL, but there have been times where I know a friend runs games very differently and as much as I like them, I just can't play under those rules. I make the calls I do because I genuinely believe they create the best environment for fun, and other people may not always agree, but from my point of view, the other option is inferior. For instance, I HATE that my friend John has player roll a d4 for their starting level in his campaigns and a handful of other rules changes that he implements because his old GM did without really understanding why (giving the casters more spells per day? REALLY JOHN?)
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?
I can't recall ever getting so emotionally invested in the opportunity to play a certain character that I might have demanded to do so.
And I don't get the "I always wanted to play X" pressure buildup that some people seem to. What's tugging on my brainstrings has a lot more to do with what I've been reading lately than with fulfilling those long-stymied dreams that I'd been laying up in my heart all those years. So if I find myself desirous of cultivating a different flavor of inspiration, I'll go read one thing for a while instead of another, and that will work.
On the other hand - I've only been playing 3.x for a decade or so. Maybe if I make it to old age and am still playing this sort of game, I might find that one impossible dream bursting to get out, whilst old standbys have grown stale.
We'll see!
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?
Game balance I don't agree with is rarely infuriating, but it is often disappointing.
To take an example from a thread that recently got locked due to people losing their tempers (the sling thread), my reaction to an instance of game balance that I don't agree with and that was pretty dismissive (SKR's quote comparing choosing to wield a sling or javelins or spear to throwing water balloons) was more of bemused disappointment than rage.
That said, I do care quite significantly about it, so I can understand how someone with a less atrophied rage gland would be able to get angry about it. A badly balanced game translates to less actual fun for me while playing it. That's something I've discovered empirically (first in 3.5) and generally holds true whether what I am playing is overpowered or underpowered, so the suggestion of choosing to play only powerful stuff, and leaving the weak stuff, is not really an ideal solution for me.
Speaking generally, I will typically want something that I think has good potential for awesome to be awesome even if it is to be awesome in the form of an encounter I must defeat. E.g., even if I were playing a pathfinder Goliath and trying to reverse the way that story went, I wouldn't want David to be a paper tiger, and if he were, I wouldn't consider it to be a solved problem just because I chose to play Goliath instead.
So... insofar as Pathfinder is important to me, improving the parts of the game that I think are bad is proportionally important.
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 haven't run a homebrew world for a while now. That said, when I still did this:
I didn't give the PCs the chance not to fit into my masterpiece world in all its final glory, because I didn't wait till it was in all its final glory before including them.
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?
It isn't. Rules debates are for message boards, not for during the game beyond establishing an interpretation good enough to go with in the short term.
5. Why do people get so upset and angry about an activity that they are presumably doing to relax and have fun?
Arguing on message boards is fun and profitable.
...
...
no, seriously. Not monetarily profitable, but I learn things.
I also produce fairly limited supplies of personal wrath and rage, so most of what I do have has to be carefully rationed and saved for really important situations, like being stuck behind a slow driver.
About the only time I can manage to break into the stockpiles for something as personally remote as these boards are when I perceive personal attacks or severe rudeness (which I do from time to time). Otherwise snark is about the worst I'll resort to.
I believe people enjoy justified rage at the game similarly to how people enjoy feelings of terror from horror films. There is no real threat to their way of life, so they keep coming back for the emotional thrill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So which one of you guys posted this on a Game Grumps video?
Oh f~@$, they talked about Y'all, and how it's the only word we have for second person plural! That is an exact conversation I've had with people!
Seriously, Y'all is such a sophisticated word. y'all just don't understand.
At least I assume it's one of you because that is the most interesting outcome here.