Whining on the boards and rule zero

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The former class assumes that someone wants direct constructive help in their game.

This may not always be the case.

When it is, addressing it helps people make their own games better, and that's good.

The latter class is an emotional reaction, more of a criticism. They're not looking for advice, they're looking for an explanation, a justification, something that excuses the action.

This isn't always the case, either.

When it is, addressing it helps figure out what people want in a tabletop game, thus making everyone's games better, and that's good.

On a public message board discussing D&D, you are going to see criticisms, and you're going to have to deal with them constructively, even when they are worded emotionally. It's not just noise. It's not just whining. It's not phrased the best way, but in addressing the post, you hopefully help that person to figure out how to be more constructive with their criticism.

By belittling these remarks, you're just agitating those who post them by trying to make their opinions insignificant.

They're not asking how to FIX the problem.

They're asking why this problem was caused in the first place.

They're just wording it like a jerk.

It doesn't matter if the original poster feels like "whining" or "trolling" or just a little agitated or entirely reasonable. Try to address the concern, in a reasonable manner. If you can't do that, the troll automatically wins, and the non-troll or innocent bystander doesn't get anything useful out of it.

There are a few people that I might be willing to accuse of trollish behaviour, or at least as constant whiners that can't be helped. But my suggestion is: If you suspect this to be the case, choose any of the following options, as appropriate to the situation at hand.
1) Do not reply to the OP, only to constructive reactions.
2) Do not reply at all.
3) Put the poster on your ignore list. (My personal advice: Wait until you're sure it's the best way. If the poster just had a bad day, you might later miss out something more useful.)
4) Report it to the mods. Take care with this option, and ensure that it's not you that's whining and becoming annoying to the mods.

It can be fun to react differently from time to time, but ensure that it doesn't make things worse.

------

On the real topic at hand:

There is only so much rule-zero you can do. if you feel you have to house-rule too much, complaints are warranted. But the poster should be aware that he might be to late to affect the design now, and it might be better to ask for advice how to handle the problem. Or just decide that maybe this edition is not made for him. That's disappointing, but this stuff happens. There are a lot of games out there that are not for everyone.

What I generally can't agree is with people who worry about pure fluff. Aside from the fact that I like most of it (at least what is described in Races & Classes and World & Monsters) and thus don't share their opinion: Fluff is something you change depending on your campaign. I don't think I ever used the Great Wheel prominently, and I definitely had a campaign with different gods then the PHB.
I still like that the core books come with some fluff attached, since it makes it easier for new-comers to get into the game. (In case of 4E, I feel even compelled to use it, despite not being a new-comer to D&D. Do I like the name "Golden Wyverns"? No. Do I like the idea of naming a feat after an organization/tradition/school of thought? Yep, absolutely!)

 

[Voadam]

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.

You don't see "What I don't like about 4e" as being part of DM/Players sharing ideas?

I like D&D but don't like lazer beam clerics. In 3e I ban searing light. Getting a sense of how 4e handles clerics will infom me more about how much 4e clerics will annoy or delight me.

I like vampires but don't like energy drain slams for vampires so I use variant ones that do their draining only with their bite and hope 4e does not provide draining slams.

I don't like the game dynamics of save or die effects such as the 3e bodak's gaze so in my 3e games I avoided them at first then later changed such effects to save or dying which creates game dynamics I do like.

To get the best out of the 4e game identifying what you don't like in 4e and how to change it to something you do seems like a good idea.

 

[Harshax]

The fact that a group is able to change the rules, doesn't make bad rules any better...

That said, I've seen little in 4E that suggests that it will be difficult to Rule0 your preferences in without retooling entire subcomponents of the rules. Of course, this assume that the group isn't trying to shoehorn 4E into a entirely different setting.

 

[Voss]

Wait a month. Once people are discussing actual rules, we'll see a big increase in the signal to noise ratio that will carry forward for some time. It's always tough when we're waiting, without being able to see the big picture.

Ah, optimism. I hope you're right, if only for your own sanity's sake. Me, I'm going to disappear for a while when I get my books. I foresee a great deal of chaos.

 

[Harshax]

Actually, it is possible to have a system rely on Rule 0 and be functionally useful.

This.

Some people claim that was a strength of 1e.

I am some people

 

[Irda Ranger]

Ah, optimism. I hope you're right

If he's not right he can always make two 4E Boards: "Constructive Crits" and "Nothing But Threadcrapping." Then he can just tell people "You're on the wrong board; move along."

 

[Rykion]

Rule zero has its uses, but can be hard to balance in a complex system. Also, if you find yourself using rule zero a lot, there is probably a different system that fits your gaming style better.

The internet is truly a godsend to opinionated nit-pickers everywhere. Back in the day they just had to bother their pets/zine reader/upstairs neighbor but now they can bother thousands with the touch of a button!

Unfortunately, they can still be found hanging out at the FLGS talking the clerk's ear off about all the perceived problems of a game. Poor clerk is too polite to send them on their way, can't leave, and often doesn't even play the game the person is talking about.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

One of the problems with these forums is that there are people on BOTH sides who refuse to listen to rational argument. If you don't hate and despise 4e you're a twelve year old console/MMORPG idiot If you don't think 4e is the second coming of Christ you're a whining old timer troll.

If you try to post constructively on things you like about 4e, people jump up and down on you over how much EVERYTHING SUCKS, MORON. If you try to post constructively on things you don't like about 4e, people jump up and down on you over how YOU'RE JUST A STUPID TROLL WHO HATES CHANGE.

And gradually, people in the middle choose one of the two sides - not because they agree with it, but because those people piss them off less.

 

[AZRogue]

@AZRogue... wow, thats an... extreme... position to take.

Haha, sorry Voss. I was just being sarcastic, of course. I tend to amuse myself more than anything since I'm not actually funny. But it makes me smile, and that's what counts, right?