PDA

View Full Version : Why do people get so defensive about D&D?



Number 6
2008-03-25, 01:01 PM
I'm a natural born "fiddler". I always try to make things better.

Over the years, I have come up with some home brewed rules. Most players do not like home brewed rules, and I can understand this.

What I don't understand is how so many of them are so senstive to criticism about D&D. I could understand if it was religion or politics, but it's only a game.

Just two weeks back, after a game, I suggested that we should gain a set number of HP per level instead of rolling it because it really sucks if you roll a "1". The guy I was talking to kept telling me I was wrong, but he couldn't give one reason why. He lost his temper and stormed out of the apartment. Then the DM told me to leave because I was upsetting the players. This is one of the worst examples, but it has happened to me a lot.

The other thing that puzzles me is the fact that people think I'm bad mouthing the rules. I'm not saying that they are bad; I just think they could be better.

So, any ideas anyone? Can you tell me why people get more upset over their favorite game than they do if you insult their mother?

Solo
2008-03-25, 01:03 PM
Just two weeks back, after a game, I suggested that we should gain a set number of HP per level instead of rolling it because it really sucks if you roll a "1". The guy I was talking to kept telling me I was wrong, but he couldn't give one reason why. He lost his temper and stormed out of the apartment. Then the DM told me to leave because I was upsetting the players.


They were clearly not worth your time, then.

On average, you're going to get the same results rolling as you would just adding the average HP to your class, so there really was no reason to take the suggestion that badly.


Can you tell me why people get more upset over their favorite game than they do if you insult their mother?

Because other, less intelligent, people were placed on Earth by God for your amusement, and thus you should take pleasure in trumping their illogical arguments and tormenting them.

Insult their mother after criticizing the rules for good measure.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-25, 01:09 PM
Stockholm syndrome.

The only explanation that makes sense.


Edit: Also, isn't that in the freaking DMG? Gain average hp (rounded down and up on alternating levels) each level instead of rolling, because rolling sucks when you have a few low rolls?

akma
2008-03-25, 01:19 PM
i personely use the rule that the characters and the monsters gain maximum hp per hit dice (including when my characters were level 1).
well, i never encountered that phenomonen but he probebly just couldn`t accept the fact that he lost.
anyway i use a few homebrewed rules and you shouldn`t feel sorry for believing in them. normaly i would say to you not to complain about one crazy person, but im pretty sure we live in diffrent countries so what do i know?

Number 6
2008-03-25, 01:21 PM
Stockholm syndrome.

The only explanation that makes sense.


Edit: Also, isn't that in the freaking DMG? Gain average hp (rounded down and up on alternating levels) each level instead of rolling, because rolling sucks when you have a few low rolls?

Thanks for telling me that. I didn't see that one in the DMG.

Yakk
2008-03-25, 01:22 PM
Take a character rolling d6 HD with a -2 to their HP per level.

The naive average is 1.5, but it is actual average is either 1.666... or 2.000... (depending on if you get a min if 0 or 1 HP per level).

So there is a small difference. :)

Solo
2008-03-25, 01:27 PM
Stockholm syndrome.

The only explanation that makes sense.


I think the phrase you're looking for is Cognitive Dissonance.

truemane
2008-03-25, 01:29 PM
People seem to have trouble when they are challenged about ANYTHING in which they have invested emotion. D&D just happens to be one of those things. Ever try to talk Star Wars to a trekkie? I can still remember the EPIC arguments I would get into when I used to say The Matrix was an average film.

Or that Ringo Starr was a lousy drummer.

Or etc etc etc...

D&D is just the most popular role-playing game, and role-players (pretty much by definition) enjoy role-playing. Increased enjoyment often (but not always) comes with increased emotional investment. Add it all up and there you go.

It's got nothing to do with D&D in particular.

In fact, ff you want to have fun, find people who feel the SAME about D&D that you do (that some rules could be better) and tell them that YOUR homebrew rules are better than THEIR homebrew rules.

Number 6
2008-03-25, 01:29 PM
Take a character rolling d6 HD with a -2 to their HP per level.

The naive average is 1.5, but it is actual average is either 1.666... or 2.000... (depending on if you get a min if 0 or 1 HP per level).

So there is a small difference. :)

I just think it's a good idea because I've had some bad experiences with rolling HP. I had a ninth level MU who only had 17 hit points. RIP. (That was back in first edition when you didn't get a bonus unless your Con was over 14. That's one change I really liked in 3.0) It's worse if you have a 1d4 hit dice because you have a 25% chance of getting a 1 and a 50% chance of getting a one or two. I usually have to multiclass as a fighter or die quickly.

Cainen
2008-03-25, 01:30 PM
I don't know, but I've seen the same result thousands of times with different things, and it's almost ALWAYS the d20 fans who throw the fit. I've seen maybe one or two AD&D fans that are the same way, an FFRPG fan, but I've literally never seen someone do the same thing to any of the Shadowrun editions I played. Or GURPS, for that matter.

Rutee
2008-03-25, 01:31 PM
I think he meant the tendency to sympathize with someone who's captured you and is holding you hostage.

To answer the original question, "Because people have a natural tendency to grow defensive about things they identify with". A criticism of the system is a criticism of the person, is the thought process the player will take. I think.

Telonius
2008-03-25, 01:36 PM
I'm a natural born "fiddler". I always try to make things better.

Over the years, I have come up with some home brewed rules. Most players do not like home brewed rules, and I can understand this.

What I don't understand is how so many of them are so senstive to criticism about D&D. I could understand if it was religion or politics, but it's only a game.

Just two weeks back, after a game, I suggested that we should gain a set number of HP per level instead of rolling it because it really sucks if you roll a "1". The guy I was talking to kept telling me I was wrong, but he couldn't give one reason why. He lost his temper and stormed out of the apartment. Then the DM told me to leave because I was upsetting the players. This is one of the worst examples, but it has happened to me a lot.

The other thing that puzzles me is the fact that people think I'm bad mouthing the rules. I'm not saying that they are bad; I just think they could be better.

So, any ideas anyone? Can you tell me why people get more upset over their favorite game than they do if you insult their mother?

I think part of it is expectations, and the timing of rules changes. If you're already in the middle of a game, it's kind of upsetting to have the rules change on you. If I'm DMing, I'll always let the players know about all of the houserules before the first session. That way, they know what to expect. Remember, D&D is a collaborative enterprise. If either the players or the DM starts changing the rules midstream, it kind of violates the unspoken contract.

Now, with rolling for HP, there can be a genuine difference of opinion. Some people are concerned about the possibility of having a sucky score due to low rolls. They generally prefer to take the average. Others like the element of danger and savor the sweetness of having max HP every once in awhile. They generally prefer to roll. Logic only goes so far, if you don't accept one side's premise. That could be why you two reached an impasse. So while you weren't exactly saying his mother enjoys the company of an incubus, you might have been (unintentionally) implying that his way of viewing the game isn't a valid one.

Number 6
2008-03-25, 01:45 PM
I think part of it is expectations, and the timing of rules changes. If you're already in the middle of a game, it's kind of upsetting to have the rules change on you.

No, I don't change the rules in the middle of a game. I'm not stupid. The last time I happened, I said in this forum that I hoped rogues were better in combat in 4.0 and got some flame mail.

Indon
2008-03-25, 01:45 PM
Now, with rolling for HP, there can be a genuine difference of opinion.

My group frequently has a 'reroll 1's' houserule, with it generally extended to 2's for D10 and 12.

This is a good thing, since I have a horrible tendency to roll low on, well, dice, when playing D&D.

Zincorium
2008-03-25, 01:52 PM
Personally, I've always liked games where all PCs and monsters have full HP. Means that playing it offensively isn't worth quite so much, and healing actually becomes a bit of a concern.


People get defensive about D&D because, at least in my experience, people don't separate a cherished or tightly believed idea from themselves. I.E., if you try to say that an idea doesn't have a good basis, or it would be more fun to play another way, it's indistinguishable from a personal attack. The ability to recognize when you are wrong, and then change to have a more accurate idea or a better game, is really an important concept to take on board. Just my 2 cents.

SamTheCleric
2008-03-25, 01:59 PM
Ever since I had a level 8 ranger with 20 (including max at first level) hit points, our DM has initiated the "Kalloreen Rule", You may opt to go with Half+1, but you must take half+1 from that point on.

Those guys just seem like jerks, in my opinion.

KIDS
2008-03-25, 02:01 PM
I really don't know, but you bring up a good point - I find a lot of the community very hostile nowadays. No explanation from my side :(

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-25, 02:05 PM
Why do people get so defensive about D&D?

Because it's our little boy! Give him back! *snatch*.

Joke aside, because we're fanbois who can't take constructive criticism form the fans who see the flaws of the system. I think.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-25, 02:32 PM
Ever since I had a level 8 ranger with 20 (including max at first level) hit points, our DM has initiated the "Kalloreen Rule", You may opt to go with Half+1, but you must take half+1 from that point on.

Those guys just seem like jerks, in my opinion.

Statistically speaking, you should take that immediately and never regret it. That's higher then the average and you never have to worry about being screwed.

TheThan
2008-03-25, 03:34 PM
Because it's our little boy! Give him back! *snatch*.

Joke aside, because we're fanbois who can't take constructive criticism form the fans who see the flaws of the system. I think.

Yep,

even though i see the flaws in the system...

Raum
2008-03-25, 03:38 PM
What I don't understand is how so many of them are so senstive to criticism about D&D. I could understand if it was religion or politics, but it's only a game. Not everyone can easily separate criticism of the game from perceived criticism of my game. And if you can't, criticism of my game becomes criticism of me by extension. It's really just human nature. Until you learn to think objectively, criticism is usually perceived as a personal attack.

As for your specific example, I only have one question - Was it asked in an appropriate time and manner? It's purely a rhetorical question, but one to consider.

Person_Man
2008-03-25, 04:05 PM
Please don't take this the wrong way, because honestly I don't know you at all. But maybe you're just being a jerk about it.

Perhaps you should try another style of communication. For example, whenever you criticize (or flat out correct) anyone for any reason, try the following formula:

1) Ask the person what they think about the subject.

2) Listen. Really listen, don't just wait for your turn to speak.

3) When they're done talking (not when there's a lull in the conversation, but when they're done talking) ask them to clarify anything about what they said that you don't fully understand.

4) Agree with something that they just said. If you don't agree with anything they said, tell them how you agree with them in theory, or recognize how well thought out their opinion is, or recognize how important their ideas are, or just compliment something about them in general.

5) Point out an observation that you've made about what they just said, and make your criticism, preferably coached in language that they just used.

6) Ask the person what they think about your criticism, and try to negotiate a compromise between your positions. Usually, you'll just get what you want because the person you're talking to feels listened to.

For example:

"You know, it really sucks for players who roll a 1 on their hit dice. What do you think. [Listen until they're done talking]. You know, you were really right about people having to pay a price for poor dice rolls. Perhaps PCs who choose to can use the average method of calculating hit points. That way they won't have very low hit points, but they'll also never have very high hit points. Or we can have them spend all of their Action Points in order to re-roll their hit dice. I'd like to try something different for one of my character in our next gaming session. You know the rules better then I do though, so what do you think?"

This method takes at least 10 times longer then just telling the person what you think. But it almost always leads to a better outcome for you. You do not win arguments by being smarter, or more eloquent, or by being able to talk for the longest amount of time, or even by being empirically correct. You win arguments by listening, convincing the person that you care about what they said, and then communicating what you want in terms of their self interest and beliefs. Most psychologists and grassroots organizers suggest a 70/30 ratio of listening/talking. If that ratio is way off for you, you might be doing something wrong.

Also, beer helps. Try buying a round before you argue with people.

Number 6
2008-03-25, 04:11 PM
Please don't take this the wrong way, because honestly I don't know you at all. But maybe you're just being a jerk about it.

Just FYI, I teach communications and rhetoric at University of Texas at San Antonio, so I was aware of all your methods. They remind me of Lau Tzu and Taoism. I'm going to keep your e-mail, though. Maybe I can use it as a teaching aid.

But why is it necessary to talk to them the same way you'd talk about divorce, child abuse, or coming out of the closet?

Kurald Galain
2008-03-25, 04:11 PM
Heh. Not just D&D, simply everything.

Even on a forum like this, where one can reasonably assume that most people like D&D to some extent (no, not all, and the extent varies) we get violent debates about which classes suck, and people turn not-so-friendly in comparisons between editions of the same game.

But try and convince, say, a car enthousiastic that his wheels really need a paint job. Or a sailing boat fan that motor boats are better.

Zincorium
2008-03-25, 04:19 PM
Person man, I'm sorry, but the only thing in your post I've found applicable to most situations involving rabid asocial geeks people like me, is the beer. Being nice, considerate, and receptive would ideally be the way all situations are handled, but I've used it and it has backfired on me more than once.

The problem with your approach, is that someone may take so little offense that they think you agree with them, rather than the different opinion or idea that you have. Once they mistakenly believe that there is nothing wrong with their opinion, chances are good that they will feel validated and name you as someone on their side in the future. It does happen.

Frankly, being willing to offend someone is occasionally a neccessary evil. If someone's behavior is disruptive or harmful to the gaming environment, you can't leave it be just because you know offense will be caused by criticism. Judging which situations the tactful, polite approach will be ineffective or even detrimental, is not easy.

horseboy
2008-03-25, 04:29 PM
I think he meant the tendency to sympathize with someone who's captured you and is holding you hostage.Hmm, doesn't that also apply to battered wives? You know, the "he hits me because he loves me" mentality.

Drider
2008-03-25, 04:55 PM
Or a sailing boat fan that motor boats are better.

HERESY!!!
10 post limit size.

Yakk
2008-03-25, 04:56 PM
A general HP inflation system that makes the HP per level less damaging:
1d4 -> 1+1d3 + ConB* 2/3
1d6 -> 3+1d3 + ConB* 1/1
1d8 -> 4+1d4 + ConB* 4/3
1d10 -> 6+1d4 + ConB* 5/3
1d12 -> 8+1d4 + ConB* 6/3

At level 10:
d4 -> [20 to 40]+6*ConB
d6 -> [40 to 60]+10*ConB
d8 -> [50 to 80]+13*ConB
d10-> [70 to 100]+16*ConB
d12-> [90 to 120]+20*ConB

(That isn't counting max HP at level 1).

Replace max HP at level one with "Your Con, divided by 2, rounded down" bonus HP for every PC and NPC.

Higher HD, which is valued highly in the between-class character balance, is made more valuable. And even a character who rolls crappy on their HD isn't a cripple, unless they also have extremely low con.

(as an aside, I tweaked the above so that at no point is having a lower HD better than a higher HD with negative con.)

Yakk
2008-03-25, 05:10 PM
A general HP inflation system that makes the HP per level less damaging:
1d4 -> 1+1d3 + ConB* 2/3
1d6 -> 3+1d3 + ConB* 1/1
1d8 -> 4+1d4 + ConB* 4/3
1d10 -> 6+1d4 + ConB* 5/3
1d12 -> 8+1d4 + ConB* 6/3

At level 10:
d4 -> [20 to 40]+6*ConB
d6 -> [40 to 60]+10*ConB
d8 -> [50 to 80]+13*ConB
d10-> [70 to 100]+16*ConB
d12-> [90 to 120]+20*ConB

(That isn't counting max HP at level 1).

Replace max HP at level one with "Your Con, divided by 2, rounded down" bonus HP for every PC and NPC.

Higher HD, which is valued highly in the between-class character balance, is made more valuable. And even a character who rolls crappy on their HD isn't a cripple, unless they also have extremely low con.

(as an aside, I tweaked the above so that at no point is having a lower HD better than a higher HD with negative con.)

Starsinger
2008-03-25, 05:21 PM
You know, you were really right about people having to pay a price for poor dice rolls.

With the exception of that right there, I totally agree with you Person_Man. And also.. am going to have to start arguing like that more often.

Starsinger
2008-03-25, 05:34 PM
A general HP inflation system that makes the HP per level less damaging:
1d4 -> 1+1d3 + ConB* 2/3
1d6 -> 3+1d3 + ConB* 1/1
1d8 -> 4+1d4 + ConB* 4/3
1d10 -> 6+1d4 + ConB* 5/3
1d12 -> 8+1d4 + ConB* 6/3


Iron Heroes does something similar. d6 HD is 2+1d4, d8 4+1d4, d10 6+1d4 and d12 8+1d4.

Prometheus
2008-03-25, 07:04 PM
HEY! I am not defensive about D&D! Why do people always say that! Why is everyone attacking me! Maybe if you weren't so dumb and always attacking everybody all the time than it wouldn't be that way! So there! I am NOT defensive about D&D!

For those of us who lack all sense of irony and humor, the above was meant as a joke.

Number 6
2008-03-25, 07:39 PM
Iron Heroes does something similar. d6 HD is 2+1d4, d8 4+1d4, d10 6+1d4 and d12 8+1d4.

Now that would be a workable system, too. You get some variety, randomness, and excitement without risking 1 hit point that level. I like it.

Khoran
2008-03-25, 07:47 PM
Perhaps I perpetually see it from the wrong angle, but most of the time when I see people get defensive about D&D, what triggers it is the "critic" coming at it from a "D&D sucks, X is better" when X is their own favorite roleplaying game. Attacking someone's hobby is going to cause them to get defensive about it.

shadow_archmagi
2008-03-25, 07:53 PM
You know rule 34, right? "If it exists, there is porn of it"

They need to add another rule. "If it exists, someone is willing to defend it to the death"

Talya
2008-03-25, 08:27 PM
Statistically speaking, you should take that immediately and never regret it. That's higher then the average and you never have to worry about being screwed.

No kidding! Especially is it nice if you're on a d4 hit die. 3 every time! (Yes, 7 on a d12 is also above average, but it's not quite so far above the average, from a ratio standpoint.)

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-25, 09:26 PM
No kidding! Especially is it nice if you're on a d4 hit die. 3 every time! (Yes, 7 on a d12 is also above average, but it's not quite so far above the average, from a ratio standpoint.)

Yeah, I may be biased from always playing casters, but seriously, .5 over average on every HD, not having to worry about rolling low. I'd take that every time with everyone, but especially d4.

Kraggi
2008-03-25, 09:37 PM
Or that Ringo Starr was a lousy drummer.


Ouch, man. That hurts us Ringo lovers. He's a pretty good drummer, man, it's just that in the Beatles what they needed was strait up metronome esque rhythm. Paul played bass very melodically, so Ringo was, in a fashion, the entire rhythm section. Because of this, the Beatles needed someone to hold the rhythm down and not do much else, as it might muddle up the beat and make the song overly complex for what they were aiming for.

....Uh. DnD? It's cool but people are too defensive of it? Amen.

horseboy
2008-03-25, 09:47 PM
Ouch, man. That hurts us Ringo lovers. He's a pretty good drummer, man, it's just that in the Beatles what they needed was strait up metronome esque rhythm. Paul played bass very melodically, so Ringo was, in a fashion, the entire rhythm section. Because of this, the Beatles needed someone to hold the rhythm down and not do much else, as it might muddle up the beat and make the song overly complex for what they were aiming for.

....Uh. DnD? It's cool but people are too defensive of it? Amen.
[Obligatory Caveman reference.] It can't be worse than his acting.

Lemur
2008-03-25, 09:48 PM
Part of it may be that in the example given in the op, at least, the argument is rather weak. Other posters in this thread have already pointed out some of the real issues with D&D's hitpoint generation system, as well as bringing up viable alternatives.

However, "it really sucks to roll a 1" is a poor argument in the context of D&D. The system is full of instances where rolling 1 on a die is a possibility that will do you no good. Even if a person can't articulate an argument against it, they can probably intuitively sense that the argument challenges the entire system by extension. If it's bad to roll a one for hitpoints, it's also bad to roll a one on saving throws, attacks, damage, and pretty much everything in 3rd edition. The point being, the risk of rolling a one appears to simply be a part of the system. (At least, it looks that way from the surface- hitpoints are a more permanent consequence than an attack roll, but that truth may not be immediately apparent to your audience)

Even though your (former?) gaming partners don't strike me as understanding D&D very well, or even being reasonable people (read: jerks), I can understand why they would become frustrated. Particularly if you didn't offer an alternative hitpoint system along with your argument, to someone who doesn't have a strong grasp of the game it's probably going to look like you're just trying to stir up trouble. If you want to change something about the rules, it's better to have a clear idea exactly how you want it changed, instead of having a fairly vague complaint about why something should be changed.

You're not wrong for wanting to tweak some things about the system, and hitpoints are certainly something worthy of being tweaked. D&D is not just designed to take a certain amount of houserulings, departures from RAW will be necessary in some instances for things to make sense. Still, it's not something to take too lightly either, since too many houserules can confuse people more than they already are, and possibly result in some players resenting the changes. In general, stay away from things that rhyme with "balled clots" and you should be fine.

Cainen
2008-03-25, 10:04 PM
I prefer 3d6 to 1d20, since it's based around a very good curve and emphasizes character power over luck of the roll. Less bad rolls, less particularly good rolls. It's not a poor argument at all; house rules have been crafted to deal with that problem particularly, and they're even in the SRD.

I also have absolutely no respect for the current system, since I literally want to dismantle every mechanic in it instead of playing the core system. It's basically one of the last things I want to get stuck playing, but alas, since most people play d20 it IS what I get stuck playing.

Called shots are, in my opinion, something that'd make the game work a lot better than it does; remember, in melee, the opponent can hit you just as well as you can them, and it's extremely hard to do it in the first place. Ranged weapons make it even harder, especially if you assume they're dodging; if anything, D&D's range increments are ridiculously small.

Alimaius
2008-03-25, 10:58 PM
The sophisticated systems that are RPGs are much like electronics systems: they have their devoted following of geeks who spend much of their free time analyzing their function and poring over schematics to gain a deeper knowledge of these complicated structures. And at a certain point, these geeks become fiddlers, who cannot wait to crack open their new toys and mess about with the guts propelled by creativity and curiosity. However, those whose expertise and interest lies in electronics and other, more physical systems have an advantage over us RPGers: the systems are tangible, proprietary, and finite. You can go out and buy a computer, and then unscrew it and modify it to your hearts content and just have a great old time with it, and the worst case scenario is you have to go buy a new one after you somehow get the soldering iron stuck through the motherboard. The problem is DnD belongs to everybody, and it's thus akin to having a bunch of electronics geeks having to share one computer. People get touchy because even though it belongs to EVERYBODY, it also belongs to them, and feels in some way to them like you're actually stealing their belongs. It's not logical, but no normal person is. I myself found myself taking some offense at the flavor changes made to 4e, and had to take a deep breath and actually REMIND myself that it doesn't matter and I can spend five minutes alone in a room with this new stuff and cook up a world to my liking.

Thrawn183
2008-03-26, 10:30 AM
I'm going to have to agree with Person Man on this one. Its pretty tough for a discussion to become an argument that ends in somebody storming out of a room without both people doing... for lack of a better way of saying this, "something wrong."

I don't usually point the finger, but in this case I think I'm gonna have to point it at everybody mentioned in the OP.

MiniMan
2008-03-26, 11:24 AM
I think a main thing to consider here is the 'roles' everyone accepts at teh table. You've pointed ouit that our not the GM. The GM may feel your stepping on their toes. House rules are something that a GM generally thinks up though a good GM will listen to their players about possible house rules. My point is that maybe you could have gone to the GM in private on this one.

The other factor is that, since your a communications major and your probably very good at arguing your points you may get more of what you want out of arguments, thus making the other players a bit jealous. In the end everyone needs to get what they want out of the game and if others even feel your railroading that they will get upset.

Person_Man
2008-03-26, 12:23 PM
Just FYI, I teach communications and rhetoric at University of Texas at San Antonio, so I was aware of all your methods. They remind me of Lau Tzu and Taoism. I'm going to keep your e-mail, though. Maybe I can use it as a teaching aid.

Wow, your job is much cooler then mine.


But why is it necessary to talk to them the same way you'd talk about divorce, child abuse, or coming out of the closet?

Well, let me turn it around for a moment. What is gained by being more direct?

It's more efficient. So if your goal is to communicate quickly and leave or move onto something else, then my methodology is a very poor choice.

To an outside observer, the person you're talking to may appear to "win" the argument, because you're tacitly agreeing with his premises and motivations in order to achieve your goals. So if you're debating, writing, or otherwise the subject of spectacle, and you want to win a rhetorical argument instead of a substantive one, then my methodology is a very poor choice. For example, you'll rarely see me use it on an internet forum like this one, because I'm not just communicating with you, I'm communicating with everyone who reads this. And I can't listen, discern, and situationally re-phrase everything I say for an ever shifting audience.

And finally, it requires that you be humble, patient, and compromising. Speaking from personal experience, it feels much better to be bold, assertive, and resolute. So if your personality is built around the latter characteristics, then using my methodology will require a great deal of practice to use correctly, and it won't fulfill the emotional need to show everyone how smart and great you are. So if you value how you feel more importantly then winning, then my methodology is a phenomenally poor choice. (In the short run, at least).

But assuming that you don't care about time, an audience, or your ego, I find that its a much better mode of communication then any other I've encountered so far.

Honestly though, if there's something I can do to improve it, I'm open to changing. I'm fully accept that different situations call for different approaches.



The problem with your approach, is that someone may take so little offense that they think you agree with them, rather than the different opinion or idea that you have. Once they mistakenly believe that there is nothing wrong with their opinion, chances are good that they will feel validated and name you as someone on their side in the future. It does happen.

That's the entire point. If someone identifies you as a potential ally, friend, or someone that they agree with, they're much more likely to agree with you on specific substantive points. The more you're in general agreement, the easier it is to win an argument over a specific smaller issue. And over time, you can build up your smaller issues into larger ones.

Remember, this isn't a sport, a battle, a cable news program, or an internet forum. It's a conversation with a person who knows you. Every time you win an argument someone else just lost an argument, and they feel just as badly as you do when you lose. So unless you're in one of the situations I described above, the real long term goal isn't to win, its to build trust and respect. This will make it far more likely that the person will actually listen to and want to accommodate you in future disagreements, and will generally lead to fewer arguments overall.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-26, 02:36 PM
What I don't understand is how so many of them are so senstive to criticism about D&D. I could understand if it was religion or politics, but it's only a game.

How would that work?
Would you have to play every Staurday/sunday to keep it Holy?
Would there be a church dedicated to D&D?

Yakk
2008-03-26, 07:06 PM
Iron Heroes does something similar. d6 HD is 2+1d4, d8 4+1d4, d10 6+1d4 and d12 8+1d4.

*nod*, I didn't say it was original.

I patched on the "scaling con bonus" to deal with the "I am a barbarian, constitution is worthless to me" problem to a certain extent. [i](each +1 con bonus boosts your HP by less than 10% with an average HP per die of 10.5, as opposed to 33% for a wizard with 3.0 HP per die average, without the scaling con bonus.

With it:
d4: avg 3, +22% per conB
d6: avg 4.5, +22% per conB
d8: avg 6.5, +20.5% per conB
d10: avg 8.5, +20.8% per conB
d12: avg 10.5, +19.0% per conB

ie, a pretty flat response: each con bonus gives you about 20% more/less HP off the baseline.)

The actual ranges where tweaked to prevent a lower die being better with low con than a higher die, and to leave some leg room for the d4 HD to avoid "oh crap, I rolled at 1".

drengnikrafe
2008-03-26, 07:27 PM
I, personally, find that people don't understand what they are insulting. They've never tried it, all they've done is hear this and that about it at random times, and then they feel like they know enough about it to call it's system into question.
Okay, actual quotes
"Hey, you should make a Lumberjack; he would kill all the other classes"...
Why? Classes are ballanced. This shows he really does know very little to nothing about it.
"D&D will get you nowhere in the world. You won't learn a single thing from D&D, and you can't get far on it. Now, woodcutting on the other hand, that's a noble cause" (Don't ask why I talk to lumberjacks).
He's wrong too. D&D allows me to get together with my friends like girls horde to the malls, and then it extends the thinking required (especially if you have a tricky DM, or you try to be one yourself), and at least 10,000 other truely useful things.

So, when people blindly attack it, they truely only do so because they are ignorant to it. And what good comes from ignorance? (and bliss is not the answer)

Zincorium
2008-03-26, 07:41 PM
That's the entire point. If someone identifies you as a potential ally, friend, or someone that they agree with, they're much more likely to agree with you on specific substantive points. The more you're in general agreement, the easier it is to win an argument over a specific smaller issue. And over time, you can build up your smaller issues into larger ones.

I apparently had issues conveying my meaning.

The idea behind convincing someone of something is that, in the end, your idea is accepted by the other person even though they held a different viewpoint originally.

If their viewpoint never changes, because they see no direct challenge to it in your approach, then you are in the position of still being in disagreement with them, and they hold their original opinion (the reason for disagreement) even more strongly because they feel you hold that too. You've cemented the disagreement and they'll be confused and upset if you now become more direct.

Unless you make it clear, right at the outset, that you distinctly disagree with them on a point or two, the message may be lost to interpretation. I repeat, I have seen this happen.

horseboy
2008-03-26, 07:59 PM
If you think people are defensive about D&D tell a group of friends how Professional Boxing is as rigged as the WWE some time.

SofS
2008-03-26, 09:23 PM
If you think people are defensive about D&D tell a group of friends how Professional Boxing is as rigged as the WWE some time.

Better yet, try the same thing with MMA fans. It's the same amount of effort to experience twice the hostility. Some people could really stand to calm down a bit.


People do get pretty defensive about D&D sometimes. I think it has something to do with how it's occasionally chic to consider D&D a simple game for immature players. This attitude isn't too much in evidence right now, White Wolf's little Exalted trade-in trick notwithstanding, but the feeling seems to last.

Personally, I think that the industry and its adherents would be healthier and less prone to this sort of thing if everyone would try to play more than one system here and there. I've played and enjoyed several systems (and failed to enjoy one or two as well) with my longtime group and the practice has served us well. Of course, there are substantial cost issues associated with that, especially given the general practice of finding revenue through additional books, but those lucky enough to have a strong group can defeat that problem through sharing. I have one friend who gets most of the D&D material that comes out, while another friend is similarly devoted to GURPS (and one friend had all of the WoD books in the old days). It means that we effectively have half the bloody mainstream RPG industry available to us with a bit of preparation.

Anyway, rambling aside, all I'm saying is that a gamer of diverse experience is often a well-informed gamer, and a well-informed public makes for a healthy industry.

Cainen
2008-03-26, 10:04 PM
People do get pretty defensive about D&D sometimes. I think it has something to do with how it's occasionally chic to consider D&D a simple game for immature players. This attitude isn't too much in evidence right now, White Wolf's little Exalted trade-in trick notwithstanding, but the feeling seems to last.

The fact that many of the best D&D settings were gutted and never updated wholly yet Forgotten Realms is still as popular as ever do not help this notion at all. It's usually true, in my experience, but I'd argue that White Wolf(mostly recently, though) is far more immature in demeanor and designs some pretty childish settings.

SofS
2008-03-26, 11:12 PM
The fact that many of the best D&D settings were gutted and never updated wholly yet Forgotten Realms is still as popular as ever do not help this notion at all. It's usually true, in my experience, but I'd argue that White Wolf(mostly recently, though) is far more immature in demeanor and designs some pretty childish settings.

I haven't checked out the new White Wolf stuff in any detail, but what I heard wasn't very inspiring. The old stuff was good if you decided to do good things with it, I guess, which doesn't sound that complimentary. It was great inspiration for essentially doing one's own thing.

I'm not sure why so many of D&D's most interesting settings were cast off with the advent of 3rd edition. Given the way that many people seem to like to play D&D now, I wouldn't be at all surprised for Spelljammer to do well, and that was one of the quirkier ones. Somebody should fast-forward Eberron about a thousand years and use it as the basis for a new version.

Lord Tataraus
2008-03-26, 11:25 PM
Not much to say really, except that everyone one has something they are fanatical about, even me. Seriously, Cyberpunk 2020 is the best game of it's genre and definitely one of the best games of all time. Shadowrun's got nothing on CP2020. *sits backs glares, daring anyone to object*

All in good nature of course! (no, seriously, CP2020 is the best!)

Off Topic: Number 6, I don't want to sound rude or anything, but, do you ever have good rpg experiences? I mean, it seems that everywhere I look nowadays on the forums its another one of your horrible experiences with end up in you getting thrown out or leaving a group. I feel sorry for you man, got any good stories???

Diamondeye
2008-03-27, 05:00 AM
The sophisticated systems that are RPGs are much like electronics systems: they have their devoted following of geeks who spend much of their free time analyzing their function and poring over schematics to gain a deeper knowledge of these complicated structures. And at a certain point, these geeks become fiddlers, who cannot wait to crack open their new toys and mess about with the guts propelled by creativity and curiosity. However, those whose expertise and interest lies in electronics and other, more physical systems have an advantage over us RPGers: the systems are tangible, proprietary, and finite. You can go out and buy a computer, and then unscrew it and modify it to your hearts content and just have a great old time with it, and the worst case scenario is you have to go buy a new one after you somehow get the soldering iron stuck through the motherboard. The problem is DnD belongs to everybody, and it's thus akin to having a bunch of electronics geeks having to share one computer. People get touchy because even though it belongs to EVERYBODY, it also belongs to them, and feels in some way to them like you're actually stealing their belongs. It's not logical, but no normal person is. I myself found myself taking some offense at the flavor changes made to 4e, and had to take a deep breath and actually REMIND myself that it doesn't matter and I can spend five minutes alone in a room with this new stuff and cook up a world to my liking.


This is brilliant.

I'd have to liken the defensiveness to someone sitting down at your computer and changing the settings because "it's more efficient this way." Or nagging you to use hotkeys when you're used to the dropdowns in PowerPoint or something like that.

Number 6
2008-03-27, 09:21 AM
I think you've just proved my point. FYI, I've played D&D and d20 since I was in High School, so I know the systerm. I just think it could be better. You're using an ad hominem argument i.e. assuming that the speaker doesn't know what he's talking about.


I, personally, find that people don't understand what they are insulting. They've never tried it, all they've done is hear this and that about it at random times, and then they feel like they know enough about it to call it's system into question.
Okay, actual quotes
"Hey, you should make a Lumberjack; he would kill all the other classes"...
Why? Classes are ballanced. This shows he really does know very little to nothing about it.
"D&D will get you nowhere in the world. You won't learn a single thing from D&D, and you can't get far on it. Now, woodcutting on the other hand, that's a noble cause" (Don't ask why I talk to lumberjacks).
He's wrong too. D&D allows me to get together with my friends like girls horde to the malls, and then it extends the thinking required (especially if you have a tricky DM, or you try to be one yourself), and at least 10,000 other truely useful things.

So, when people blindly attack it, they truely only do so because they are ignorant to it. And what good comes from ignorance? (and bliss is not the answer)

Solo
2008-03-27, 09:25 AM
How would that work?
Would you have to play every Staurday/sunday to keep it Holy?
Would there be a church dedicated to D&D?

The Church of Optimization, obviously.

Number 6
2008-03-27, 09:50 AM
FYI, I just came from the "Are Monks any Good" thread and I saw some examples of what I'm talking about. Some people are really getting mad at the idea that the Monk class is not balanced.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-27, 09:58 AM
The answer you are looking for number six is because D&D exists on a world populated by hairless (comparatively) psychotic apes.

We long for the days of screaming at each other and flinging poop at one another; so instead we pick some arbitrary thing that means "something" to us and fight over it. We type in caps and exclamation points and fling insults instead of poop.

The short answer is people suck. The long answer is far more complicated and involves brain chemistry, evolutionary biology as it relates to "marking territory" and various other ancient, primative and savage code that is hardwired into us.

Cuddly
2008-03-27, 10:14 AM
It's a combination of factors.

Primarily, it may just be your approach, or the way you approach certain people, when criticizing their hobby. Not what you say, but how you say it.

Then, generically, when people become attached to something, an activity or viewpoint, they will sometimes have difficulty differentiating between criticism of the activity and criticism of themselves. This is especially true of younger people. You'll know if you've ever had to grade highschoolers' papers.

There's the demographic. D&D players, as a whole, aren't the smoothest in social situations. I know some pretty abrasive dnd players. It's part of being a nerd, I guess.

There's also the medium- it's easy to flip our **** online, since we don't have to be face to face with people.

Starbuck_II
2008-03-27, 10:23 AM
The answer you are looking for number six is because D&D exists on a world populated by hairless (comparatively) psychotic apes.

We long for the days of screaming at each other and flinging poop at one another; so instead we pick some arbitrary thing that means "something" to us and fight over it. We type in caps and exclamation points and fling insults instead of poop.

The short answer is people suck. The long answer is far more complicated and involves brain chemistry, evolutionary biology as it relates to "marking territory" and various other ancient, primative and savage code that is hardwired into us.

That reminds me of a Youtube video called the Monkeys. Basically same idea.

PnP Fan
2008-03-27, 10:34 AM
Didn't make it through the entire thread, but there could be any number of reasons why you keep running into this.

1. Presentation: You might (not accusing, but it's a possibility) be presenting in an offensive manner that "attacks" rather than "convinces" people to take your point of view.

2. Are the people you play with significantly younger/less experienced? Less mature?

3. Personally, I try to keep house rules as a minimum, as I prefer to think about the story, and not worry about houserules. I just want to play. This does not mean we don't house rule, but in my games I try to keep it to a minimum.

4. As was said before, houserules that change midstream are really annoying. If nothing else, they can completely change the nature of your long term planning. At worst, they can completely invalidate the manner in which you've built your character (try making a character by 4d6 method, and then find out that everyone else was allowed to shift points around to min/max their stats, except you, because you didn't know the full extent of the houserules, can make a fun character next to useless.)

5. Finally, for conversations on da interwebs, since there are few significant repercusions, you can all but guarantee someone is going to behave childishly. Sometimes it's the other guy, sometimes it's you (or me . . .). I'd just ignore that stuff and move on to the constructive comments.

Mr. Friendly
2008-03-27, 10:37 AM
An interesting and somewhat related article I found linked over at ENWorld:
http://machinist.salon.com/feature/2008/03/18/true_enough_excerpt_2/index.html

Rutee
2008-03-27, 10:57 AM
The fact that many of the best D&D settings were gutted and never updated wholly yet Forgotten Realms is still as popular as ever do not help this notion at all. It's usually true, in my experience, but I'd argue that White Wolf(mostly recently, though) is far more immature in demeanor and designs some pretty childish settings.

White Wolf's Marketing is done by the same monkeys in WotC, it's true (See: "If you're going to be an elf, don't you want to get out of your basement" ads by WotC). It really irritates me that the /company/ does far more to make its games look bad then the players or the games themselves ever could though. At least they stopped making Vampire for Emos.

Person_Man
2008-03-27, 11:00 AM
I apparently had issues conveying my meaning.

The idea behind convincing someone of something is that, in the end, your idea is accepted by the other person even though they held a different viewpoint originally.

If their viewpoint never changes, because they see no direct challenge to it in your approach, then you are in the position of still being in disagreement with them, and they hold their original opinion (the reason for disagreement) even more strongly because they feel you hold that too. You've cemented the disagreement and they'll be confused and upset if you now become more direct.

Unless you make it clear, right at the outset, that you distinctly disagree with them on a point or two, the message may be lost to interpretation. I repeat, I have seen this happen.

Ah, now I see the source of our disagreement. We're approaching the same issue from totally different perspectives. You want to change an opinion. I want to get what I want.

For example, let's say I support Lex Luthor for President. I come across a liberal farmer who hates Luthor, loves Superman, hates people from big cities, and votes for people based on how much hair they have.

I could try and argue with the farmer to convince the farmer that he's wrong. Instead of being a liberal, he should be more conservative. He should be able to see beyond his small town ways, see Superman for the alien threat that he really is, and stop being a bald-ist bigot. If I were to talk to this person and try to change his mind, he'd probably just end up angry at me and more likely to support Luthor's opponents, because people rarely change any strongly held opinions.

Or I could try to get them to support Luthor based on their self interests. I could tell the voter that I completely understand why he believes what he believes. In fact, did you know that Luthor is originally from Smallville? And he's actually worked with Superman before to defeat real threats to humanity like Brainiac. And if elected, he'll make sure that everyone can have a full head of hair by ensuring universal access to Propecia. As you observed, this will probably cement his views, because now someone who opposes him has agreed with his world view and how he frames the issues.

But chances are he might end up voting for Luthor, simply because one of his supporters took the time to listen to him and speak directly to what farmers believe. And in time, he may rationalize his support for Luthor by changing his other beliefs, and register as a member of the Tomorrow Party. And even if the farmer never votes for Luthor, its far less likely that he'd leave such a conversation pissed off and fired up to support the opposition.

Please correct me if I'm wrong Zincorium, but it seems that you believe that people are intelligent and thoughtful. If you explain a rational argument to them, they'll evaluate it, your opinions, and any empirical evidence, and then render or modify their opinions based on what you say.

I believe that people are emotional, ego driven, and rarely change any strongly held opinions. Heck, your friend stormed out on you because you were arguing about something as petty as hit points. Knowing this, I never even bother to attempt to change the opinions of others unless I'm doing so for personal enjoyment. I doubt I'll change your opinion on human nature, or that you'll change mine. But because I'm ego driven and enjoy discussing it, I type this anyway.

Thoughts?

Cainen
2008-03-27, 02:12 PM
It really irritates me that the /company/ does far more to make its games look bad then the players or the games themselves ever could though.

I'm pretty sure its playerbase has done more to make White Wolf terrible than White Wolf themselves, especially considering how most of the people I've seen playing WoD never grasped how the world was meant to be played.


At least they stopped making Vampire for Emos.

V:tM wasn't partciularly emo. Dark, yes, but not emo; that was its playerbase. Same with V:tR, but they threw out a lot of things I actually liked about V:tM. I'm not a fan of WoD at all, though, so it's pretty irrelevant; I just don't understand why people fling insults at WoD for tending to play differently than the average D&D game.

Rutee
2008-03-27, 02:43 PM
I'm pretty sure its playerbase has done more to make White Wolf terrible than White Wolf themselves, especially considering how most of the people I've seen playing WoD never grasped how the world was meant to be played.
:smallconfused:
Who cares how the game was meant to be played? It's useful in a vacuum like when discussing the system, sure, but not terribly relevant once you get to a specific group.



V:tM wasn't partciularly emo. Dark, yes, but not emo; that was its playerbase. Same with V:tR, but they threw out a lot of things I actually liked about V:tM. I'm not a fan of WoD at all, though, so it's pretty irrelevant; I just don't understand why people fling insults at WoD for tending to play differently than the average D&D game.
I think they do it 'cause people fling, or are perceived to fling, insults at DnD? I dunno either. I figured most of WoD's insults were flung at WW's Marketing Monkeys.

puppyavenger
2008-03-27, 03:19 PM
White Wolf's Marketing is done by the same monkeys in WotC, it's true (See: "If you're going to be an elf, don't you want to get out of your basement" ads by WotC). It really irritates me that the /company/ does far more to make its games look bad then the players or the games themselves ever could though. At least they stopped making Vampire for Emos.

wait, what? and changling is pretty good.

Yakk
2008-03-27, 04:16 PM
Thoughts?

Cheese is tasty.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-03-27, 04:17 PM
I'm a natural born "fiddler". I always try to make things better.

Over the years, I have come up with some home brewed rules. Most players do not like home brewed rules, and I can understand this.

What I don't understand is how so many of them are so senstive to criticism about D&D. I could understand if it was religion or politics, but it's only a game.

Just two weeks back, after a game, I suggested that we should gain a set number of HP per level instead of rolling it because it really sucks if you roll a "1". The guy I was talking to kept telling me I was wrong, but he couldn't give one reason why. He lost his temper and stormed out of the apartment. Then the DM told me to leave because I was upsetting the players. This is one of the worst examples, but it has happened to me a lot.

The other thing that puzzles me is the fact that people think I'm bad mouthing the rules. I'm not saying that they are bad; I just think they could be better.

So, any ideas anyone? Can you tell me why people get more upset over their favorite game than they do if you insult their mother?

I totally know where you're coming from. I've never gotten such a violent reaction to new ideas as you have, but I've been frustrated so many times because of people's sheer pig-headedness about refusing to change. I think that most gamers only really think about how the rules of their game work, not why they work or don't work. I think a lot of us just subconsciously assume that the designers are omniscient regarding the rules and have a good reason for making each and every rule the way it is. It's a sad reflection of the average gamer's Wisdom score, but there it is.

My solution to the problem is to be the DM. If I'm the DM I can set up the rules how I want them and find the players that will accept them. If a player somehow joins the game and complains about my house rules, I tell them to take the game or leave it. The game is about everyone having fun, but with 90% of the game being the DM's responsibility, his comfort with the rules trumps the players' comfort with the rules. (When I'm a player in a game I may suggest a house rule, but I don't push it and I strictly do not argue over anything. Like I said, I respect the DM's comfort zone.)

TS

Cainen
2008-03-27, 05:00 PM
:smallconfused:
Who cares how the game was meant to be played?

Playing Planescape like a dungeon crawler game is the most stupid thing you could possibly do with the setting, and it's literally defeating the entire point of Planescape. Disregarding that the setting is based on consensus reality, that philosophy rules the day, and that a canny basher will be able to do far more than the Clueless berk with four attacks per round and sky-high Strength ninety nine times out of a hundred is all but telling you not to play it if you're going to do it wrong.

The same can easily be applied to Vampire:the Masquerade, since that particular half of WoD is largely based on power struggles.

Grommen
2008-03-27, 06:51 PM
"It's just a game!"

I can't tell you how many times I've heard that or said that.

If so then why do we have hit points?

Do you remember the day you broke your buddies bank when he landed on "Board Walk" and you had a Hotel on it and you won the game?

You do remember when that same buddies toon died in a fiery flaming ball of smoke and dust.

D&D is more than just a game. Perhaps it should not be, but it is. People invest hours and hours of their life and emotions into it. Every gamier I know refers to their favorite charter as "I" They retell their favorite gameing story as if they were their in person. It's like havening a child. Right or wrong your gonna defend the kid to death.

So as a result you need to put the "Kid Gloves" on when messing with their babies.

Now I've never seen a serious character that has not had %80 to %100 of their max hit points. I've never look at players rolling hit points and I don't intend to. As a result they have never faced a monster or bad guy with less than %80 of it's max hit points.

Just like the army....Don't ask and I'll never tell.

Fawsto
2008-03-27, 11:17 PM
I can understand this all too well...

Right now I am on a huge class balancing project with a friend of mine. We are doing everything: Playtesting, re-writing, removing bugs, etc. I am working specialy on the Paladin (since I am a personal fan of the class) and the Bard, my friend is up there trying to create the "Generic Martial Character" with an all new class features mechanics and adaptating the Midnight's (a d20 scenario) Defender as the new Monk. We are doing everything the best way we can.

But everytime I talk about it, another friend of mine says taht everything we are doing is useless. For example, he says that I have no basis besides what I've read here in the forums to say that the, for example, Paladin is much less powerful than full casters. He says that I never played a straight Paladin up to high lvls (after lvl 10) to say that they suck. You know what I think? I think I've read enought, from the books and boards, to know that D&D is a good game but rather unbalanced, that this game could be even better if every group decided to make it not only a roleplaying game, but their roleplaying game.

That's my opinion... Take in account that I am a customization junky :smallbiggrin: .

- Faws

black dragoon
2008-03-28, 10:53 AM
Don't forget for a very long time many people created a negative stigma that came with playing DND it's only recently at ;east in my expierence that people have been willingto admit that it's not a bad thing. On the D20 subject we have been getting hit pretty hard about that because many people that play using alternate methods see it as a very blunt system and many people don't take well to criticscisms on their system of choice.
Personally I have always liked using alternate rules and what not, and have very rarely been commented on because of it.