I've been saying this since I was in Jr ROTC in high school; in 20 years across military, government, private sector, and academia, I've yet to see it proven false.
"Age, time in service, and rank do not determine maturity, intellect, or competence."
Just because you've done something for a long time and/or are in a position of power does not make what you say correct. I've met high schoolers who have been more mature and competent than folks in their 60s.
To me, how long you've been playing RPGs has much less significance than what you say and how you act. I've met gamers much younger than me who have shown me to be wrong in very mature ways, and I've had gamers older than me throw temper tantrums because I dared to use math to show them that their argument was wrong and dared to question their authority. I've aso seen very immature younger gamers and very mature older gamers. It's all on the individual, and I have to judge each individual on their own merits rather than trust any blanket statement. It's as true in gaming as it is in every other field I've been involved in.
Well, to be honest we DO see the inverse a lot. Promotion is largely based on the number of individuals within a certain "job". Different branches do it a bit differently, so there are variations, but the basic norm is that it's easier to get promoted in the "jobs" that have higher turn over and/or are more in demand. For simplicity I'll leave it at that, and these two factors are highly relevant in where the promotion points bar is set, for that "job".
So anyone that has that job has the same bar they need to achieve and maintain in order to be promoted, but it is not related at all to any other job. So a mechanic might need 30 points, a medic 700, and a driver might need 250. This leads to a lot more young and inexperienced mechanics, and I'm just using this as an example, not literal, a lot more inexperienced mechanics than it does drivers, but the issue is that a higher rank IS SUPPOSSED TO...
I would agree with you IF promotion was merit based. It is often not merit based. When I served in the military, I saw plenty of higher ranking individuals who were very incompetent at their job. I also saw a lot who were very competent. Rank, by itself, was not enough to determine the competency level of the individual. When I was in the service, the *only* reason one of my fellow soldiers got promoted above me - despite my own ability being much higher than his in nearly all levels, from job performance to physical fitness to ability to lead others - is because he stayed in the service longer than I did (4 years vs 8 years).
In the academic world, I've met PhD's who were very incompetent at anything outside their very narrow specialization (and sometimes not even good at that!). But they put in the time to get their degree. Heck, I've even met PhDs who didn't put in the time and still received their degree - from a degree mill. They have the rank and may even have 20 years experience - and are completely incompetent in their field! Dr. Deepak Chorpa is an example of the former (with a legitimate degree), Dr. Gary Null is an example of the latter (with a degree mill degree). Heck, even Linus Pauling - a Nobel Prize winner and extremely competent chemist - was completely wrong on his Vitamin C research! He lost his competence in his old age.
Now, granted, it is more likely to see a newer person inexperienced in a specific job than someone who has been in it a while, but it's a blanket statement that can lead you wrong. I've met plenty of very experienced, yet highly incompetent folks to allow myself to trust someone on level of experience alone.
Hence: words and actions are much more important factors in determining ability than experience, age, and rank.
As far as elitism goes - I agree. But it requires an actual demonstration of ability before one be grouped with the top performers, not simply time in service.
Nah, it's better to just decide on a case by case basis what you want the outcome to be :Dknowing the rules is crucial...Meh. I don't find that to be so.
Sounds so chaotic!
The reason people list how long they have played or what their experience is because there is literally no other metric in which to measure someones ability or knowledge of the game. You can say all you want that you know every rule, but on a forum that means nothing since you have all the time you want to look up rules. When trying to decide between to opinions who would you rather listen to, the guy who has stayed with the game for over 5 editions of the game or the one who thinks that they can "fix" Pathfinder after playing it for a few years.How about you listen to the opinions and judge for yourself which one holds more merit based on their individual upsides and downsides.
Besides, the more experienced guy should be able to justify their position a lot better than the new guy. If they can't, then that is a really bad sign.
Yes and no. There are plenty of people with experience that cannot verbalize it very well.
None of this really matters and is sort of getting bent out of shape over nothing. It's the internet, where everyone has six opinions on every topic. If you don't like that someone says "back in my day we used to blah blah blah", scroll down to the next person who will have something else to say. They may not use their age or years of experience to illustrate why their idea is better/different than someone else's, but I'm sure they'll add in some other qualifier.
The problem is that "I have lots of experience" (in and of itself) is of almost no value in a discussion. "I have 30 years of experience and in my experience I have seen X happen repeatedly so I would suggest Y for Z reasons" is of value, but it amounts to "I have seen X happen repeatedly so I would suggest Y for Z reasons" with an appeal to authority thrown in (note: appeals to authority are not necessarily a fallacy, but they frequently are). The experience part is just noise. It's not a big deal when you throw in a little noise while presenting a credible argument (I enjoy a healthy dose of sarcasm and snark myself, and that is frequently also unnecessary noise), but when your post is nothing but "[APPEAL TO AUTHORITY]" there is nothing to learn about and nothing to dicuss other than the fact that you hold some opinion because of...reasons. That's why it irritates a lot of people, myself included. It is nonconstructive, and it gets in the way of having constructive civilized discourse on the topic of discussion by being a tool some people use to unreasonably dismiss credible opposition to their position.
AD&D is nothing like PF...
You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this isn't actually true. It's just hyperbolic.
There are substantial differences, but substantial similarities as well.
You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this isn't actually true.
AD&D is nothing like PF...
You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this is actually true.
See, I can make completely unjustified statements too.
How about you describe all the ways AD&D is similar to PF. Then we can all learn something and/or some of us can dispute it and give reasons why (and probably learn from that too). Either way, we can actually discuss things in a discussion forum, instead of shouting meaningless sentences at each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Snowblind you have played AD&D and 2nd ED? You have seen how the rules systems have change dramatically over time? I think not, otherwise you'd know how little has actually changed.You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this isn't actually true.
AD&D is nothing like PF...
You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this is actually true.
See, I can make completely unjustified statements too.
How about you describe all the ways AD&D is similar to PF. Then we can all learn something and/or some of us can dispute it and give reasons why (and probably learn from that too). Either way, we can actually discuss things in a discussion forum, instead of shouting meaningless sentences at each other.
Argument from authority: I have played 2E AD&D for nearly 18 years, and I've played Pathfinder for nearly 6 years (with a smattering of others here and there). I Have seen the difference between the two, and they are more dissimilar than similar - excepting that they're both the same genre of games: fantasy pen and paper rpg. Proficiencies, thac0, saving throws, ability score rolls vs skills & feats, different saving throws, no ability score rolls and more. The similarities are in that they share some of the same names for rules (ability scores, saving throws, to hit, spell resistance, etc.. are similar in name only) and they both use the same set of dice, plus one major point of similarity: spells with the vancian system. But even spells have changed, in how they improve over levels, how they interact with opponents, how one obtains them with some classes.
As someone who has played both, they even have a very different feel about them - although this is more my own opinion than any quantifiable thing.
It's not even a matter of the systems changing or not changing. Many of the same arguments have been coming up over and over and over again over the years, for this game and others. This is why people are often saying, "Oh good, this argument again?"
Merit in the conversations is what you make of it. Someone tossing in a line about how long they have played, or the number of games, or that they were college roommates with Gygax and actually invented the game while he was in the bathroom are as much or as little noise as anything else. I'd rather see the constant use of fallacy and straw man and a few other phrases taken out back and given the Ol' Yeller treatment.
Everyone has something that annoys them. People aren't going to stop using fallacy to appease me. I doubt anyone is going to stop referring to their experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People aren't going to stop using fallacy to appease me. I doubt anyone is going to stop referring to their experience.
I'll try. Just for you. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this isn't actually true.
AD&D is nothing like PF...
You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this is actually true.
See, I can make completely unjustified statements too.
How about you describe all the ways AD&D is similar to PF. Then we can all learn something and/or some of us can dispute it and give reasons why (and probably learn from that too). Either way, we can actually discuss things in a discussion forum, instead of shouting meaningless sentences at each other.
Because it's pretty self evident. Having more experience in general gives more perspective overall. Knowing what had already been tried and how it was generally handled does allow you to make a better judgment on the here and now.
It doesn't make it 100%, but it does give more weight. Like someone mentioned before, having driven for 20 years vs having driven for 2 years does not make the more experienced driver better, and it's actually more likely that in the very corner case example that the less experienced person might be more right, such as with one of the questions in a driving exam. But, with just those two things on the table for comparison, I'd probably feel safer riding with the person that's been driving (and thus surviving it) for 20 years over the one that's been doing it for 2. They might have more book knowledge, but very likely a significant amount less practical knowledge or general wisdom.
As far as gaming goes, going back to that, and we assume that both parties are just as "elitist", the "OG" probably has a lot more experience being able to accept different interpretations of something, and lets face it, PF is based off of the assumption that a lot of rules just barely qualify as guidelines and was, and I quote here, "intentionally left vague so that individual groups could use it as needed for their games".
So, again, the OG is more likely to have a better grasp of different ways something could work or how to handle it when the rules don't fully cover something than the newer gamer, but it's a rule of thumb only, not a "law".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find getting a person's experience to be helpful when discussing playstyle and game taste. Its when folks try and make objective arguments solely based on their experience that things go out of bounds. It happens occasionally, but so does the newer players arguing against experience.
"Sorry grandpa, nobody wants to play the game that way anymore. Kids today like new types of fantasy and if we don't change the game to accommodate, then its all over for the hobby"
Nobody ever seems to mind that new canard being trumpeted repeatedly.
How about you describe all the ways AD&D is similar to PF. Then we can all learn something and/or some of us can dispute it and give reasons why (and probably learn from that too). Either way, we can actually discuss things in a discussion forum, instead of shouting meaningless sentences at each other.
Fine. You can see how the game evolved and with a lot of the new structure intended to build upon structures multiple decades old.
Feats build on weapon proficiencies, particularly the ideas introduced in the Celts greenback where weapon proficiencies could buy special maneuvers like the salmon leap. And, of course, there was also the marital arts structures in Oriental Adventures - another close ancestor.
Bonus types, as introduced, were designed to continue the stackability of spells like bless and prayer while continuing the non-stickability of real armor with bracers of armor.
Lots of spells have changed a bit but while leaving their essential core behavior intact. Spell casters usually get them about the same level they used to get them in AD&D (fly, teleport).
And if you don't have your players to craft magic items and buy them on the open market (probably the biggest change to the game's assumptions - but the game's modular enough you can dispense with it), you can play most AD&D adventures in PF with a pretty easy conversion. The Slaver series, Ravenloft, White Plume Mountain, Giant series - play quite well with the 3e-PF family of games. The levels may be a bit higher for giants because giants are a lot tougher, but the play ends up being very similar to when we played these back in 1e days.
Even in the "same genre of games: fantasy pen and paper rpg",...So Snowblind you have played AD&D and 2nd ED? You have seen how the rules systems have change dramatically over time? I think not, otherwise you'd know how little has actually changed.You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this isn't actually true.
AD&D is nothing like PF...
You know, if you had the experience of some of the old timers, you'd realize this is actually true.
See, I can make completely unjustified statements too.
How about you describe all the ways AD&D is similar to PF. Then we can all learn something and/or some of us can dispute it and give reasons why (and probably learn from that too). Either way, we can actually discuss things in a discussion forum, instead of shouting meaningless sentences at each other.
Argument from authority: I have played 2E AD&D for nearly 18 years, and I've played Pathfinder for nearly 6 years (with a smattering of others here and there). I Have seen the difference between the two, and they are more dissimilar than similar - excepting that they're both the same genre of games: fantasy pen and paper rpg. Proficiencies, thac0, saving throws, ability score rolls vs skills & feats, different saving throws, no ability score rolls and more. The similarities are in that they share some of the same names for rules (ability scores, saving throws, to hit, spell resistance, etc.. are similar in name only) and they both use the same set of dice, plus one major point of similarity: spells with the vancian system. But even spells have changed, in how they improve over levels, how they interact with opponents, how one obtains them with some classes.
As someone who has played both, they even have a very different feel about them - although this is more my own opinion than any quantifiable thing.
Well.... Yes.
I guess the missing and unstated assumption is: from where are we comparing and in how much detail?
Analytical Chemistry and Biochemistry are very different fields when you look at the details and compare them to each other - but very similar fields of you were to compare them to sociology. All three are fields of science. Just like AD&D and PF are very different games if you look at the details and compare them to each other, but very similar if you compare them to Shadowrun or World of Darkness or Palladium Games. All are table top RPGs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I refer to the number of years I've played, it is usually in response to a post where someone has dismissed my personal gaming experience. For example, during a recent discussion on cheating, I had several people assure me the other players in my game will very quickly figure out that our DM occasionally fudges dice rolls or monster stats in order to prolong fights and that it will cause problems in the game when they do. I really had no choice but to tell them that this has not happened yet in 20 years of playing with the DM. I didn't do it to negate their experience but, rather, to relate my own and to indicate that it is different--not better or more valid--than theirs.
Having someone tell me how long they've played is not troublesome to me; having someone tell me that I will realize the truth of the situation, the one that they know, when I have more experience, become a better player or figure things out is. Every table is different. Your game is not my game.
One needs to have a general sense of humility.
I have DMed AD&D 2ed exclusively since it came out. Even with all the later additions, I stuck to 2ed Ed, it is what I invested the most time effort and energy with, "my world," so I was NOT going to buy new rules and change again and again and again.
I got more into wargames and painting for many years and decided to delve back into RPG's again with PF.
I DMed after only a couple of games, and have adapted quite well (no players quitting.)
I was and still am perfectly willing to let comparative RPG newbies, "school me," because I recognize despite my decades of experience DMing, it is in a different world, in a different sytstem.
So... yea, one has to have a general sense of humility.
As someone who has been in the hobby for close to 30 years.... :p
I only mention it on occasion to say that I do have experience in role-playing games that may assist in making a point. I don't use it as something to lord over the newer players.
The only time it has ever been an issue has been were comparisons have come up between how we used to play and how the hobby has changed now with what I consider the impact of MMO's. I don't see one as better than the other just what I consider more preferable.
As long as everyone is playing a game they enjoy in a fashion that suits them, it's all good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been my (purely anecdotal) experience that the follow relationship exists:
(Number of years playing tabletop RPGs) Is inversely proportional to the (% liklihood you have read the pathfinder CRB)
That is to say (again in my experience) that most old timers tend to believe their rules knowledge is such that they can "wing-it" and only keep a CRB for reference.
I share your anecdotal impression, although I think it more points to a fundamental difference in how one uses the rules of an RPG. I don't exhaustively read the rulebooks of RPGs I play - it's not because I think I have great rules knowledge, it's because I don't think the specific rules really matter much - they're all just guidelines anyway, the way I play and we expect to not use many of them and to use others which aren't written down.
I am a newb and have only been playing since 1993. I have never really stopped playing since then and have gone through 3E, Pathfinder and back to AD&D 2E and Castles and Crusades.
I do not play Pathfinder a lot lately but playing AD&D again after Pathfinder does highlight what is actually wrong with Pathfinder as a rules systems and some potential solutions without going off the deep end and making a different game entirely like 4E. Some basic spell combos are just as effective now as they were in AD&D. Some spells have barely changed since AD&D just minor ones like duration or range.
Combos like Greater Invisibility+fly or fly+ranged options have been a round a long time now. Playing the other editions can give you experience with combat and round structure, adventure pacing things like that which do help with Pathfinder or any D&D like game/clone.
At the end of the day Pathfinder is really just a clone of 3.5 which itself was based on 3.0 which evolved form some later 2E splat books. For example archetypes in Ultimate Magic/Combat are just really kits in a new form from 1989's Complete Fighters Handbook.
I would not get into a heavy argument about Pathfinder rules minutiae but in hindsight I think AD&D got some things better than Pathfinder/3.5 did and I would rather see the game go a bit more that way than more towards 4E for example.
One big advantage the older D&Ds have over Pathfinder is also easier to run. If I every run PF again or an AP it is going to be core rules only. AD&D and 5E got some things right, so did Pathfinder and I think a good descendent of 3.5 could be made using some of those concepts. I'm still waiting for a proper sequel to 3.5, Pathfinder and 5E are not it.
But the experience can show the argument. "I've been playing for 30 years and that idea is dumb" isn't helpful. "They tried that approach back in x Edition and it didn't work like you think it would" is.The reason people list how long they have played or what their experience is because there is literally no other metric in which to measure someones ability or knowledge of the game. You can say all you want that you know every rule, but on a forum that means nothing since you have all the time you want to look up rules. When trying to decide between to opinions who would you rather listen to, the guy who has stayed with the game for over 5 editions of the game or the one who thinks that they can "fix" Pathfinder after playing it for a few years.It's not even a real metric. It doesn't mean anything. A good idea doesn't become bad just because the person who said is younger. Likewise, a bad idea doesn't become good just because the person who said it is older. Being old doesn't make a person beyond reproach. It just makes them old. When trying to decide between two opinions, you should choose the one that makes more sense, no matter who's saying it.
Yeah, I don't think anyone minds people bringing up their experience when it's actually relevant to the topic at hand. If someone suggests bringing back some rules from 1st edition, it's quite helpful to have posters who actually played with those rules offer feedback on the matter.
The problem-posters are the ones who seem incapable of making a single post without mentioning how many years they've been playing the game, and respond to anyone who disagrees with them about anything by saying "Well I've been playing the game for a hundred years and actually shook Gygax's hand once, so..."
Does that actually happen much?
I don't recall seeing it as part of an argument - I've seen it as a dismissal of anecdotal evidence (in a kind of amusing "my anecdotes are better than yours" battle) but not put forth as part of an argument.
|
|
I'd say there are four major groupings of Dungeons & Dragons editions:
OSR Group - This is Original D&D, Holmes Basic D&D, 1st Edition AD&D, B/X D&D, BECMI D&D, 2nd Edition AD&D, Rules Cyclopedia D&D, and all the various retro-clones of those editions.
3.x Group: This is 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, and quite a few other fantasy RPGs that were largely tweaked SRD copy/paste jobs.
4E Group: This is 4E and 4E Essentials.
5E Group: This is 5E.
While each of these editions has differences from the others, the actual core of the systems stays the same within each of these groups.
It's pretty easy to convert stuff between editions within the same group. Hell, you really don't even have to do that, for the most part, you can just use stuff completely unchanged within the same group.
So yeah, count me as one of those saying that 3.x was really just as radical a change from 0e/1e/2e/Basic as 3E was from 3.x. It wasn't just the fact that orcs had a different stat block, the entire underlying system was radically altered.
Experience within a group can be useful. Experience across groups probably won't be any more useful than similar experience with a completely different game (like GURPS or FATE or something).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of how long you've been playing games, you really should be able to play by the rules of the game you are currently playing. You do not gain $200 when you invade from Kamchatka, nor can you get a royal flush when you play chess; different kinds of kings and queens.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main thing that my many* years of gaming have taught me is how to run a table. I am very confident in my ability to sat down with players and run a game successfully -- "successfully" meaning in such a way that most people enjoy themselves most of the time.
A lot of this experience was in groups that rotated games every few sessions. One of those groups included a reviewer so there was a good couple of years there where we were picking up a brand new system every month and putting it through its paces, so I am very good at picking up new systems quickly, and at seeing how they hold together.
That's the kind of thing experience is good for -- at some point there's very little that throws you or that you haven't seen in some form before. But as far as knowing the intricate details of a new system like Pathfinder? Not so much.
Besides, the organization of the CRB really is impenetrable. Once I learn a rule I rarely forget it. Finding it, however, is a completely other story.
*Unspecified many, A lady doesn't reveal her age.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of how long you've been playing games, you really should be able to play by the rules of the game you are currently playing. You do not gain $200 when you invade from Kamchatka, nor can you get a royal flush when you play chess; different kinds of kings and queens.
I'm still yelling "Yahtzee" with my Shocking Grasp if that's how the dice fall.
Regardless of how long you've been playing games, you really should be able to play by the rules of the game you are currently playing. You do not gain $200 when you invade from Kamchatka, nor can you get a royal flush when you play chess; different kinds of kings and queens.I'm still yelling "Yahtzee" with my Shocking Grasp if that's how the dice fall.
There is an exception to every rule. ;-)
I'd say there are four major groupings of Dungeons & Dragons editions:
OSR Group - This is Original D&D, Holmes Basic D&D, 1st Edition AD&D, B/X D&D, BECMI D&D, 2nd Edition AD&D, Rules Cyclopedia D&D, and all the various retro-clones of those editions.
3.x Group: This is 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, and quite a few other fantasy RPGs that were largely tweaked SRD copy/paste jobs.
4E Group: This is 4E and 4E Essentials.
5E Group: This is 5E.
While each of these editions has differences from the others, the actual core of the systems stays the same within each of these groups.
It's pretty easy to convert stuff between editions within the same group. Hell, you really don't even have to do that, for the most part, you can just use stuff completely unchanged within the same group.
So yeah, count me as one of those saying that 3.x was really just as radical a change from 0e/1e/2e/Basic as 3E was from 3.x. It wasn't just the fact that orcs had a different stat block, the entire underlying system was radically altered.
Experience within a group can be useful. Experience across groups probably won't be any more useful than similar experience with a completely different game (like GURPS or FATE or something).
I would probably say 3, 4E is barely more popular than some of the clones online and I think most of the remaining player base went to 5E.
I can move between the 3 major groups easy enough although if I had to pick one it would be OSR. Ironically when I need new OSR players I tend to recruit Pathfinder players. Basically I sell it as a more balanced D&D that is not 4E and they tend to at least try it. Ladsst year I played 1E for the 1st time since 1997 or so and a PFS player DMed a couple of sessions and everyone had fun but that was more of a try something different for a few nights.
I usually convert THAC0 to BAB and use ascending ACs or use a clone like Castles and Crusades which is formatted similar to 3E so they can actually understand it. I'm looking for a break from running 5E and I want to run a 2E or C&C game but not sure if the group is that keen on it. If they are not no D&D/PF and I will take a break for a few months and play something else like PC games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All generalizations have exceptions, that being said, in general I find that people who started with earlier editions than 3.0 play the game in a more similar fashion to how I do. As such, I really value when I know or someone states how long they have been playing.
If 5 people say x is the way to go, but they all started with 3.0 or later, and 3 people say y is the way to go, and they all started before 3.0, I'm probably going to side with the 3 people.
Some issues are really beyond how to interpret a rule, and are more to the point of trying to maintain a certain gaming environment that individual players/groups prefer.
Nailing down that environment is nearly impossible, as there are numerous subjective elements. Its kind of like when someone states an interpretation or a house rule, and someone else comes along and shows ways in which it can be exploited.
The initial person stating that they simply don't allow it to be exploited is alien to others who more follow the "if the rules say it can be done, the GM doesn't have the ability to say otherwise."
Lastly, does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that this thread is posing the argument that experience is worthless while on a gaming forum where players desperately try to earn experience to advance their characters?
...
Lastly, does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that this thread is posing the argument that experience is worthless while on a gaming forum where players desperately try to earn experience to advance their characters?
I don't think anyone things that experience is *worthless*, persay.
It's just a really unreliable metric, because it only very loosely correlates with competence. If you don't have anything better, then fine, base your choice off who has the most experience. However, on these forums that isn't the case. You can actually ask *why*, and you can almost certainly understand the reasoning of each of them. When one of them spouts out nonsense that is stereotypical for really bad GMs/players, and the other one gives extremely well reasoned arguments for why they hold the opinion they are putting forward, knowing that the nonsense spouter has played for 20 years is not actually improving the reader's ability to discern who is (more) correct. Neither is the fact that the reasonable one has 30 years experience. When judging the validity of their position, the amount of experience someone has is so pitifully worthless compared to seeing them write out their thought processes into a forum post that experience might as well not get mentioned at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to trust people that have proven to me time and time again that they can learn a new system properly and run a game well.
Experience is part of this equation.
HOWEVER, I have had GMs that have been running games for years and suck at it.
I do not believe experience=argument winning, but I am more inclined to take a long-time gamers opinion on something more seriously than a 'newbie'.
I mean, if you learned (and played for years) multiple systems, then maybe you have become good at LEARNING AND PLAYING games! Maybe.
It isn't just about specific systems you play, it IS about overall experience, especially if discussing something anecdotal rather than mechanics based.
That being said, if someone is arguing a point and has to resort back to just relying on their experience as a gamer... lame.
Them: "Respect your elders!"
Me: "Earn it, you old coot."
It's just a really unreliable metric, because it only very loosely correlates with competence.
What is competence in this case, though? RAW knowledge? If so, then I'd say you're probably right. If you're looking for a game that is 100% RAW with no GM interpretation/adjustments/house rules/etc, then I would say years of experience beyond the life of PF wouldn't be all that positive, and may be a negative as people tend to carry artifacts of previous editions with them.
When judging the validity of their position, the amount of experience someone has is so pitifully worthless compared to seeing them write out their thought processes into a forum post that experience might as well not get mentioned at all.
This is the whole "in theory" versus "in practice" argument. Someone with no experience (or little experience) can tell you how something is supposed to work, along with an excellent explanation for why it should work that way.
Someone with experience can tell you how it actually worked during their game.
Which information is more valuable?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to trust people that have proven to me time and time again that they can learn a new system properly and run a game well.
Experience is part of this equation.
HOWEVER, I have had GMs that have been running games for years and suck at it.
I do not believe experience=argument winning, but I am more inclined to take a long-time gamers opinion on something more seriously than a 'newbie'.
I mean, if you learned (and played for years) multiple systems, then maybe you have become good at LEARNING AND PLAYING games! Maybe.
It isn't just about specific systems you play, it IS about overall experience, especially if discussing something anecdotal rather than mechanics based.
That being said, if someone is arguing a point and has to resort back to just relying on their experience as a gamer... lame.
Them: "Respect your elders!"
Me: "Earn it, you old coot."
Just gonna second all of this. While more experienced gamers are generally more likely to be good ones, I've gamed with plenty of "veteran" gamers who were absolutely terrible, and plenty of newbies who picked it all up very quickly and were real fun to game with.
...
This is the whole "in theory" versus "in practice" argument. Someone with no experience (or little experience) can tell you how something is supposed to work, along with an excellent explanation for why it should work that way.Someone with experience can tell you how it actually worked during their game.
Which information is more valuable?
Which one is more valuable?
A detailed explanation of what sort of game someone plays, what their GMing style is like, what their players are like, and what problems they do or do not see...
or "I have 30 years of experience".
Whenever someone could post the second, they could also post the first instead, and the first is actually valuable information. In fact, I would find the opinion of someone who just posts the second to be more dubious, because someone who sticks up the first can be subject to scrutiny and thus if they are still putting up what happens at their table it is reasonably likely that they are at least halfway competent (or they will immediately give the impression of being terrible, but in either case it gives a far better metric of how "worthwhile" the basis for their position is).
If the way the person describes themselves gives a clear indication as to what sort of GM they are, how their players operate and what problems they see, do you think that playing for 3 times longer really changes what can be gotten out of their post? That's what I am trying to get across. "I have X years of experience" isn't either theory or practice. It's an argument from authority and nothing else. Thus while it can be persuasive, it isn't actually informative. That's why it is a terrible thing to throw around on a discussion board, because there isn't actually anything to discuss.
A detailed explanation of what sort of game someone plays, what their GMing style is like, what their players are like, and what problems they do or do not see...
or "I have 30 years of experience".
Sure, if that is your comparison, I'd go with the first statement. Seems like kind of an exaggerated example though.
If we work off of an equal comparison however, and assume both the newer and the experienced gamer post a detailed example of their GMing style, their players, what problems they see, etc. The main difference here is one person has been playing for two years, and one has been playing for twenty years.
I would tend to place more value on the advice of the twenty year gamer than the two year gamer, everything else being equal.
I don't know... Someone who only played for two years might have only experienced that one game.
The person playing two decades probably has many more game-systems and fragments of those in his head.
I personally have some problems with Pathfinder, stemming from my experience with 3E and 3.5E. Things that got stuck in my brain Pathfinder handles differently. Calling for a 'listen'-check ever so often.
Not always is having experience a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OTOH, a detailed explanation of what sort of game someone plays, what their GMing style is like, what their players are like, and what problems they do or do not see is likely to produce a wall of text that no one is going to read anyway. :)A detailed explanation of what sort of game someone plays, what their GMing style is like, what their players are like, and what problems they do or do not see...
or "I have 30 years of experience".
tl;dr
|
Generally the reason people say this is because they may have a better idea of Rules As Intended than new players, especially if the rule has been around for a long time. Someone who has played awhile may simply remember some obscure article that explains why the rule is the way it is, or just remember how things worked when we tried it a different way.
RAW is a different story, as others have posted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Experience usually does lend to better knowledge about a game. This tends to break down when the game you have experience in is almost nothing like the game you claim to have knowledge of.As such, experience with any game prior to 3.0 doesn't really contribute anything to your Pathfinder knowledge.
Yes, it does. It tells me that some changes from AD&D to 3.0 were steps in the wrong direction.
Yes, it does. It tells me that some changes from AD&D to 3.0 were steps in the wrong direction.Experience usually does lend to better knowledge about a game. This tends to break down when the game you have experience in is almost nothing like the game you claim to have knowledge of.As such, experience with any game prior to 3.0 doesn't really contribute anything to your Pathfinder knowledge.
yeah, the majority of the spells are the same...
The concept of saving throws hasn't changed...A lot of the weapon stats are identical...
I wouldn't say pre 3.0 is directly compatible, but it would be way easier to convert than, say, Champions. :D