Frustrating Gamers- slight rant

[Henry]

Ah, look at me, I'm babbling!

Babbling like a savant, that is! Good points. Many times the most seemingly competent people are those who don't try to appear so. There are several posters (I'm not looking for names, just to stop anyone from posting some) that many people value for opinions on rules and judgements, but who don't claim any special ability or put others down as a habit, and are generally knowledgeable; therefore, modesty plus competence give the outward appearance of competence. Competence plus arrogance portrays a "smart-aleck" image, and lack of competence AND modesty portrays a different image entirely.

 

[WizarDru]

I'm all for polite behaviour. But if people see me as snobbish I'd want to know.

Saying, "You're a snob!" isn't all that helpful, of course. But saying, "When you said this I thought you meant that." is very helpful. I find.
Hey, look at us! We're agreeing about something! Who'd'a thunk?

Well, Azlan is referring to one of the alignment threads, where most of those quotes are from. The context, lacking here, was in reference to a DM telling a player what he could or could not do, based on his alignment, and the resulting opinions about same. Azlan felt that the DM is the final arbiter of a PCs actions, based on the PCs listed alignment, and the source of at least two of those quotes disagreed, and felt that alignment was something that was based on a player's actions and only reflected in his alignment. Angry words from both parties ensued.

If I have an issue with certain posters at ENWorld, who are a very small minority, it is those who are disrespectful of other posters. I see an awful lot of disagreement and debate, which is good, even the occasional vocal and angry debate. But occasionally I see someone who fails to treat another poster with the kind of respect I would expect of anyone, and that irritates me. And for the record, I'm not referring to Azlan or the other poster in the above example.

 

[Silver Moon]

To me, Core D&D is like a big toolbox that I use to tell stories. It a toolbox full of classes, spells, races, and basic assumptions that lend itself to telling a particular type of story, but it's also capable of being used, as is, to tell other types of stories.

Wonderfully Said! The detailed description that followed was also well put. One of my hobbies is Storytelling. I do this around the campfire with my Boy Scout Troop; I do this at the Bardic Circle at SCA events; I do this during my children's bed time when they want to hear a story; and I do this during the weekly D&D game. I see the rules are only guidelines to help the DM run the story and to give a framework for the players to contribute to the story.

It's all fantasy role-playing, and we who enjoy that are a small enough minority that we probably shouldn't alienate others who participate. (Hope that didn't come off as too elitist. Then again, I am striving to some day be a rich professor.)

 

[Azlan]

Originally posted by WizarDru
Well, Azlan is referring to one of the alignment threads, where most of those quotes are from. The context, lacking here, was in reference to a DM telling a player what he could or could not do, based on his alignment, and the resulting opinions about same. Azlan felt that the DM is the final arbiter of a PCs actions, based on the PCs listed alignment, and the source of at least two of those quotes disagreed, and felt that alignment was something that was based on a player's actions and only reflected in his alignment. Angry words from both parties ensued.

I don't see why it's necessary to bring that up, here. Yes, most of the examples of snobbish sayings that I gave were paraphrased from a debate I got into, recently. But I've seen those sayings in some form or other, time and time again on these message boards.

 

[WizarDru]

I don't see why it's necessary to bring that up, here. Yes, most of the examples of snobbish sayings that I gave were paraphrased from a debate I got into, recently. But I've seen those sayings in some form or other, time and time again on these message boards.

Well, from where I was standing, you weren't being any less snobbish in your opinion than he was in his. You may not have intended it that way, but it came across, to me, as you singling him out in a thread where he wouldn't see. I realize now that you probably didn't intend it that way.

 

[barsoomcore]

Ouch! Ow! Oof!

*rubs at tender bruises*

Okay, guys! Sheesh, I'm still recovering from the last time we all got in the sandbox and threw things at each other.

 

[dreaded_beast]

apologies, rant on:

a pet peeve of mine is when DMs act as if their interpretation for their campaign is the "correct" way the rules should be interpreted in general. in my opinion, if a DM interprets a rule a certain that somewhat differs from what is presented in the books or makes a ruling on an "ambiguous" rule, then it is "house ruled". i find it annoying when DMs create "house rules" (base on my definition), but act as if their "house rules" are actually how the designers intended the rules to be interpreted. they act as if their interpretation is correct and any other way to interpret is wrong, or at least less correct than their own interpretation, but it all boils down to the DM acting as if their interpretation is the only valid one.

*of course, DM decisions for THEIR campaign are inherently correct since it is their campaign after all, regardless of how "wrong" or "correct" these decisions actually are. it's just irritating when these DM act as if their decisions for THEIR campaign are "correct" ones that can be and should be applied to other campaigns as well. especially when they make remarks like, "this is how the creators of the game meant the rule to be handled...". how the heck do they know what the creators of the game meant? they can only interpret based on their own experiences that this is what they could possibly mean. by making statements like that, it's as if the DM is saying that their interpretations are not "house rules" but something akin to "official rulings" (which is only "official" to THEIR campaign). of course, this wouldn't be such a big deal if said DMs were not so hesistant to think that they could be wrong in their interpretations.

i believe that this is a form of snobbery seen at the gametable, where DMs being DMs, feel as if they know the rules better than the players, and any interpretation done by the players is not at the same level as the DMs.

apologies, rant off

 

[barsoomcore]

No need to apologize for ranting. It's what we're here for.

What REALLY puts the acid in my oatmeal is when people make up house rules, and then use those house rules as evidence as to how D&D is "broken" or 3E is "over-powered" or whatever.

I remember one chap (forget who) who'd made a house rule that female characters always got a +2 to Charisma and then complained because players always wanted to play female characters in his campaign and therefore D&D couldn't be used for male players to play female characters. Or something like that. I tried to make sense of it all but it just wouldn't fit together.

 

[cptg1481]

Well, I think the moderators are going to focus on rule-breaking stuff, breaking up fights, moving threads to appropriate areas, stuff like that. I think we'd be in over our heads if we were go to around second-guessing peoples' intents, trying to make them write or not write a certain way, etc.

If something bugs you about the way you're being addressed, say something about it, politely and in the thread where the problem is occuring. If not, your method (ignoring stuff that doesn't appeal to you) is the way I think most people deal with a huge messageboard community -- you read what you're interested in, ignore stuff that you're not.

I also think people need to be a little less "sensitive." What do I mean by that? Maybe something like being careful to not ascribe motives to a behavior. If someone says "I love low-magic settings and wish D&D had more rules to support that," it doesn't mean you (as a high-magic-loving gamer) are being attacked.

Something to consider, I guess.

I have read (and re-read) this entire thread a couple of times now and I think that for the most part the dialogue is excellent.

Mr Noah...,

Just to clear up the difference between what I said and what I ment (the difference between the two is often shocking even to me) when I opined that the mods could better serve the boards by policing for civility as aggressively as they do with regards to the "no polotics rule".

I guess what I was thinking was that if every once in a while the mods could shoot a personal reminder to those who tend to throw out the derogitory terms and call people names names it would buy a lot of mileage in paybacks with an increase in the civlility of the boards.

I regarded the reminder about my sig very seriously and appriciated that it was brought to my attention. I saw the reason behind it and felt that if it was serious enough for someone to type a few lines to me about it then I needed to take a second look at what and how I was posting affected others. Perhaps my military life has made me look at things a little tougher but I considered the reminder a threat (nnot negeatevely in any way, just a statement of fact) that if I made a habit of this I'd loose my posting priv's.

I mean I had less than a hundered posts yet somehow the presence of AL's mug in my survey results warented a personal e-mail to me from a mod asking that I remove it. Fair enough....the mods are right.

That's what I's saying here...the mods won't have to determine intent or read into anything....calling someone a troll (founded or not), a munchkin or other things that we all consider derogitory is fairly plain to see. While I agree that telling the offender should be sufficient to achieve satisfaction sadly it's not always enough.

However, a polite but firm reminder from a mod via e-mail may just be what it takes to get someone to reconsider the tone of thier posting. It's a suggestion nothing more, no implication that I was singled out or anything like it, I just think that some folks may need to be reminded, descreetly, via e-mail if necessary that the mods are on to the name calling and that it is an issue.

I think that the mileage we'd get in terms of civility on the boards would be excellent indeed.

 

[EricNoah]

i believe that this is a form of snobbery seen at the gametable, where DMs being DMs, feel as if they know the rules better than the players, and any interpretation done by the players is not at the same level as the DMs.

God I LOVE DMing for players who are also DMs. (well, almost all of them are.) Because we're all DMs, we all struggle with the same issues, share tips, feel free to admit where we have holes in our rules knowledge, teach each other rules. It's so great.