Respect. Do we have any!?


Gamer Life General Discussion


I'm sure I'm probably guilty of this as well from time to time, but I've been experiencing it a lot lately on these boards and it's really infuriating.

People start a thread to talk about X. It goes great for a few posts, and then inevitably people invade the thread to say 'X doesn't matter' or 'X isn't real' or 'X isn't an issue if you play the game the One True Way like I do.'

A simple statement of such is kind of rude, but acceptable.

But then we go on to derail the entire dang thread into an argument rather than letting the thread run its course on its designated topic!

Lets all be gentlemen [and ladies and whatever else you might identify with] and make an effort to stop this behavior, it's not good.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


People start a thread to talk about X. It goes great for a few posts, and then inevitably people invade the thread to say 'X doesn't matter' or 'X isn't real' or 'X isn't an issue if you play the game the One True Way like I do.'

Who's the one claiming to have The One True Way, though? Since this is obviously about the recent "martials need more nice things" frenzy, the thing about that is that it's only a serious issue IF you think about the game a certain way, and what can those of us who don't offer those who complain but an alternative way of thinking that nixes the issue? We like it, it's good enough for us. If you insist on thinking about the game in a certain narrow way, then complain about the consequences of that mentality when other mentalities don't share that consequence, how is that not a self-inflicted issue, and how is it fair in that case to act like it's an issue with the whole game that everyone who plays should be onboard with taking action about, when it's really just a subset of players?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Respect. Do we have any!?

I know I don't.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I have so much respect that I don't allow my wisdom to be constrained by petty things like 'topics'.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


People start a thread to talk about X. It goes great for a few posts, and then inevitably people invade the thread to say 'X doesn't matter' or 'X isn't real' or 'X isn't an issue if you play the game the One True Way like I do.'
Who's the one claiming to have The One True Way, though? Since this is obviously about the recent "martials need more nice things" frenzy, the thing about that is that it's only a serious issue IF you think about the game a certain way, and what can those of us who don't offer those who complain but an alternative way of thinking that nixes the issue? We like it, it's good enough for us. If you insist on thinking about the game in a certain narrow way, then complain about the consequences of that mentality when other mentalities don't share that consequence, how is that not a self-inflicted issue, and how is it fair in that case to act like it's an issue with the whole game that everyone who plays should be onboard with taking action about, when it's really just a subset of players?

This subset of players wants to play this game, and they want to play the way that they want to play it, just like you want to play this game the way that you want to play it. If they change the game so that it more easily plays the way they want to play it, how does that affect you? What you're saying equates to telling them that if they're not going to play the way you play, they should just play a different game.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


People start a thread to talk about X. It goes great for a few posts, and then inevitably people invade the thread to say 'X doesn't matter' or 'X isn't real' or 'X isn't an issue if you play the game the One True Way like I do.'
Who's the one claiming to have The One True Way, though? Since this is obviously about the recent "martials need more nice things" frenzy, the thing about that is that it's only a serious issue IF you think about the game a certain way, and what can those of us who don't offer those who complain but an alternative way of thinking that nixes the issue? We like it, it's good enough for us. If you insist on thinking about the game in a certain narrow way, then complain about the consequences of that mentality when other mentalities don't share that consequence, how is that not a self-inflicted issue, and how is it fair in that case to act like it's an issue with the whole game that everyone who plays should be onboard with taking action about, when it's really just a subset of players?

I did say simply chiming in with your thoughts once didn't upset me a great deal.

Its when people chime in with an 'alternative' and then they defend it to the derail and detriment of the thread.

Scarab Sages

Neurophage wrote:


This subset of players wants to play this game, and they want to play the way that they want to play it, just like you want to play this game the way that you want to play it. If they change the game so that it more easily plays the way they want to play it, how does that affect you? What you're saying equates to telling them that if they're going to play the way you play, they should just play a different game.

It affects me because they're demanding a change to the game based on a way of thinking that I don't share, so not only are they trying to push a rules change, but they're effectively trying to make the rest of us think about the game the same way they do, since that's the only way we'd agree that such changes were worthwhile. I'm not opposed to change, but it has to be for the right reasons, otherwise it won't lead anywhere good (4E, for example, which lest we forget, Pathfinder managed to outshine despite having brand-name disadvantage because most players didn't like the way of thinking it lent itself to).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People are disrespectful over anything on which they don't see eye to eye.

I'm not saying...just beholdin '.

Scarab Sages

Cranky Bastard wrote:

People are disrespectful over anything on which they don't see eye to eye.

I'm not saying...just beholdin '.

Does that mean that you're always disrespectful...or never?


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Neurophage wrote:


This subset of players wants to play this game, and they want to play the way that they want to play it, just like you want to play this game the way that you want to play it. If they change the game so that it more easily plays the way they want to play it, how does that affect you? What you're saying equates to telling them that if they're going to play the way you play, they should just play a different game.
It affects me because they're demanding a change to the game based on a way of thinking that I don't share, so not only are they trying to push a rules change, but they're effectively trying to make the rest of us think about the game the same way they do, since that's the only way we'd agree that such changes were worthwhile. I'm not opposed to change, but it has to be for the right reasons, otherwise it won't lead anywhere good (4E, for example, which lest we forget, Pathfinder managed to outshine despite having brand-name disadvantage because most players didn't like the way of thinking it lent itself to).

4E failed for a lot of reasons, and that was probably the least of them.

That aside, if they're really such a small subset of players, then nothing they say is going to make the developers change the game in any significant way. They don't necessarily want the text in the rulebooks to reflect what they want the game to be. They want to know the best way to changing the game on their end to better reflect what they want the game to be. So why do you care if they personally implement changes to better reflect their vision of the game? It doesn't have anything to do with you.

And if, someday, the game itself does change to reflect their vision of what the game should be, then that means they weren't such a small subset of players, and that your opinion might have been in the minority. And in that case, what reason would there be for the game to stay the same for the sake of a small subset of players?


Did I mention that these derails are not uncommon in the Homebrew forum?

In the other forums its a bit more understandable to debate the OP's premise if you disagree with it [although it still seems pretty rude IMO. Present your case if you must, but dragging a debate on in such a topic is out of line IMO. As I admitted in the OP I'm probably guilty of this as well, but its something I'd like to stop and to see stop around me] , but on the Houserules Board??


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Cranky Bastard wrote:

People are disrespectful over anything on which they don't see eye to eye.

I'm not saying...just beholdin '.

Does that mean that you're always disrespectful...or never?

I plead the Sturgeon. Even in regards to my observation!

Though in full disclosure, this is usually the alias I go to for disagreement and/or snark. I try not to personally have such a pessimistic view of people in general, but also acknowledge that we are discussing this on the Internet, and that lends itself to a certain flavor of narcissistic absolutism.

Which is why I plead the Sturgeon.

On topic, I am encouraged by this thread and can only agree with the first proposed idea, with myself some forms of "yes it's a game and not the internet, play like you are actually friends" type thing.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


People start a thread to talk about X. It goes great for a few posts, and then inevitably people invade the thread to say 'X doesn't matter' or 'X isn't real' or 'X isn't an issue if you play the game the One True Way like I do.'
Who's the one claiming to have The One True Way, though? Since this is obviously about the recent "martials need more nice things" frenzy, the thing about that is that it's only a serious issue IF you think about the game a certain way, and what can those of us who don't offer those who complain but an alternative way of thinking that nixes the issue? We like it, it's good enough for us. If you insist on thinking about the game in a certain narrow way, then complain about the consequences of that mentality when other mentalities don't share that consequence, how is that not a self-inflicted issue, and how is it fair in that case to act like it's an issue with the whole game that everyone who plays should be onboard with taking action about, when it's really just a subset of players?

I did say simply chiming in with your thoughts once didn't upset me a great deal.

Its when people chime in with an 'alternative' and then they defend it to the derail and detriment of the thread.

But its fair for them to not respond back if people attack their one post? They shouldn't be allowed to defend their opinion?


RDM42 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


People start a thread to talk about X. It goes great for a few posts, and then inevitably people invade the thread to say 'X doesn't matter' or 'X isn't real' or 'X isn't an issue if you play the game the One True Way like I do.'
Who's the one claiming to have The One True Way, though? Since this is obviously about the recent "martials need more nice things" frenzy, the thing about that is that it's only a serious issue IF you think about the game a certain way, and what can those of us who don't offer those who complain but an alternative way of thinking that nixes the issue? We like it, it's good enough for us. If you insist on thinking about the game in a certain narrow way, then complain about the consequences of that mentality when other mentalities don't share that consequence, how is that not a self-inflicted issue, and how is it fair in that case to act like it's an issue with the whole game that everyone who plays should be onboard with taking action about, when it's really just a subset of players?

I did say simply chiming in with your thoughts once didn't upset me a great deal.

Its when people chime in with an 'alternative' and then they defend it to the derail and detriment of the thread.

But its fair for them to not respond back if people attack their one post? They shouldn't be allowed to defend their opinion?

Why do threads even have topics and purpose if they're all just going to break down into debates about whether or not the thread's topic has merit?

No they aren't allowed to defend their point. Their point WAS their defense. [I'm addressing this at myself as well.]


RDM42 wrote:


But its fair for them to not respond back if people attack their one post? They shouldn't be allowed to defend their opinion?

Their opinion is irrelevant to the thread. If a thread is about 'X' and people are discussing 'X' and what do about 'X,' then 'X' is obviously real to those people and matters to those people, so claiming that 'X isn't real' or 'X doesn't matter' in that situation is, at minimum, unhelpful. They're not being attacked. They're being told to keep out of what doesn't concern them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


But its fair for them to not respond back if people attack their one post? They shouldn't be allowed to defend their opinion?
Their opinion is irrelevant to the thread. If a thread is about 'X' and people are discussing 'X' and what do about 'X,' then 'X' is obviously real to those people and matters to those people, so claiming that 'X isn't real' or 'X doesn't matter' in that situation is, at minimum, unhelpful. They're not being attacked. They're being told to keep out of what doesn't concern them.

If the conversation looks like this:

Person 1: in my game, I've replaced rule X with XsubA
Person 2: that's not how I do it, I use XsubZ
Person 1: that's interesting, but I don't think I'd do it that way for reason ABC
Person 2: well using XsubA is a pretty stupid way to do it when clearly XsubZ is better
Person 1: I don't agree, XsubA has been working for me for a long time
Person 2: well that's pretty stupid, not using XsubZ is literally the dumbest thing you could do

Person 2 is being an obnoxious a-hole. He made his point, the OP didn't agree with it, then he got all pissy about it. That, to me, seems pretty rude. And if I'm understanding kyrt-ryder correctly, that's what he's asking to have less of. That certainly seems like a reasonable request to me. You don't have to agree with the OP, but don't take a dump on the thread pushing your alternative.


Simon's got it. [Which is amusing considering how often he and I disagree.]


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Simon's got it. [Which is amusing considering how often he and I disagree.]

I disagree with lots of people here. But like you I've been making an effort to not let things bother me so much and to step away if I don't think I can stay civil. If everyone thought the same things, the world would be a sucky place to live.


I'm of two minds on this:

One, going into any topic post with a belittling post is bad form, and rude.

On the other hand...if posters disagree with the sentiments expressed in a topic, they should be able to respond. If you don't believe the stated premise of the thread is correct or problematic, not chiming in gives that viewpoint legitimacy on the forum, which may result in future changes in the game to "fix" that problem or issue. If those changes interfere with another persons enjoyment of the game, they should be able to question how necessary those changes are, or if maybe a different approach is needed.


Chiming in yes.

Debating no.

I sort of failed my own request in a thread claiming there is no imbalance, however in my defense the thread's entire purpose is stating there's no imbalance rather than addressing something in particular [sort of an open call for debate.]

Liberty's Edge

It also depends on what kind of feedback the OP wants to hear and receive. Too often it's usually the op wanting validation. If for example a DM asks if he or she was too harsh with a player. With the DM being too harsh. Inevitable it usually turns into "how dare you tell me
I'm being too harsh! I did nothing wrong". Rarely is it "ok than everyone I made a mistake."

It's also the nature of a forum. sometimes one gets rude or polite posters. Usually a mix Sometimes a poster who can't seem to let a thread go with a "I"m right! Dammit I write and so on. With neither side willing to come to a consesus imo. I will be honest sometimes I don't behave the way I should on these boards. I'm not proud of it. Neither am I going to pretend to be some kind of paragon of virtue either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is sort of exactly the reason why I post on these board less than others. And the more you call them out on it and try to steer the conversation back on course, the more agitated they get at you. Dont get me wrong. I love you all and I'll always stick around, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that every time I think about posting anything on these threads my very first thought is 'brace for impact' regarding a few specific individuals. I don't even go near the houserules and homebrew section anymore. If I'm thinking about changing this or that in my system, I don't bring those ideas here anymore.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Did I mention that these derails are not uncommon in the Homebrew forum?

In the other forums its a bit more understandable to debate the OP's premise if you disagree with it [although it still seems pretty rude IMO. Present your case if you must, but dragging a debate on in such a topic is out of line IMO. As I admitted in the OP I'm probably guilty of this as well, but its something I'd like to stop and to see stop around me] , but on the Houserules Board??

Pfft, using house rules is clearly a stupid way to play the game anyways. Am I right, guys?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Lookey what I found....


To me this is a result of the poor communication medium. You can make a statement and support it with six different points. In normal face-to-face conversation, someone could say they agree or disagree with you, something in the form of "While I don't agree with point 6, I agree with you on the whole."

On the forums, the other person will pick point 1-6 to which they disagree with you, and then try to hyper-analyze that 1 point, missing the spirit of the over all argument.

There also seems to be a lot more of people telling other people what they're saying, rather than asking what they meant when they said x. As an exaggerated example:

Poster 1: "I like a low-powered game, seems more realistic to me."
Poster 2: "Why do you hate your players? Why don't you want them to have nice things? Even a level 1 wizard isn't realistic."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

WHY DO YOU HATE HARRY DRESDEN SO MUCH!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I'm sure I'm probably guilty of this as well from time to time, but I've been experiencing it a lot lately on these boards and it's really infuriating.

People start a thread to talk about X. It goes great for a few posts, and then inevitably people invade the thread to say 'X doesn't matter' or 'X isn't real' or 'X isn't an issue if you play the game the One True Way like I do.'

A simple statement of such is kind of rude, but acceptable.

But then we go on to derail the entire dang thread into an argument rather than letting the thread run its course on its designated topic!

Lets all be gentlemen [and ladies and whatever else you might identify with] and make an effort to stop this behavior, it's not good.

I'm all for respect, however in my mind debating someone's premise isn't disrespectful - it's the tone which matters. I'd claim to be guilty of the behaviour you're objecting to, but not guilty of disrespect. (See? I'm doing it again.... :p)

There's also a few, fundamental points of difference as to what forums are for and the way they should be conducted. I don't even understand people's objection to "off topic" posts, for example. My guess is that it's due to me thinking of the boards as a community conversation (where tangents are fine) and others seeing them as a resource to go to for organised, collective wisdom. Nonetheless, it will inevitably result in me crossing someone's "respect" line - again, I think it's the tone with which that issue is addressed that matters.

Finally, I think it's worth questioning the assumption that the Original Poster "owns" the thread. I'm happy to bow to their request if they assert such ownership, but I don't actually view that as the default. Hence, if you start a thread on X, I may "chip in my contrary opinion" which you don't object to and then engage with another poster who does want to debate the merits of X (albeit "on your side", so to speak - despite you not wanting to). Once again, I don't see this as an inherent problem - it's going to happen in a forum like this and I think the issue of respect comes in when you ask my hypothetical argumentative buddy and I to go somewhere else.

All in all, I wholeheartedly agree with you in spirit, but think you may be catching some respectful-behaviour-from-a-different-set-of-base-assumptions and thinking of it as disrespectful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the people shouting "Fallacy" every 5 minutes are being somewhat disrespectful, especially in regards to house ruling.


I'm going to copy something I wrote awhile ago in the 'pathfinder forum memes that grind your gears' thread:

I wrote:

I am reminded of another thread where that happened. Someone went through a lot of trouble to stat the Golarion gods. And a few posters kept whining about how TERRIBLE it was for gods to have stats. On the homebrew forums.

Speaking of which, there is a related thing that grinds my gears: needing to defending the premise of an entire forums. If you start a thread in the advice forum, you get responses like
"Never take advice from people on the forums, the forums are terrible and you shouldn't sink to the level of asking strangers on the internet for gaming advice!"
Okay, then what's the advice forum for?

Similarly, in the Rules Questions forum, you get responses like
"Just ask your GM, because they can override the rules, and the forum can't, and you're a whining munckin if you ask strangers on the internet about the rules, you should only ever ask the GM!"

Or
"You're the GM, so why do you care what the rules are? Just do what you want to do. I suggest screwing over your players' PCs as much as possible though, but really you are the GM so don't ask strangers on the internet about the rules!"

It's even more annoying when the first response is given to a GM, or when the second response is given to a player.

Or in the house rules forum, when people respond saying you can't do X because it isn't RAW/RAI, when doing X is the explicit purpose of the house rule being discussed in that thread in the house rules forum.

Or, occasionally, people will say that non-Paizo products (even those explicitly written for pathfinder) should never be discussed on Paizo.com. Even though Paizo's store blog regularly advertises non-Paizo products being sold in the Paizo store. And they have a dedicated third-party subforum of the Pathfinder section of the forums. And several subforums for other RPGs. But noooo, apparently, the latest Kobold Press product being advertised in the Paizo store blog, sold in the Paizo store, written for Paizo's Pathfinder RPG, and approved by Paizo (since Paizo, and more specifically Liz Courts, has to manually approve any RPG product using 'Pathfinder' in the name)...can't be discussed anywhere on this website and must only be discussed on the kobold press website.


Does making meta-threads about whether other threads have merit actually would end up with infinite recursion and will never terminate. I really don't like my mind going down those rabbit holes. I am not really sure there is a way to defintively answer this question.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't respect anyone, including myself.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To answer the question?
No gamers typically do not. There are exceptions but that's what they are. Exceptions.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
No gamers typically do not.

Gamers is overly specific.

Could also apply to 'fans' of anything, like Star Wars, or comic books, or a sports franchise, or guns, or cars, or a particular style of artwork, or eating vegan, or politics. They all drag their particular axe to grind around with them, and bring it up in discussions that have nothing to do with the current conversation.

Actually, 'fans' might be too specific. Perhaps I meant 'humans.'


Just a little bit. Just a little bit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Derailing a thread?

I think that's disrespectful in and of itself. The statement, that is ... not the act.

Conversations, written or spoken, rarely stick to one topic for any length of time. A person starts a thread to get an answer, and may then have to sift through loads of answers on unrelated topics because:

Person 1 asks question.
Person 2 replies strictly to the question asked.
Person 3 replies and uses a metaphor or a bit of personal experience to illustrate his point.
Person 2 takes umbrage with Person 3's example and replies to that.
Person 4 tries to answer the original question.
Person 3 replies to Person 2's upset blurp.
Person 5 now takes umbrage with person 2 taking umbrage with Person 3.
Person 4 is now confused and tries to get the thread back on topic.
Person 1 comes in with a follow-up question.

And ... so ... on.

Unless we want to mandate that no one can answer a question in any way except purely factual and without the use of illustrative language, examples or metaphors, we can't expect threads to stay on topic. They will eventually get derailed and that's part of natural conversation.

However, it's obviously best (not to mention required by Paizo's board rules) to stay reasonable and polite to one another, while always bearing in mind that we are dealing with a written medium here, and things get lost without voice inflection and facial expressions.


I know I dont get any.


Hama wrote:
I don't respect anyone, including myself.

Especially myself.


Well, some people read too much into a reply. I have said (for example) that certain issues argued to death here on these boards just dont happen in the games I have played in.

That's NOT saying that I play the One True Way or that the issues Never happen. It's saying I haven't seen them, personally, which by extension does say those issues are not universal. Those issues may occur constantly at your table, my observation that they dont occur at mine doesn't cast doubt on your table.

But along the lines the OP issue is when the "usual suspects' <g> start the same debate making the same points in yet another thread, thus hijacking the OP. For example, the "Do you Like Pathfinder" thread has gone off a couple times into the martial/caster disparity issue. Nothing wrong with saying "Yeah, I like Pathfinder, but I think martial/caster disparity hurts the game balance", but there's enough threads on what the disparity is or if it actually exists in the wild. ;-) (It's a fun debate at times, I admit, but it doesnt have to be the focus of every thread)

And of course, there's a 50% chance this thread will now be hijacked for the martial caster debate. ;-)

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Respect. Do we have any!? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion