 He said - She said, Why should anyone listen to you? |
  |
 Jul 8 2007, 03:30 PM
Post
#1
|
|||
|
Free Spirit  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920  |
If one is lucky enough to have participated in a long running game, is their opinion more valid than a newbie with a sense of fairness? If you have not been a part of a long running game, should your opinions be discounted? Would preceding a post with years of play and longest game matter? Or would it be as potentially misleading as the post count titles and join date that are currently displayed? These questions and more coming right up when we answer, Why should anyone listen to you? |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Jul 8 2007, 03:37 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
Firstly I believe the answer is no, it doesn't really matter. I've known people who were "natural DMs" from the start as well as a guy who had DMed for years and (in my opinion) wasn't any better then the first time he sat down.
Also unless you are planning on sending the Gaming Police to interview the DM's Players how in the nine hells are you going to know whether or not Joe Dumpshocker really has been DMing for decades? As for why people should listen to anyone on the internet, well that is something that each person has to decide on a case-by-case basis. :cyber: |
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2007, 03:54 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
The answer to "why should anyone listen to you?" is quite simple actually(at least for me). Because someone asked. That someone should listen, otherwise, why ask the question/s in the first place? Unless that question was specifically addressed to someone, the person who asked the question should listen to whoever answers - he might not agree, but he should listen(or read in the case of internet forums).
Most of the time, my opinions are based on the game mechanics and my literal interpretation of them. So if you don't want to listen, it is fine, just like if you are a GM, you do not need to follow the rules. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2007, 04:08 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
It doesn't matter who says 2+2 = 5, they are still wrong (except for very large values of 2 :P ). Respect, allegiance or (especially) authority should never be allowed to distort our judgement of what is correct.
Likewise, a resistance to accept something that we know to be correct because we dislike the teller or the manner of telling is also a weakness. The two problems together do our species endless harm. We should judge things using reason. There is no obligation on the part of any poster to state their "qualifications" unless there is some exceptional reason to do so. An appeal to authority is a very common indicator of a weak argument. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2007, 04:30 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Ain Soph Aur Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,477 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Montreal, Canada Member No.: 600 |
"Why should anyone listen to you".. that's sort of like putting the whole concept of an internet discussion forum into question, isn't it?
But the reason why anyone should listen to you, here on Dumpshock, are the same as why people whould listen to you in real life. You value someone or other's opinion, over those of someone else's, based on the history of each people. As a long time poster here, I 'know' the various other posters here. I know the 'speciality' that some have, such as matrix, firearms, 80's based campaign themes, etc. I also know those that put more thoughts into their ideas versus those that don't really, those that take a more global view of their ideas versus those just posting what works in his specific group's experience. The specific length of their GMing experience is technically of no value. Once someone has demonstrated through a few posts that he's not an idiot and can think through an idea, than that's all that matters. Obviously, this leaves the DSF newbie in the same situation any newbie has - he has to prove himself. Walking in here and saying "I have 20 years GMing experience, I'm always right" just isn't going to get you any points. Everyone has to hang around a bit and post in order to have his opinion be valued. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2007, 04:34 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
Maybe the comment hit home with me because I have tried to game for over 15 years, but the longest a group I was a part of stayed together was just 2 years. It seems something always comes along to dissolve the group, or as in a group I started over a decade ago that is still playing the last I heard, I moved away and had to quit. And I have a tough time finding groups to join.
I think I'm an good player and a so so GM, but am I deluding myself? I know I have come across more abrasively on these forums than I intended at times. I even got kicked out of my own game. So with this resume', should I be offering advice? Or should anyone even listen to it? I hope there are ideas that can be taken from some of my posts that prove helpful. Otherwise I am wasting my time responding, because I'm not doing it to show my superiority or to pump my post count on the path to Great Dragon or Immortal Elf. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2007, 04:43 PM
Post
#7
|
|||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Absolutely. For three reasons - One, people are free to accept or discard your advice as they feel appropriate so don't take all the responsibility upon yourself. Two, regardless of accuracy of advice, you contribute to the flow and sustainment of debate and conversation which is valuable in itself. Three, your advice might be right. I know that I've found some of your posts challenging, but everyone is better for you having posted them, even if it's just the good exercise of trying to argue with you occasion! ;)
No-one on the forums can answer that, but if you're enjoying yourself, then that's certainly one of the criteria, and all of us are learning all the time. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 8 2007, 04:45 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
Well personally I believe you should continue offering suggestions and allow others to decide on their worth, after all something that flopped horribly with one group might just be what the doctor ordered with another.
Besides, even if your resume' is as gloomy as you've presented it here (Surely you've had good times as well or you wouldn't still be gaming.), negative examples are just as valuable as positive ones for teaching. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2007, 04:58 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
Hey, the thread isn't about me personally, although I kind of steared it that way. I have had a blast gaming and I have had disasters related to gaming. Ask Sphynx about the 'No walls in Denver' episode. ;) I can laugh about it now; I hope he does.
Some of the early posts reflected my thoughts pretty well. (Even the posts directed to me personally seem pretty on target.) I guess even the people who are delusional can present good ideas. If nothing else, they offer a different point of view, get you to consider an option you would never have considered or relate a personal anecdote you would never have believed possible. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2007, 05:07 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
We're all delusional. Some disorders are merely more popular with the inmates than others.
Every now and then, someone on this planet goes sane and gets themselves killed by the others for it. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2007, 05:47 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
Ok then, if you don't want the thread to be about you despite your stearing then simply pretend that I was talking about the "general you" instead, the basic point remains the same. :cyber:
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2007, 06:18 PM
Post
#12
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Fyi, the very next post explaining that quote, from Brutal GM'ing, was:
It's exactly true what Backgammon says: the concept of assuming that anyone should have experience in what they are talking about does put the whole concept of an internet discussion forum into question. Doesn't make what anyone says valueless, though. I have yet to find that, in anyone. Incidentally, in this day and age of job change and cross-country and cross-world move, two years is a very long time together. I'm referencing against another thread: where over 40% of respondents had PCs of less than 50 karma, 63% came in at under 100 karma, and 10% never even managed to get a game going (including on Dumpshock). At one point in the thread linked to that poll, it was even implied that some respondents might be including extra pregen karma in their totals. Maybe it's time to do that poll again and the related one of longest sustained group time togther, in this forum separately from the Shadowrun forum -- and see what those results tell us. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 8 2007, 06:36 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
Yes but the problem is that you are still using the Honor System in order to measure how to weigh someone's opinion instead of judging based solely off that person's own words.
For example how would we really know that Joe Dumpshocker replying to that thread is really a long term DM who has players waiting in line to play in his games? In fact how would we know that John Dumpshocker who pipes up in order to back Joe's claim isn't really just Joe posting under a different handle? Questions like that is why I think it's far better to simply take what a poster says and judge him/her based off his/her posts instead of an unprovable claim to authority. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 8 2007, 06:44 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 45 Joined: 28-June 07 Member No.: 12,075 |
I'd have to agree - the appeal to authority is the first sign of a bad argument.
It doesn't matter how long a person has been running games. The person just starting out may be an awesome storyteller, or may fall flat on his face. Either situation requires the person to learn, and if they can't learn, they don't improve. So yes, I'd agree with Ravor and Talia - if you want to know how seriously to take a response, go check some other comments they've made and judge for yourself. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 9 2007, 03:49 AM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 23-June 07 Member No.: 11,998 |
Because they happen to like and agree with my post. Really, what more is there to say? If I say good things, sensible things, people will listen. If I spout off stupidly, people will not. I don't have to go around and set up what I'm saying with some sort of useless factoid. Either what I'm saying is worth listening to, or it isn't. Experience and "wisdom" do not, in and of themselves, add value to content provided. The content is either inherent in the material or is it lacking. Good content can be based on said values, but presenting the values as "proof of content" is just ludicrous. I believe this topic is silly. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 9 2007, 04:01 AM
Post
#16
|
|||||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Appeal to authority can be quite a convincing argument, to me. If someone were to point to the rulebook and quote something from it, that's authority to me.
Assumption 1: Good, sensible things to you are good, sensible things to other people.
Assumption 2: People do not like what you were spouting off stupidly. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 9 2007, 04:12 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,907 Joined: 31-December 06 Member No.: 10,502 |
Alright from my experience as a graduate student.
Listen to everyone, believe no one. This is because I've found that incredibly smart people, people with experience and tenure and all that, are still wrong. Not just occasionally, I mean all the time. And even the lowliest undergrad can have a stroke of genious. Now in my work I can generally tell right from wrong if I check into it. And in many threads one can fall back on RAW or the FAQ or something. But even with subjective stuff I'd still go with that. Read all the posts, even at least look at what people you don't agree with say, because today maybe they'll be bang on. Or maybe their bad idea will give you a good one. But never totally believe anyone until you've checked it out. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 9 2007, 04:24 AM
Post
#18
|
|||||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 23-June 07 Member No.: 11,998 |
I'm comfortable with those assumptions. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 9 2007, 06:52 AM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Here's a question everyone but the strict rulebook-ers are skating around: where did this content come from in the first place? and what gives it value? From what I gather here, the rulebook-ers firmly believe the only valid content wrt SR4 play is RAW and only RAW (blessed be the Book of the RAW) -- and that all else can only detract from RAW at best, go utterly contrary to RAW at worst. Is the RAW in fact the only source of "inherent" value in content? If not: what other sources exist? Are there any times when the RAW might even get in the way of value in content? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 9 2007, 07:03 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
Sure, Turn to Goo and it's kin faunting Magical Theory is a good example of RAW just plainly making a stupid call. I happen to believe that the ease which a Decker can hack your cyberware is another, but that is more subjective.
Oh and the fact that RAW apparently isn't totally sure exactly how the Matrix 2.0 really works is another. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 9 2007, 07:05 AM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
My experience is extremely minimal as well; but I still corrected Raygun once. You don't have to be an expert to be right. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 9 2007, 07:17 AM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
You probably do, however, have to have fired a gun more than six times in your life -- even if five of those did end up dead-eyed bullseyes.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 9 2007, 07:28 AM
Post
#23
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
Actually, house rules, and discussions about circumstances where RAW is ambiguously worded or does not apply, come up fairly often, and the comments are usually constructive. It's not that only RAW is acceptable, it's that people correct other posters who confuse their house rules with the RAW. And in cases where the RAW is confusing, it is useful to get a feel for how a lot of other people interpret it. House rules and GM rulings get picked over, the former to determine if it is fair to all types of players (sammies, mages, etc.) and is overall balanced, and the latter to determine if the ruling was fair and conducive to a good gaming experience. It is generally assumed that someone posting a rule or descibing an in-game situation is soliciting such feedback. Sometimes posters can be a bit snarky, but a lot of times it is the initial poster who gets overly defensive and bristles at the slightest criticism. Because they didn't really want critical feedback, but a "look how cool my idea is/look how awesome of a GM I am" vanity thread. And that doesn't work, generally. If someone presents original content such as an adventure hook or new NPC, they might get more uniformly positive feedback, with just a smidge of constructive criticism. House rules and GM rulings, though, will get picked over by everyone. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 9 2007, 07:39 AM
Post
#24
|
|||||||||||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
But what if the advice is based on personal experience that is an abberation?
I'm not suggesting beginning a post with what may be a useless factoid. I'm getting at the question of if a respondent is a good judge of themself as to what is good, sensible or even stupid.
Ok, in that scenario, I agree as the posts content conveys value.
Cool, but now I have to discount the wisdom of your entire post. ;) Like I said, it got me to thinking I may not be the best person to offer advice about a stable, long term gaming experience. Kind of like a childless person giving advice on raising those little yard apes. The other reason I wonder about these heated arguments that develop in threads like the one that prompted this thread. Those threads that are likely to get locked down. Those threads that you can almost see it coming just from the title. If one side of the argument is obviously silly, it is usually quickly pointed out. So one has to assume that both sides have about equal arguments. If so, why the huge disparity in point of view, why such a disparity, and should an observer to apply the wisdom proposed by either side when they find their self in a similar situation? (And no internet handy to get first hand advice. ;) ) |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jul 9 2007, 07:39 AM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Hmm. This might be an interesting point to remind that the original discussion which sparked the opening quote was a heated argument not over an interpretation of a specific rule, but over the right way to GM a group.
One side held that the numerical RAW was the only valid authority, and anything else ranged from the GM doing it wrong to the GM getting his jollies off the suffering of the other players. The other held that the numerical RAW was not the sole authority as to the rightness or wrongness of a style of GMing, and that not all in-game situations distilled to a character roll. (I specify "numerical", because it's easy to overlook that the RAW also includes less quantifiable guidance -- or, if not overlooked, then overruled by the quantitative RAW in all things.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 07:01 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.