Opinion: It's a silly thing to argue about during a gaming session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's typically known as edition warring. We try not to do it here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's ok to have your preferences, but at the end of the day, you play what games you can arrange. If the GM prefers 4e but his players prefer PF, what's he gonna do? Stop playing? Maybe, but then he's got no game. Same for the players. If you want to play together, you need to find some common ground.
While I enjoyed some aspects of 4e I found building characters to be boring and there were many cases where the choice of abilities was obvious which one was the best of them, limiting replay for us.
I did really like the more tactical movement with a lot of push and pull like moves, felt a lot more tactical as one of the things I dislike about pathfinder is there is very little movement during the battles I find.
Though 4th edition was certainly simplified, that wasn't what I disliked about it, heck if forth edition had pathfinders adventure paths and felt as supported I think they would have done a lot better, but as it is the thought of going back to 4th edition seems like a pain in the ass.
EDIT: As a final note, to each their own, the things I dislike about it may be things that other people really do like, I could see why someone would prefer a streamlined character system to focus on other parts, it's just not for me. I harbour no ill will towards anyone who likes 4th edition.
Don't bother, its like asking whether you like marmite or not. The debate has raged for ages and all it will do is just incite rage.
Arguing at the game table is a really stupid thing to do as you are all supposed to be having fun.
Best course of action: everyone has the right to like or hate something, delete this post and move on. Jeez
Typing and just saw you're post. The original wording makes it sound as if you want to start another edition flame war. I would if you can reword it as this is all that is going to happen I think.
Aw yes, no , certainly no reason to bring up an edition war in the middle of a game session. Sounds like a solid waste of game time, nothing is going to be gained if someone is deemed "right" and everyone loses game time.
In general, you should try to avoid extraneous (to the game) conversations as much as possible. They detract from the actual game. Now, in practice it's too much work to curtail all non-game related talk, but having a full on argument is just a terrible idea. Especially when it has nothing to do with your campaign or the game rules.
If you disgaree about game rules, let the GM make a ruling then and there (unless you can quickly cite the correct rules) and continue on with the game. You can discuss it later without using up valuable table time.
As to edition warring, just...don't.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait. You had an argument mid-session and it wasn't even a rules argument?
Basically, you're asking "Should we stop playing PF to have an argument completely unrelated to the game?" That's like asking "Should we stop playing PF to go play XBox?"
The answer in both cases: "If that's what you'd rather be doing than playing PF, then you should absolutely do that. If you'd rather be playing PF, then you should play PF."
The GM should be in control enough to say "we'll discuss this later, for now, let's play what we're playing".
Anything else is a waste of everyone's time, especially those not taking part in the argument.
Not touching the topic of the argument in question with your ten-foot pole.
It is odd that in the middle of the game session you would argue about the games themselves, but I am not shocked. My group gets distracted by things - and yes, sometimes we argue. It can be about a particular set of circumstances, how the rules are being interpreted, or how and NPC is behaving (ah the old "so-and-so wouldn't say/do that. I've read the books!). It happens, though. The key is trying to be respectful of everyone's time and getting back on track.
We're not allowed to system bash on this forum, so I'll close by saying I'm still posting on a Paizo forum and giving them my money. Wizards does not get my money lately. Carry on!
If the GM and a player start an argument (about anything) in the middle of a play session, that thar is a disastrous mix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM and a player start an argument (about anything) in the middle of a play session, that thar is a disastrous mix.
It depends on if argument means a heated fight or a verbal disagreement with each side pleading their case. Argument = debate to me. GM's are wrong sometimes. And sometimes players weren't clearly told and a discussion needs to be had. Now if they are FIGHTING, like getting in their face and being rude, then yes; That sucks for all.
I'm not saying you're wrong, Corthios, but if anyone feels a need to discuss the subject on the Paizo message boards, it's probably gotten past the point where it was a genial conversation around the gaming table, right?
|
At the end of the day what does it matter what game system you are playing with? Pathfinder? 1.0 D&D? 2.0 D&D?3.5 D&D? 4.0 D&D? 5.0 D&D play testing ( I know they are calling it "next")
Wether its Gurps the vampire game, Starwars (D6 West end, or Wotc D20 or whatever game they are making now)
At the end of the day we, or rather I play these games to spend time with my friends. What does the system matter?
I don't think the argument should have erupted in the middle of the game.
Just my two cents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Normally I would say it was bad form to argue the game choice mid game.Since it was brought up by the DM though I think it speaks to greater issues.
The DM who is running Pathfinder (spending his time and effort as well as his money on the game)obviously is unhappy enough with running the game he at least attempted to self destruct the game.
This is something most DM's just wouldn't do unless he was at his wits end and not having fun at all. Think about it,he probably spent cash on a adventure and a considerable amount of time on game prep and mid game couldn't continue without trying to convince others to change games.
That my friends is one unhappy DM.
Regardless of what you and your friends decide to play that DM should NOT continue to run Pathfinder. It will only get worse if he does.
If you decide to stick with Pathfinder change DM's. If that isn't doable then im afraid you should change to whatever game he wants to run.
As a player I will play anything.I just love to play and most games I can create fun characters to enjoy.
As a DM I do not have fun running certain games. Some games focus on game styles that just run counter to what I like about role playing games. When that happens I just step down as DM and roll up a character!
If the group can't field a DM wanting to run that game,it simply doesn't get played.
Normally I would say it was bad form to argue the game choice mid game.Since it was brought up by the DM though I think it speaks to greater issues.
The DM who is running Pathfinder (spending his time and effort as well as his money on the game)obviously is unhappy enough with running the game he at least attempted to self destruct the game.
This is something most DM's just wouldn't do unless he was at his wits end and not having fun at all. Think about it,he probably spent cash on a adventure and a considerable amount of time on game prep and mid game couldn't continue without trying to convince others to change games.
That my friends is one unhappy DM.
This is, of course, a good point. No GM should feel forced into running a game he doesn't want to run. And there are a lot of people who don't like running 3e-family games like Pathfinder and who prefer to run 4e. The opposite holds true as well (I know one who prefers PF a little bit because he got sick of 4e PCs stun-locking the opposition every fight).
So what do you do? If he would prefer to run 4e, find out if enough of you want to play it to make it worthwhile. If not, can someone else take over running PF so he doesn't feel he needs to?
I think the argument cited is an example of an irrelevant argument. Would the issue you are discussing have any practical effect on your game? If not, that discussion should be deferred. The only time a comparative discussion of game systems is really relevant is if you are thinking of starting a new campaign and you have not yet decided which game system to use.
How long could that argument take? Didn't you just point out to them that First Edition is where it's at?
Opinion: It's a silly thing to argue aboutduring a gaming sessionat any time.
fify
in the last game session i was playing in an argument came up when the DM stated that they preferred 4th edition to Pathfinder. The argument broke down into 4e is DnD for Dummies while pathfinder was for 3.5 advanced. I'm making this topic here for your opinions on weather the argument should have taken place mid session.
I'd suggest that the other players ask the pair to table the discussion till a break or call a break right there and let them finish up. That way they can get it out of their system and you can get back to playing faster.
No argument should occur mid-session. Point out an opinion, sure. Disagree even, but leave it at that. There's no reason to ruin the game for everyone just because you disagree with something that's happening in the game - and for the argument to be about something not even related to the current game (such as which edition is best) I'd take it as a sign I had group problems, personally.
My question is, who would say 'yes' to this? O.o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
YES.
[ Begin overly obtuse philosophical rambling for Comedy's sake ]
Rarely is there ever a black and white conclusion when it comes to judging the merits of dialectical exchanges between human beings within a predefined play-space that are not related to the play-space.
A detailed contextual framework is needed in order to increase the accuracy and precision of assessing inter-social dialog breakdowns as adjudicating an assessment based solely on 'was it an error in judgement that two parties engaged in a non-play-space related argument' is in itself prone to drawing false conclusions; especially if further information on the event is included at a later date.
Key aspects of the meta-event that should be included include, among other things;
1. Is the social group engaged in the play-space bound with long-standing social ties that extend outside the play-space itself or are the individuals within the group relatively unfamiliar with each other, their primary, if not only, foci being located within the play-space? With long-standing socially tied groups, non-play-space discussions often occur more regularly as a form strengthening and re-establishing said social ties but unfamiliar groups, where the individuals are unaware of commonalities between each other, the inherent social contract lies, reinforced, within the play-space itself.
2. Was the event emotionally charged by one or both of the individuals engaged in the discussion? The inherent ambiguity of the term "argument" leaves open the possibility of; either an emotional-negative discussion, an emotionally neutral discussion from opposing points of view, or something in between the two.
3. What was the temporal ratio of the event itself to the totality of the play-space session and how does that ratio compare to other non-play-space interruptions such as declarations of impressions of social-media events, gastrointestinal duties, and sidereal meme contagions?
In conclusion, even if points one through three above are fully addressed, an accurate and/or precise conclusion of the event may not be concluded, even in lengthy and long drawn out conclusions such as this.
[ End overly obtuse philosophical rambling for Comedy's sake ]
Pffft. If they choose to argue about the superiority of various editions rather than fight when they're fighting a god, I'd say they get all they deserve.
Should it? No.
Will it happen? Yes.
Don't bother, its like asking whether you like marmite or not. The debate has raged for ages and all it will do is just incite rage.
What's Marmite?
It's a food created as a byproduct of beer brewing, I believe, and everyone who tries it seems to either absolutely abhor it or absolutely love it, with little if any in-between.
You don't have to wait. Opera is a web browser for all nations. ;)
GMs should run what they like to run.
Players should take what they can get.
That's the only way anything gets done.
Arguing about it is a waste of time.
Derailing the game session for an argument (unless brief) is a bit selfish, IMO. Unless everyone there was involved in the argument. Don't bore your friends.