Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5997982" data-attributes="member: 54877">Well, people can take anything personally, especially if something about the wording sets them off. Aside from that, however, it really depends on the premise and then the logic of the criticism, with a big dose of knowing the difference between fact and preference, and the difference between talking about your own experiences versus generalizing from those to others. It's that last one that is usually the root of tripping people up, though not always apparent at first glance. Let's put the shoe on the other foot with an example. Try this potential "criticism" on for size: "Pazio adventures are nothing but a big narcassistic railroad masquerading as roleplaying." (I could make it a lot worse in the same space, but you know, Eric's grandma. Use your imagination.) We'll stipulate, for the sake of argument, that when this guy tries to play a Pazio adventure with his group, his description is more or less accurate for how it turns out. Now, let's break down why that's offensive:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's dismissive ("nothing but").</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It really doesn't present any evidence or argument.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's unnecessarily loaded (despite whatever hint of reality it may have for the speaker).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It assumes a particular definition of roleplaying, without explanation.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It really makes no attempt engage in a discussion.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's playing semantic mind games.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's trolling.</li> </ul>And that's just off the top of my head. Yet there are legitimate criticisms of Pazio adventures (or rather, particular adventures, since that's a broad area), that on the surface, might touch on some of the same ideas in this hypothetical nasty speaker's mind. It's not as if he stops being a real person with real preferences, just because he wouldn't know good criticism if it stung him in the backside (Wis save for half damage). Let's contrast that, with: "You know, the focus on Pazio adventures is off a little bit for me. I'm not really sure why, because I haven't spent a lot of time studying them recently, but the 'story' seems a little forced for our style." Or: "In this Pazio adventure X, it appears to be non-linear, but everything must come back to Y for it to work. I want some real choice, and X doesn't give it." In both of these, there is something to engage. The latter guy may be wrong, and you can find the "real choice" for him. Or it may not be sufficient, and he can then let it go, as not for him. The former is couched mainly as a preference, but with some interest in learning more.  And finally, I guarantee that no matter which way this discussion starts, if you can keep the offensive guy out of it, it will go better. He'll try his darnest to drag the discussion down to his level, unless booted. I left another board over that once, long ago. There was "that guy" that "participated" in every single discussion. You could have two people on opposite sides of an issue having a friendly, if vigorous, discussion, but going along just fine. Bring him in (on either side, didn't matter), and it would be trashed within 10 posts.</blockquote>

Verification