ENWorld = whiners arguing ?
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
genshou
First Post
My hat of 35. know NO limit!MerricB said:I'm sorry. Did someone post?
No, not yet. Most of the people on my list will post to derail topics with their hatred of 3.5e.
Cheers!
Seriously, though, I'm glad to hear that. I never post about my dislike of 3.5 to derail a thread, only to alleviate someone's stress with a specific 3.5 mechanic by saying "You know, the 3.0 rules worked like this, and 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'" I first used this maxim when looking at 3.5 Jump vs. 3.0, and it stuck. Kinda like diaglo and OD&D, except I don't have the absolute fanaticism. On topic with this thread, has anyone seen my hatred of 3.5 as whining?
Joshua Randall
Legend
The problem with the Rules forum is that the debates there seldom stick the rules. Someone will ask a rules question and instead of getting an answer (or even multiple interpretive answers if there are ambiguous rules), the thread will turn into a shouting match over who is right, and then devolve into house rules.
Rules has fewer whiners, but more arguing, than General.
Rules has fewer whiners, but more arguing, than General.
I made a post at Nothingland a while ago that describes my position on the Rules forum:
There's one other problem related to this. It's that occasionally there's contradiction in the Rules (they don't obey the mathematical Completeness Theorem--in true math teacher style, I leave your consideration of that as an exercise for the reader.).
Once upon a time things worked smoothly in Rules where you could say, "These are the rules as written, and I interpret that to mean x." Now, any time you insert the, "I interpret that to mean x," part, there are people ready to jump on you claiming that you're devolving into house rules. Since I was around for the House Rules forum's development, I can say that it's purpose wasn't intended to be for people that wanted to state how they interpreted ambiguous or contradictory written rules. House Rules was intended to divert the deluge of, "This is my alt [insert one of Ranger/Sorcerer/Paladin] what do you think?" and "I want to introduce this new prestige class, what do you think?"
The Rules forum, then, was used to discussed the rules and how to use the rules in play. This includes discussion on specific rules and which of several contradictory readings might be the most useful. To add to the confusion, I can always invoke "Rule 0" and any "house rule" on how to interpret a particular Rule becomes a "Rule-as-written," including a literal reading.
My opinion and moderating philosophy is this, then: So long as discussion is progressing without hostility (overt and covert, and please leave your baggage from Thread A at the door--we're now discussing Thread B), and somewhere someone at least attempts, "This is the literal wording from the SRD/PHB/DMG/etc.," we're doing all right. The biggest problem is the overt and covert hostility and baggage being carried from Thread A and Thread B. It doesn't have to be this way. Hypersmurf and I, for example, frequently disagree on interpretation, and somehow don't feel a need to bash each other, refer to each other by name or in code, or the like. My greatest hope for that forum is that, especially for non-native (American) English speakers learning English or dealing with translations, the Rules forum might provide some clarity to what a consensus of people think is the literal meaning of a given Rule and perhaps its intent.
If we could get beyond the baggage and the condescension because Poster A last time misread something so he couldn't *possibly* ever be right, we'd be a lot further along. And Poster A and Poster B might discover there is a lot of common ground without needing to bicker about past battles lost. Besides, as DM, I'm ultimately right about any ruling at my table, and you, as player, have the ultimate right to pick up and leave my table. If a DM consistently rules in ways that make his players upset, he or she is quite likely to find themselves with no players.
Wow, that's a lot more than I intended at the beginning of this. Hope it helps, though.
There's one other problem related to this. It's that occasionally there's contradiction in the Rules (they don't obey the mathematical Completeness Theorem--in true math teacher style, I leave your consideration of that as an exercise for the reader.
).Once upon a time things worked smoothly in Rules where you could say, "These are the rules as written, and I interpret that to mean x." Now, any time you insert the, "I interpret that to mean x," part, there are people ready to jump on you claiming that you're devolving into house rules. Since I was around for the House Rules forum's development, I can say that it's purpose wasn't intended to be for people that wanted to state how they interpreted ambiguous or contradictory written rules. House Rules was intended to divert the deluge of, "This is my alt [insert one of Ranger/Sorcerer/Paladin] what do you think?" and "I want to introduce this new prestige class, what do you think?"
The Rules forum, then, was used to discussed the rules and how to use the rules in play. This includes discussion on specific rules and which of several contradictory readings might be the most useful. To add to the confusion, I can always invoke "Rule 0" and any "house rule" on how to interpret a particular Rule becomes a "Rule-as-written," including a literal reading.
My opinion and moderating philosophy is this, then: So long as discussion is progressing without hostility (overt and covert, and please leave your baggage from Thread A at the door--we're now discussing Thread B), and somewhere someone at least attempts, "This is the literal wording from the SRD/PHB/DMG/etc.," we're doing all right. The biggest problem is the overt and covert hostility and baggage being carried from Thread A and Thread B. It doesn't have to be this way. Hypersmurf and I, for example, frequently disagree on interpretation, and somehow don't feel a need to bash each other, refer to each other by name or in code, or the like. My greatest hope for that forum is that, especially for non-native (American) English speakers learning English or dealing with translations, the Rules forum might provide some clarity to what a consensus of people think is the literal meaning of a given Rule and perhaps its intent.
If we could get beyond the baggage and the condescension because Poster A last time misread something so he couldn't *possibly* ever be right, we'd be a lot further along. And Poster A and Poster B might discover there is a lot of common ground without needing to bicker about past battles lost. Besides, as DM, I'm ultimately right about any ruling at my table, and you, as player, have the ultimate right to pick up and leave my table. If a DM consistently rules in ways that make his players upset, he or she is quite likely to find themselves with no players.
Wow, that's a lot more than I intended at the beginning of this. Hope it helps, though.
Last edited:
Cheiromancer
Adventurer
Dinkeldog said:Wow, that's a lot more than I intended at the beginning of this. Hope it helps, though.
Very illuminating. It should be part of the Rules Forum FAQ, methinks.
Similar Threads
