I DISAGREE. LET'S ARGUE.
TOZ makes a good point (dammit, this is getting to be a pattern with me). Some arguments do at least have some place. If a rules dispute is over whether or not a character gets sucked into hell permanently, by all means, put on My Little Pony to keep the other players entertained and talk it out with the character's owner. Otherwise, if it turns out you were wrong, he's never going to let you live it down.
I speak from personal experience. Hey, how was I to know there were limits on how many d6s a psion could add to his fireball?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly off OP:
The sneaky secret hush-hush way of engaging in an argument (that you feel is necessary and is current-events-game related):
Instead of saying to the GM or player "No. X rule/ability/etc. works like A+B."
Go for the mild but inquisitive "Pardon me," or "sorry," or "excuse me my most honorable fellow gamer," then "doesn't X rule/ability/etc. work like A+B?" where you can add, if you know, "I thought it said so on page/line/nanotube Y that that's how it works?"
Because then you're engaging and not accusing (or seeming to be accusing, or at least less so seeming to be accusing especially for those that are paranoid and full of fluff).
Then the one being questioned has three essential choices for their answer: 1. "Yes!" 2. "No!" or 3. "I don't know!" (this is often followed with being thrown into a chasm or canyon or over a bridge or something).
At this point, any contradictions between your initial question and the respondent's answer is now up to the GM to make a judgement on. But if the respondent is the GM then their answer is the judgement and leave it at that...
...unless the GM was wrong...then, make a note (but do not scratch that note into the forehead of the player sitting next you, very bad form that is) and after the session politely inform the GM that rule/ability/etc does, in fact, work like A+B and here it is in the appropriate page/line/nanotube.
The caveat is, of course, if failure to treat X rule/ability/etc. correctly in the moment means certain death and dismemberment and dastardly deepfriedmentation of your character then best to have Y page/line/nanotube at the ready with many supplications intoning the severity of the situation.
And the meta-caveat is that everything written above is completely wrong and taking any of the above advice as gospel will actually end up turning your players and GM against you like a pack of pernicious packages.
Abed: "Will you please come with us."
Todd: "But I'm in the middle of making a handle."
Abed: "He wants it the hard way. Tell him what Shirley said."
Troy: "Todd Jacobson you have the right to do what ever you want. Nothing you say or do can be used against you by anyone, but we'd really like it if you came with us. Please and thank you."
-Community (S3E17)
Opinion: It's a silly thing to argue aboutduring a gaming sessionat any time.fifyI like to put words in other people's mouths.
If they'd just finished a campaign and were discussing what they should play next, and the GM likes 4th Edition, and the player prefers Pathfinder, then discussing their relative merits at length is a perfectly reasonable use of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was in a group that got into such a petty, unrelated argument, I'd pack my things and go f~%% off elsewhere. I don't schedule 6 hours of my day off a week to sit around and watch people get into a pissing contest like that. That's inconsiderate of the other people who come to roll some dice and have some fun.
I once had a game that was momentarily derailed by my friend going on a short tirade about how the Indian trident is the superior weapon when compared to the Greek and Roman (aside from the obvious socio-economic issues Rez thinks is convinced that everything Indian is inherently better for one reason or another).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edition warring is dumb. I have been subject to it too many times in too many situations. What bothers me is that edition warriors get so used to other gamers never speaking againsts that kind of poor behavior. Then when depending on how rude they are can't understand why a peraon gets angry. I don't care what it says about free speech. If I told you I don't want to engage in edition earring it means I don't. Period. No debate on the matter. I'm willing to ask a person nicely to move on so many times before I raise my voice and tell them to get lost..
Arguments or questions on the rules or on other topics are usually best saved until either a break at the table. Or even better at the end of a game. During a game it does imo have no place. Sometimes depending on the person it's unaviodable though. As some people just were not thought how to deal well in social situations. Or the types that dammit will say what they want when they want screw anyone else.
It's stupid to waste time discussing editions... the superiority of 3.X is so obvious. =)
Edition warring is dumb. I have been subject to it too many times in too many situations. What bothers me is that edition warriors get so used to other gamers never speaking againsts that kind of poor behavior. Then when depending on how rude they are can't understand why a peraon gets angry. I don't care what it says about free speech. If I told you I don't want to engage in edition earring it means I don't. Period. No debate on the matter. I'm willing to ask a person nicely to move on so many times before I raise my voice and tell them to get lost..
I agree with this. I also feel expressing a preference is okay, though, so it's all down to how someone says something. I'm fine if someone says "I prefer edition X because....", or even "I dislike edition X because...." it's more the "Edition X is crap" crowd that annoy me, and - even worse - people that see someone expressing a preference and then tell that person they're wrong to like that version, as if they know better than that person what they prefer.
Sometimes though, yeah, expressing that preference in the first place can be the trigger. If you know its the wrong time and place to get into an argument, or the wrong people to mention it in front of, then just keep quiet.
I really wish it were possible to have a decent discussion about the things people like about various systems without it devolving into a fight. But hey, it's the internet, I guess I should set my expectations low :)
|
|
I can respect not liking a certain version of D&D. It when a person is rude and obnoxious when explaining why they like a particulaur edition. Or that if you like edition xyz your made out to be both a bad person or not a "true" fan of D&D. As I said most of the more rude edition warriors are so used to people not defending their preferences that they really can't handle someone that does. If your going to call me a idiot for having played 4E well don't get surprised and offeneded if I say a few rude thing myself. It works both ways. Nor am I going to be made to feel ashamed for having both played and liking 4E. If ones faith in a favored version of D&D is so lacking one needs to make fun of others it's not my problem.
To the topic a hand sometimes a question needs to be answered asap. As it could mean the difference between life and death for a pc. I ran a session of PF today. I wanted to trip a flying character. I and the other players were not sure if I could. I ruled that the npc could. It was a long fight and i had two players that had to leave early so we left to looking up the rule until the end of the game. Turns out you can't. Besides some damage the tripped pc and player were okay with what happened. I know better for next game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
An impartial observer needs to break it up and explain that whichever football team you back doesn't matter. The only thing that matters now is the current game.
Also a simpler game doesn't mean only noobs play it.
For edition wars, the current game is mostly a foregone conclusion, isn't it? =)
Yeah, pathfinder is a mess. Cluttered rubbish that has gone the way of bloat hard. It was so promising early on. Sad it has come to this.
A lot of people I know are heading back to 2nd ed, 1st ed, all flesh must be eaten and cthulhu, and of course their own homegrown systems with far less cluttered rules lawyering nonsense.
That is my conclusion, did you come to the same verdict too Sissyl?
I suppose game systems could be considered like religions in that sense. If there are still followers and if there is a revival, is it truly dead?
You didn't hear about the 2nd ed revival? Old products re-released are selling like HOT cakes.
Hot Danish apricot pastries. If you have not got in on this, I want to show you the world.
I would be as respectful as possible, but insistent, as I took off your mask and presented it, allowing you to savour it between your lips. Best when served hot and steamy. Those Danish goods man.
http://goodtoknow.media.ipcdigital.co.uk/111/00000d04f/4ca5_orh405w614/Dani sh-pastry.jpg
A more serious question though, are you offended at old systems coming back and experiencing a return?
The number of adventures and settings, such a fertile collection for rpg games. We are living in good gaming times. Some of that re-released Dark Sun and Ravenloft stuff, I almost broke the budget.