| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a spin-off from the Hot Button Topics thread here: it was noted by some users that Rules Questions can get rather unpleasant at times, and Chris Lambertz said that there's some ideas floating around Paizo on making it less volatile.
This thread is for the community (and Paizo staff, if they want) to weigh in on how the Rules Questions forum works, and how it doesn't, and perhaps formulate some ideas for change.
if someone asked me what part of these message boards I have the most mixed feelings about, it's probably Rules Questions. On the one hand, it's an immensely valuable resource, where anyone can ask any question about the rules and get a (for the most part) coherent response from the community. On the other hand, if a discussion becomes controversial, it can be a festering pit of hatred, fit to put anyone off visiting this site ever again.
Over the last few years since I became active on the boards, I've lost track of the number of people who have made an "I'm out" declaration, or "don't go there, ever" statement about Rules Questions. I'm ashamed to admit that I can recall at least one discussion where I was involved in a heated debate, and I got ridiculously angry at the people I was (and there's no other word for it) arguing with.
It really doesn't take much browsing the subforum to find a thread where one person pretty much calls another an idiot (almost any thread which exceeds 100 posts will have an example). And that is not the sort of environment I like spending my time in, much as I enjoy a good rules debate (and there have been a few).
I don't know if there's an easy fix (I doubt it), and the only suggestion I can come up with to help is for the board members to adopt a "FAQ and move on" attitude once it becomes evident that community discussion is going nowhere. The hard part being the word "evident".
The last thing any of us want is for the hard-working community team to have to spend time policing threads, but are there any quick wins that the community can suggest to ease the tension that can creep in? A new "Rules Discussion" subforum, perhaps?
I'll admit, I'm not strong on ideas to improve things, but if you have an idea, please make it known.
Please don't:
1) Bring up specific rules discussions
2) Name names
3) Disrespect other people's ideas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's better than the endless rules questions on the AMA threads. Seriously, ask your GM people, or if you're a GM, make a f***ing call, take a stand, already!This should be stickied on the rules forum
I'd just like to point out something. As a primarily PFS player, neither of those is really an option.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the use of words like, "rollplayer, munchkin, power gamer, rules lawyer, abuse," etc should be heavily frowned upon in to rules forum and that would go a long way to making it a place I might return to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A well worded post. I agree with every part of it. Unfortunately having an open forum is difficult to manage without constant vigilance. The only thing I can recommend is some clear posting guidelines specifically for the rules forums.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, let's see if I can put together something worthwhile here. First, let me restate something I said in the "Hot Button Topics" thread:
In both cases (the Rules forum and religion/politics threads), you have Person A, who has deep-rooted ideas about something they care about , then you have Person B who presents a piece of data which threatens Person A's deep-rooted ideas . Person A feels threatened, and slaps a label on Person B and uses that label as a reason to reject Person B's data .
It is crucial that we understand this. The worst threads in the Rules forum are not the result of people looking at the different ways to interpret obviously-unclear rules. I can't even tell you how many times I've seen people—even people who normally butt heads over there—come together in harmony when presented with truly messy rules that have multiple possible interpretations.
No, the nasty arguments (at least, the majority of them) start when someone is presented with data that threatens to result in an outcome that shakes their identity. That is, people tend to form (at least part of) their identity around what they know of the game: being a "gamer" (especially a skilled one), being a "veteran" of roleplaying, and so forth. Thus, when they encounter a piece of evidence that points toward a result that shakes that identity, they are strongly compelled to defend themselves, primarily by lashing out at the offending idea.
And this is where it becomes critical to understand that the toxicity generally does not directly correlate to more ambiguous rules. As I said above, the person whose identity is being threatened by a contrary bit of rules is going to lash out against the offending idea. But if the offending idea is itself on shaky ground to begin with, then "lashing out at the offending idea" becomes a simple matter of pointing out the flaw with said idea.
And there's nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws in an idea.
But what if the offending idea isn't so shaky? What if the offending idea is actually pretty solid, well-supported by the rules? The person's urge to defend themselves hasn't gone away, but now there's no flaw (or at least no obvious flaw) to point to in the idea. So how does the person defend themselves? That's where the labeling and attacking comes in. That's where "But this is how it's supposed to be" and "But what the author intended is obviously the opposite of what the author wrote" and "You only think that because you're a rollplayer/munchkin/powergamer/rules-lawyer/MMO-kid" starts entering the conversation.
Of course, it usually snowballs after that: people point out the unsoundness of the threatened party's claim, then the threatened party is astonished at the suggestion that their idea was anything other than rock-solid reason (which further cements their belief that it's just THOSE people causing trouble again), and it spirals out of control.
But it started way back when someone needed to shoot down an idea in which they can't actually find a legitimate flaw.
It might be because the idea makes them publicly "wrong" (harming an identity of being a skilled gamer), it might be because the idea means their cherished game might look different than they've always seen it (harming an identity of being a veteran who's familiar with the genre), or it might be something else; but the unifying feature, the common thread, is that the threatening idea was clear enough to not be easily shot down.
Now, we could talk about how much of your identity is healthy to have wrapped up in this game, but ultimately, that's outside the scope of this thread, because Paizo is not in a position to try and play counselor to all the messy humans involved in this game. This is about messageboard policy.
So we can't start at the very beginning (where people get their identity attached to the game), but I believe the best solution to the toxicity in the Rules Questions forum is to start as close to the beginning as possible. In my view, that means dealing with the misguided self-defense that precipitates the screaming matches.
You see, when a screaming match has already occurred and a moderator comes in and says "Removed a bunch of back-and-forth posts," nobody goes back and sees which post was "first" among the batch of removed posts. Instead, both sides assume that it was started by the other guy, and take the moderation as proof of the badness of That Group, which—in a sad irony—helps to reinforce the idea that That Group is a bunch of troublemakers who are trying to Ruin This Game with all their rules lawyering, etc.
But what if, before the shouting match was in full swing, a moderator popped in with this?
Or maybe this?
Or this?
(Note that these are just off the top of my head; they would need refinement, of course.)
This sort of touches on a topic that came up a while back regarding "transparency" (though I'm not sure that's the best term) in moderation. In the long run, moderation only improves the community if there's something there for the community to learn from. An announcement that posts were removed does not provide that. An explanation that a specific behavior (more specific than "heated posts") is not appropriate or belongs in a different subforum can actually contribute to a healthier future community.
In summary, what the Rules Questions forum needs is twofold: (1) moderation of the behaviors that produce flamewars; and (2) clarity as to which posts were removed and why, so that people can actually learn to post better (and to flag better) in the future.
Thanks for reading. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the use of words like, "rollplayer, munchkin, power gamer, rules lawyer, abuse," etc should be heavily frowned upon in to rules forum and that would go a long way to making it a place I might return to.
I agree. (I'd also include "mother may I" and "fantasy story time" or the other various terms for DM fiat which have taken on derogatory tones).
I've had plenty of fruitful discussions about rules and different ways of using them with people who play very differently from me - the debates don't get nasty when both sides recognise that there are a myriad of ways to play. They get unpleasant when one style is ridiculed or belittled (even if such belittling is often subtle) and a lot of those terms have taken on connotations beyond their literal meanings.
Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the use of words like, "rollplayer, munchkin, power gamer, rules lawyer, abuse," etc should be heavily frowned upon in to rules forum and that would go a long way to making it a place I might return to.I agree. (I'd also include "mother may I" and "fantasy story time" or the other various terms for DM fiat which have taken on derogatory tones).
"magical tea party"
Yeah, that was it. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the use of words like, "rollplayer, munchkin, power gamer, rules lawyer, abuse," etc should be heavily frowned upon in to rules forum and that would go a long way to making it a place I might return to.I agree. (I'd also include "mother may I" and "fantasy story time" or the other various terms for DM fiat which have taken on derogatory tones).
, in our Community Guidelines we have a line that says "There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!" This line was written expressly because we do not want people using pejoratives like "munchkin" or "rollplayers" and terms like "Paizo Defense Force." If we missed posts that do this, let us know. We're human, and if we're not alerted to these posts via our flagging system, email, or our Website Feedback forum, we can't do anything about it. Accusing our team of censorship is uncalled for in this case, and if you have further issues, please take it to our community@paizo.com inbox, rather than debating our moderation policies in this thread.
Spread the word. :)
I think that the use of words like, "rollplayer, munchkin, power gamer, rules lawyer, abuse," etc should be heavily frowned upon in to rules forum and that would go a long way to making it a place I might return to.I agree. (I'd also include "mother may I" and "fantasy story time" or the other various terms for DM fiat which have taken on derogatory tones).
I've had plenty of fruitful discussions about rules and different ways of using them with people who play very differently from me - the debates don't get nasty when both sides recognise that there are a myriad of ways to play. They get unpleasant when one style is ridiculed or belittled (even if such belittling is often subtle) and a lot of those terms have taken on connotations beyond their literal meanings.
While those specific terms are issues, I usually feel that those terms normally start popping up after or as a process of a thread going downhill.
More often than not I think its a matter of tone and play style differences which start the process. Tone is incredibly hard to police and control, and sometimes people can testify to phenomena in a game in such a way that it raises the hackles of other posters, who because of playstyle or just aesthetic differences have never had a problem. Which causes other people to come in and argue against whatever, which then leads to thread derails/insults/etc.
It also doesn't help that at times I feel there are certain...cliques...that form in different parts of the website. Posting things that said clique disagrees with can often lead to a single poster getting swamped with critical replies, which in turn can drive that person off. Eventually there ceases to really be any sort of balanced discussion, because one "side" pretty much makes all the posts.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Over time, the Rules forum has become saturated with entrenched personalities that currently appear more interested in arguing about exactly how each sentence in the game rules should be parsed than they are about being helpful and creating a positive atmosphere, especially for new people.
The "hard RAW" nature of PFS doesn't help because it immediately frames every rule question as a potential argument.
-Skeld
I think that the use of words like, "rollplayer, munchkin, power gamer, rules lawyer, abuse," etc should be heavily frowned upon in to rules forum and that would go a long way to making it a place I might return to.I agree. (I'd also include "mother may I" and "fantasy story time" or the other various terms for DM fiat which have taken on derogatory tones).
I've had plenty of fruitful discussions about rules and different ways of using them with people who play very differently from me - the debates don't get nasty when both sides recognise that there are a myriad of ways to play. They get unpleasant when one style is ridiculed or belittled (even if such belittling is often subtle) and a lot of those terms have taken on connotations beyond their literal meanings.
While those specific terms are issues, I usually feel that those terms normally start popping up after or as a process of a thread going downhill.
More often than not I think its a matter of tone and play style differences which start the process. Tone is incredibly hard to police and control, and sometimes people can testify to phenomena in a game in such a way that it raises the hackles of other posters, who because of playstyle or just aesthetic differences have never had a problem. Which causes other people to come in and argue against whatever, which then leads to thread derails/insults/etc.
It also doesn't help that at times I feel there are certain...cliques...that form in different parts of the website. Posting things that said clique disagrees with can often lead to a single poster getting swamped with critical replies, which in turn can drive that person off. Eventually there ceases to really be any sort of balanced discussion, because one "side" pretty much makes all the posts.
I agree.
I think banning those terms is really addressing the symptom rather than the disease, but I still think it would help.
I also think that sometimes people use the terms 'power gamer', 'mother may I' etcetera descriptively, rather than in a pejorative sense. Nonetheless, on a practical 'what can paizo do?' level, I think policing those terms heavily would help make the place nicer. (Even if it wasn't an outright ban on their use).
Is it a matter that self-identification is one thing, but assigning a label to someone else is a problem?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS is not "hard RAW," that is a misconception. The PFS guide even encourages GMs to make calls when rules are ambiguous or unclear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, many people who think that a statement "Designer X sexualy violated me by the way he designed feat Y" is a perfectly valid and normal rhetoric figure will flip out foaming at the mouth the moment somebody calls them a "munchkin".
See, this is what's not helping. "Other people are at fault even when we call them names."
Is it a matter that self-identification is one thing, but assigning a label to someone else is a problem?
I think so. At least when the label is portrayed as negative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, many people who think that a statement "Designer X sexualy violated me by the way he designed feat Y" is a perfectly valid and normal rhetoric figure will flip out foaming at the mouth the moment somebody calls them a "munchkin".
I think the problem there is that it doesn't matter what your views are - there's an unacceptable way to express them.
It's wrong to denigrate the people behind the rules rather than the rules you don't like, but it's also wrong to distil those people's views down to a single word label with predominantly negative connotations.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, many people who think that a statement "Designer X sexualy violated me by the way he designed feat Y" is a perfectly valid and normal rhetoric figure will flip out foaming at the mouth the moment somebody calls them a "munchkin".
I'm perplexed by this post.
Reading it, I see two things: first, I see a description of a scenario in which three events occur:
1) Poster X says something mean about somebody else.
2) Somebody says something mean about Poster X.
3) Poster X gets upset.
Then, I see an identification of "the problem" as being event #3. That is, in a situation in which multiple parties said mean things to each other (each being in clear violation of the Community Guidelines), I'm seeing the statement, "Problem is, one of them actually gets upset about it."
Why is the upset-ness more of a problem than the fact that at least two people said unacceptably mean things to each other?
I think Gorby's on side, Jiggy. It takes a couple of reads, but I believe he's saying "there exists a problem in that people who are jerks get huffy when someone else is a jerk to them". Pretty sure he's condemning both parties, not suggesting that "getting huffy" is the singular problem.
Seems to me that there's a general behavioural problem (yay, Internet anonymity!) with people being jerks to one another. I'm not sure it's a surmountable problem, but there are two ways to change behaviour: take action to discourage poor behaviours, and take action to encourage good behaviours.
The former is easier (there an implicit social construct that when a rule says "don't do X, Y, and Z", it means that A-W are okay), but both are necessary to foster a positive group attitude. Unfortunately, I don't know any good ways to encourage positive behaviours. The top-down approach would require Paizo's staff to be active in recognising when posters have been displaying the correct behaviours (more work for Paizo staff = bad), and the bottom-up approach requires us to take the time to do the same instead (which is very hard to do in the midst of a debate). It's probably a statement on culture that we expect good behaviour, treat it as the norm, and don't see the need to express gratitude unless the behaviour is exceptional.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll come out and admit that I avoid the rules forum as much as possible because of its toxicity. If I have a question, I'll ask it and get out as fast as possible.
I agree with everything Jiggy said about entrenched worldviews and the need to attack when your worldview / identity is attacked.
So what can we do? We can use techniques that defuse thorny discussions and bring the question away from the insult and back to the matter at hand. You can see an example of me using such defusing techniques to calm down a hot thread here. It required a couple of re-applications, but it worked to move people away from name-calling and closer to solutions.
What did I do?
1) Summed up the common ground between both camps in the argument;
2) Restated the points still under discussion in neutral language;
3) Made a proposal that people could discuss.
I then reapplied these techniques a page later when the group started slipping again. Of course it helped that this discussion was in the PFS forum, where many of the people are less anonymous because they see each other at Conventions and Gamedays.
Still, I think that we as posters can use such techniques to help the moderators of these forums out. Exemplify the diplomacy and tact we want to see on these boards. A great source for ideas on this is Suzanne Elgin's The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense, which has wonderful ways of deflecting conflict and calming down arguments.
Hmm
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
While we're on this topic, I would like to take a moment to thank Chris and Lisa and everybody else that spends their time handling these issues. I can't speak for everyone, but personally I am very impressed at your level of dedication to make the Paizo boards a better place and your willingness to talk and engage with the community to get our feedback. I'm glad we have such passionate and capable people in charge of this situation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It takes a couple of reads, but I believe he's saying "there exists a problem in that people who are jerks get huffy when someone else is a jerk to them".
That's how I read his post as well.
Pretty sure he's condemning both parties, not suggesting that "getting huffy" is the singular problem.
I don't see the support (in his post or your restatement of it) for the idea that both parties are being condemned. Perhaps he can clarify what he meant. (Also, I didn't say "singular" problem; I only meant the primary one, in the same sense that every use of the expression "Problem is, X is the case" is saying that X is not the only problem but the primary one. That's what that expression means.)
|
|
Why yes, Jiggy is actually correct, I wrote that because I'm tired of rules lawyer munchkin MMO kids who have no idea what true roleplaying is.
Or maybe it was a bait to try and see if he can see more aspects of the issue than "nice and level headed people are getting called munchkins by Gygaxianst grognards". Because the examples he uses and his posting history indicates he might be seeing just one side of the coin.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why yes, Jiggy is actually correct, I wrote that because I'm tired of rules lawyer munchkin MMO kids who have no idea what true roleplaying is.
I actually had no such thought about you or your post whatsoever. If something in my reply to your earlier post sounded this way, I apologize. Can you point me to what sounded like this, so I can clarify my meaning?
Or maybe it was a bait to try and see if he can see more aspects of the issue than "nice and level headed people are getting called munchkins by Gygaxianst grognards". Because the examples he uses and his posting history indicates he might be seeing just one side of the coin.
I did not refer to any particular group as being the culprit ("Gygaxianist grognards" or otherwise). If something I said (such as the examples I used, it seems?) made it sound like I believed one particular demographic was at fault, I apologize. I tried to make sure my examples were never singular (i.e., always listed at least two examples) and always varied, specifically to avoid seeming like I was out to get anyone in particular. Reviewing my post, I don't see any place where I failed in either of those two points, but if I overlooked something, feel free to point it out and I can set the record straight.
I do not, and have not ever, believed that the issue of toxicity was just about nice people being victimized by "grognards". (And for the record, I'd like that pejorative to be policed right alongside the others that have been mentioned. Age discrimination goes both ways.) Toxicity includes the experienced gamers, but is not limited to them, and I never meant to imply it was.
Unfortunately sanitizing everything does as much harm as good at times.
I've had a post removed for referring to another forum just because someone was banned at that forum and came here to "complain" pretty vehemently at length about it.
The post was on topic and the fact that it just mentioned the other forum at a touchy time (post whatever fallout happened with that poster that caused it to be touchy) led to its removal.
I was pretty PO'd about it. I was actually at first completely confused why it was gone, but then after reading posts prior and what the comment said... I actually got annoyed. There was no real need to remove it, besides the title of the forum being in my post.
Another issue on anonymous internet forums, is people have a habit of taking things personally. Almost looking to be upset. That gets old fast.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why yes, Jiggy is actually correct, I wrote that because I'm tired of rules lawyer munchkin MMO kids who have no idea what true roleplaying is.I actually had no such thought about you or your post whatsoever. If something in my reply to your earlier post sounded this way, I apologize. Can you point me to what sounded like this, so I can clarify my meaning?
Or maybe it was a bait to try and see if he can see more aspects of the issue than "nice and level headed people are getting called munchkins by Gygaxianst grognards". Because the examples he uses and his posting history indicates he might be seeing just one side of the coin.I did not refer to any particular group as being the culprit ("Gygaxianist grognards" or otherwise). If something I said (such as the examples I used, it seems?) made it sound like I believed one particular demographic was at fault, I apologize. I tried to make sure my examples were never singular (i.e., always listed at least two examples) and always varied, specifically to avoid seeming like I was out to get anyone in particular. Reviewing my post, I don't see any place where I failed in either of those two points, but if I overlooked something, feel free to point it out and I can set the record straight.
I do not, and have not ever, believed that the issue of toxicity was just about nice people being victimized by "grognards". (And for the record, I'd like that pejorative to be policed right alongside the others that have been mentioned. Age discrimination goes both ways.) Toxicity includes the experienced gamers, but is not limited to them, and I never meant to imply it was.
It comes from your choice of example phrases: "rollplayer/munchkin/powergamer/rules-lawyer/MMO-kid". These are exclusively labels that are frequently used by the "narrativist" side of the argument against the "gamist" crowd. Which are, of course, bad and all, but then so are expressions like "you're actually playing Cops'n'Robbers instead of D&D" or "if you don't think that Wizards > Fighters well then I'm sorry for your magical tea party".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I can certainly see how—if my post had been in the context of a single, two-sided conflict between "narrativists" and "gamists"—that list would seem to favor one side exclusively. Please allow me to clarify that I was speaking far more broadly than that.
Topics of conflict on the messageboards include far more than just "narrativist versus gamist", and in the context of that broader spectrum, I used lists of examples that represent a wide array of conflicts. This does include "narrativist vs gamist", but also includes "gamist vs gamist" arguments (where there's no "narrativist" to be at fault), or even arguments on things like table etiquette (where neither "gamism" nor "narrativism" were even elements of the discussion at all).
Hopefully that makes my (now un-editable) post more clear. Forum arguments encompass far more topics than just "narrativism vs gamism", and my lists of examples represent that variety. I am very aware that the crap flies in EVERY direction, and is not just a one-way thing. So with that established, do you have suggestions on how to improve the atmosphere of the Rules Questions forum?
Perhaps they should move it to Greenblood on a Black Rock... er, I mean Bainbridge Island.
|
The most powerful tool for getting people to at least try and follow rules of behavior in any part of the boards is to make a sticky post saying clearly the kind of thread and discussion that Paizo expects and endorses in that part of the boards (DOs and DON'Ts).
There is one in the OTD board about political threads that can be used as an example.
The mere existence of such a post brings two great benefits IMO :
- it clearly delineates the expectations that Paizo has concerning posters' behaviors, so people will not tread into dangerous ground by ignorance.
- it can be referenced to when a thread goes awry (similar to the "don't be a jerk" omnirule).
It's better than the endless rules questions on the AMA threads. Seriously, ask your GM people, or if you're a GM, make a f***ing call, take a stand, already!This should be stickied on the rules forum
I hate seeing this. I understand the value of it mid-game, but if someone is on the site they probably want to know the correct answer. I really dont think I should haveto,explain something so obvious but....
I think that the use of words like, "rollplayer, munchkin, power gamer, rules lawyer, abuse," etc should be heavily frowned upon in to rules forum and that would go a long way to making it a place I might return to.
I agree.
People need to realize that the game does not have one way it is to be played so if someone does more damage(just one example) than they are used to at their table, it does not make them a powergamer.However, some people do try to get around the rules. I guess we will have to come up with a way to address this without applying a label.
There's a couple of issues with moderating an open forum.
A) You can't have people making personal attacks, or the forum vanishes (or turns into something you don't like).
B) You can't force people to be polite, or the forum vanishes (or turns into something you don't like).
Basically, it comes down to extremism. And it's a hydra. It has different heads, and every time you 'kill' one of those heads, two more take it's place. The best you can do is pen it in and keep it from rampaging all over town.
We need to take a more centrist approach. Nobody has the right to personally attack another person or incite violence against them in the forums. By the same token, nobody has a right to not be offended by someone else. It's that second one people have a tendency to forget. It's an open forum. People are going to hold opinions you don't like or find offensive. Labeling them 'leftist' or 'neo-con barbarian' or 'gun nut' or 'liberal freak' or whatever is basically you staking a claim that you have the right to not be exposed to opinions you disagree with.
People have every right to hold whatever belief they want, but they don't have a right to dictate what other people believe.
However, if you have an unpopular belief, don't expect people to like you, nobody has the right to be liked, or even listened to. There's a forum mechanism (unless it's been removed?) to ignore posters in the threads.
If you find someone's beliefs offensive... ignore them. If people ignored people they don't like, things would be quieter for everyone.
|
|
PFS is not "hard RAW," that is a misconception. The PFS guide even encourages GMs to make calls when rules are ambiguous or unclear.
I disagree with the first statement.
The expectation is that PFS will be played as closely to RAW as possible, with the exception of the campaign rules laid out in the PFS guide. The guide encourages GMs make their best judgement call on rules questions during play in the interest of keeping the game moving forward. GMs are also expressly forbidden from making changes to rules or scenarios. It's all about providing as consistent gaming experience as possible.
Look through the Rules and PFS forums and you'll find countless threads with players arguing for how the GM played the rules wrong, trying to validate their own interpretatio, or trying to get a dev to chime in so they'll have a post to point the GM to next time. It can quickly turn the Rules forum into a weapon in the GM vs. Players War.
Another problematic trend is the insatiable appetite for FAQs. It's to the point where posters pimp their FAQ in hopes of getting more clicks. Another thing that gets attention? Controversial topics or toxic threads get more views and can get more FAQ clicks. It's almost become a competition.
-Skeld
There's a couple of issues with moderating an open forum.
A) You can't have people making personal attacks, or the forum vanishes (or turns into something you don't like).
B) You can't force people to be polite, or the forum vanishes (or turns into something you don't like).
Basically, it comes down to extremism. And it's a hydra. It has different heads, and every time you 'kill' one of those heads, two more take it's place. The best you can do is pen it in and keep it from rampaging all over town.
We need to take a more centrist approach. Nobody has the right to personally attack another person or incite violence against them in the forums. By the same token, nobody has a right to not be offended by someone else. It's that second one people have a tendency to forget. It's an open forum. People are going to hold opinions you don't like or find offensive. Labeling them 'leftist' or 'neo-con barbarian' or 'gun nut' or 'liberal freak' or whatever is basically you staking a claim that you have the right to not be exposed to opinions you disagree with.
People have every right to hold whatever belief they want, but they don't have a right to dictate what other people believe.
However, if you have an unpopular belief, don't expect people to like you, nobody has the right to be liked, or even listened to. There's a forum mechanism (unless it's been removed?) to ignore posters in the threads.
If you find someone's beliefs offensive... ignore them. If people ignored people they don't like, things would be quieter for everyone.
The forums have never had an "ignore" function. It has been asked for many times. There is however a greasemonkey script, but you have to use Firefox to install it. It works. I used it once when someone claimed they never used any houserules and the game ran perfectly without having even if you ran the game by reading the rules as strictly as a computer would. So I pointed out a few things, and they tried to argue "but common sense....".
PFS is not "hard RAW," that is a misconception. The PFS guide even encourages GMs to make calls when rules are ambiguous or unclear.I disagree with the first statement.
The expectation is that PFS will be played as closely to RAW as possible, with the exception of the campaign rules laid out in the PFS guide. The guide encourages GMs make their best judgement call on rules questions during play in the interest of keeping the game moving forward. GMs are also expressly forbidden from making changes to rules or scenarios. It's all about providing as consistent gaming experience as possible.
Look through the Rules and PFS forums and you'll find countless threads with players arguing for how the GM played the rules wrong, trying to validate their own interpretatio, or trying to get a dev to chime in so they'll have a post to point the GM to next time. It can quickly turn the Rules forum into a weapon in the GM vs. Players War.
Another problematic trend is the insatiable appetite for FAQs. It's to the point where posters pimp their FAQ in hopes of getting more clicks. Another thing that gets attention? Controversial topics or toxic threads get more views and can get more FAQ clicks. It's almost become a competition.
-Skeld
You are incorrect. PFS is to follow the rules as they are intended to be used, not ignore common sense due to bad wording. NO PFS GM will ever get in trouble because he did not follow the exact wording of a rule which is saying something that everyone knows was not the intent. He might, however, get in trouble for trying to use the wrong reading to boost an NPC when people(99%) know that is not the intent, and trying to say "but it's RAW".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The forums have never had an "ignore" function. It has been asked for many times. There is however a greasemonkey script, but you have to use Firefox to install it. It works. I used it once when someone claimed they never used any houserules and the game ran perfectly without having even if you ran the game by reading the rules as strictly as a computer would. So I pointed out a few things, and they tried to argue "but common sense....".
Ah, I think it's the 'ignore thread' function I'm thinking of.
|
|
You are incorrect. PFS is to follow the rules as they are intended to be used, not ignore common sense due to bad wording. NO PFS GM will ever get in trouble because he did not follow the exact wording of a rule which is saying something that everyone knows was not the intent. He might, however, get in trouble for trying to use the wrong reading to boost an NPC when people(99%) know that is not the intent, and trying to say "but it's RAW".
It's RAW or RAI depending on whatever is "common sense" at the moment, plus all those FAQS and development posts you're supposed to keep in mond... my point is a campaign/game where everyone is expected to follow the rules (regardless of whether it's RAW, RAI, FAQs, etc.) with limited flexibility, coupled with rules that are vaguely written, arguments will happen.
-Skeld
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really my circus or my monkeys, but one positive side I can see for a Rules Questions Subforum is I'd know right where to go to get a question answered.
If you can get an answer... Half the time there are twenty page of one guy saying yes and another saying no, or, if you have a simple question everyone tells you anything but your answer. I'll paste my opinion of the latter from another thread.
OP: Hi all, I want to create a pet bird for my monk, Anyone know where I can find a stat block for a owl?
P1: If you want a pet go ranger
p2 A monkey would be better for a monk
p3: You could take one level in synthesist and become a bird
p4: Moneys can use quarterstaves
p5: Why would you want a pet for your monk, they don't add anything to flurry, and monks suck.
TOZ:monkey brains are good with ketchup
p6 ask you DM for a fiendish velocoraptor. If he doesn't give it it you create a synthisist/alchemist and create one yourself.
p7 if you think monks suck, it because you aren't using the right archetype...
p8 I like ketchup
p9 Mustard!!!
p10 About monks and flurry of blows being broken...
etc...etc...etc...Somewhere on page 5 someone will link to a animal stat collection, but by that time the OP has stopped looking at the thread.
Not really my circus or my monkeys, but one positive side I can see for a Rules Questions Subforum is I'd know right where to go to get a question answered.If you can get an answer... Half the time there are twenty page of one guy saying yes and another saying no, or, if you have a simple question everyone tells you anything but your answer. I'll paste my opinion of the latter from another thread.
OP: Hi all, I want to create a pet bird for my monk, Anyone know where I can find a stat block for a owl?
P1: If you want a pet go ranger
p2 A monkey would be better for a monk
p3: You could take one level in synthesist and become a bird
p4: Moneys can use quarterstaves
p5: Why would you want a pet for your monk, they don't add anything to flurry, and monks suck.
TOZ:monkey brains are good with ketchup
p6 ask you DM for a fiendish velocoraptor. If he doesn't give it it you create a synthisist/alchemist and create one yourself.
p7 if you think monks suck, it because you aren't using the right archetype...
p8 I like ketchup
p9 Mustard!!!
p10 About monks and flurry of blows being broken...
etc...etc...etc...Somewhere on page 5 someone will link to a animal stat collection, but by that time the OP has stopped looking at the thread.
I agree that TOZ is the cause of 9% of all thread derails.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can top that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can top that.
By our powers combined.... we are Captain Derail!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
I agree that it would be better to have a way for people to see why they have been moderated, but it don't work when they are still angry or frustrated.
The "simplest" way is to have a extra tab in your personal page:
Your moderated posts accessible only to you.
If you can go back and read them after a time, with a calmer mind, maybe you will be able to see why they have been moderated.
(Simplest for the forum goers, probably it would require a good quantity of work for the forum administrators)
I disagree with you on one point: not only people that are wrong get angry/frustrated. Trolls can get you and push you into making questionable posts and/or sometime we resort to strong posts when the other guy seem totally unable to get the rules, even when presented with rule quotes.
BTW, Paizo forum is well moderated, I have been in way angrier forums.
|
|
I think that the use of words like, "rollplayer, munchkin, power gamer, rules lawyer, abuse," etc should be heavily frowned upon in to rules forum and that would go a long way to making it a place I might return to.I agree. (I'd also include "mother may I" and "fantasy story time" or the other various terms for DM fiat which have taken on derogatory tones).
I've had plenty of fruitful discussions about rules and different ways of using them with people who play very differently from me - the debates don't get nasty when both sides recognise that there are a myriad of ways to play. They get unpleasant when one style is ridiculed or belittled (even if such belittling is often subtle) and a lot of those terms have taken on connotations beyond their literal meanings.
While those specific terms are issues, I usually feel that those terms normally start popping up after or as a process of a thread going downhill.
More often than not I think its a matter of tone and play style differences which start the process. Tone is incredibly hard to police and control, and sometimes people can testify to phenomena in a game in such a way that it raises the hackles of other posters, who because of playstyle or just aesthetic differences have never had a problem. Which causes other people to come in and argue against whatever, which then leads to thread derails/insults/etc.
It also doesn't help that at times I feel there are certain...cliques...that form in different parts of the website. Posting things that said clique disagrees with can often lead to a single poster getting swamped with critical replies, which in turn can drive that person off. Eventually there ceases to really be any sort of balanced discussion, because one "side" pretty much makes all the posts.
I agree.
I think banning those terms is really addressing the symptom rather than the disease, but I still think it would help.
I also think that sometimes...
I have never seen several of those and some don't seem particularly problematic (at least from the point of view of a non native English speaker, sometime the effect of the words change when you normally think in another language and have a different cultural frame of reference).
Powergamer, min-maxing, rule-lawyer and so on have legitimate uses, not only derogatory uses.
They are labels, with a somewhat negative meaning, but still labels. And as such they can be used to define some thing.
Blanketing banning them is counter productive as sooner or later you will discover that other terms have filled the same niche as they have a function.