Whining on the boards and rule zero
I think the problem isn't that we can just rule zero out everything (As stated above, we could always just PLAY SOMETHING ELSE if that was the case), but that there are people who are so feverishly against 4e and people who are so feverishly for 4e that neither of them want to acknowledge the existence of anyone that could stand in the middle, and instead seemingly do whatever they can to make a mockery of their own position, causing those in the middle to just get more and more frustrated with both sides.
Firstly, not everyone is in a position to use rule zero, unless I've missed the "Players are banned" sign
Also, if you're seeing a bunch of things needing to be house ruled in the stuff WotC is releasing to try and get you to buy the game, then there is a reasonable question as to whether the product is worth you buying.
Also, whining about it might just possibly get it changed before release, which, if you believe the rule is a bad one, would be to the benefit of everyone. Well, everyone except the people who liked it the way it was before, but they can just use rule zero
Also, if you're seeing a bunch of things needing to be house ruled in the stuff WotC is releasing to try and get you to buy the game, then there is a reasonable question as to whether the product is worth you buying.
Also, whining about it might just possibly get it changed before release, which, if you believe the rule is a bad one, would be to the benefit of everyone. Well, everyone except the people who liked it the way it was before, but they can just use rule zero
Well, I for one am disappointed at the signal/noise ratio on these boards.
I would like to see the boards as a resource for DM/players to use to share ideas and to help with rules interpretations.
That would be the "signal" (at least for me).
One could argue that it was useful to talk about what "I don't like about 4e" in the beginning, when WotC was still making design changes.
At this point it just seems pointless. I mean, do you really care what I like or don't like about 4e?
This is the "noise" (at least for me).
I'm sort of waiting for all the sour grapes to move on by, so the 4e board can focus on ways to get the best from the 4e game, instead of continuing to complain how it just isn't to their liking.
I would like to see the boards as a resource for DM/players to use to share ideas and to help with rules interpretations.
That would be the "signal" (at least for me).
One could argue that it was useful to talk about what "I don't like about 4e" in the beginning, when WotC was still making design changes.
At this point it just seems pointless. I mean, do you really care what I like or don't like about 4e?
This is the "noise" (at least for me).
I'm sort of waiting for all the sour grapes to move on by, so the 4e board can focus on ways to get the best from the 4e game, instead of continuing to complain how it just isn't to their liking.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
If WotC is in this to make money, then they can't invoke Rule Zero very often, because if they do, I don't need to buy their books.
I mean, it's their freakin' JOB to give me good rules that I don't have to re-write.
And whining isn't exactly the same as criticism (though they can be related). Complaining that something is bad is a personal thing -- "This doesn't work for me and I want it to!" But pointing out somethings' flaws is a slightly broader attack. "This should work differently because it would be better."
I hope you now understand some other peoples' positions a little better.
I mean, it's their freakin' JOB to give me good rules that I don't have to re-write.
And whining isn't exactly the same as criticism (though they can be related). Complaining that something is bad is a personal thing -- "This doesn't work for me and I want it to!" But pointing out somethings' flaws is a slightly broader attack. "This should work differently because it would be better."
I hope you now understand some other peoples' positions a little better.
The Highway Man
First Post
You can talk about perceived flaws in the design of the Paladin or Winterhaven without being "whining". The "what" is not really what matters. It's the "how".
How people talk about these perceived flaws, and how readers choose to interpret their posts.
There is some bad blood on all sides of all arguments. Accusing people of "whining" is not helpful at all, in 99.99% of cases. I agree that just writing "4E Paladins suxxxorz" may not be as helpful a post as we would like them to be, but bitching about it isn't helping either.
Asking questions to the poster to try to help him/her build a more constructive argument is more helpful than accusations, insults and attacks ad hominem.
How people talk about these perceived flaws, and how readers choose to interpret their posts.
There is some bad blood on all sides of all arguments. Accusing people of "whining" is not helpful at all, in 99.99% of cases. I agree that just writing "4E Paladins suxxxorz" may not be as helpful a post as we would like them to be, but bitching about it isn't helping either.
Asking questions to the poster to try to help him/her build a more constructive argument is more helpful than accusations, insults and attacks ad hominem.
Will
First Post
Actually, it is possible to have a system rely on Rule 0 and be functionally useful.
Such a system sells itself by being a coherent, useful core that can be modified and toggled in countless ways to suit whatever game you want to run. Some people claim that was a strength of 1e.
A good example of this is FUDGE; the game itself is more of a starting point. You could probably run a game using straight FUDGE, but it really encourages folks to tweak it to suit them.
Now, whether 4e, with all of it's detail, counts as a system that is reasonably compatible with a lot of Rule 0 is arguable. The simplicity of base mechanics (level + N for most abilities/attacks/saves/skills) and general structure argues for Rule 0. The complexity of actual tactical options, powers, feats, and so on argues against.
(IMO x 1000 on all that, as usual)
Such a system sells itself by being a coherent, useful core that can be modified and toggled in countless ways to suit whatever game you want to run. Some people claim that was a strength of 1e.
A good example of this is FUDGE; the game itself is more of a starting point. You could probably run a game using straight FUDGE, but it really encourages folks to tweak it to suit them.
Now, whether 4e, with all of it's detail, counts as a system that is reasonably compatible with a lot of Rule 0 is arguable. The simplicity of base mechanics (level + N for most abilities/attacks/saves/skills) and general structure argues for Rule 0. The complexity of actual tactical options, powers, feats, and so on argues against.
(IMO x 1000 on all that, as usual)
Accusing people of "whining" is not helpful at all...but bitching about it isn't helping either.[/QUOTE said:It's a rare person who recognizes their own flaws, so who could be offended?
For example, I'm sure I'm not a whiner!
To the point, though, a question such as
"I'm not sure how to deal with the [perceived flaw] in the [whatever]. Any suggestions?"
is very different from
"The [whatever] has a [perceived flaw]! WotC must change this immediately or it ruins the whole game and we will all go play [tiddlywinks or some such]."
Especially when the original poster makes it clear by his response to people trying to be helpful that he is just being contentious.
The former class of question is helpful to everybody. The latter class is just noise.
And yes, I entertain the naive hope that this post may encourage even a few to move their question from the latter class to the former, or to not post at all.
AZRogue
First Post
I think it's the unnatural attempt to co-exist that's raising tensions around here. Until one side wins completely, that is. I have a friend, for instance, who I have told can't come to my house and who I won't speak to until he admits that 4E is better. He'll either cave in, or he wasn't much of a friend in the first place.
Similar Threads
