What's the point?, Rules whinings Options

[BullZeye]

What's the point of whining, complaining, crying, griping, bitching and arguing just about all the rules of SR in these forums? I mean if one understands the rule but does not agree with it, why not use a house rule for example? I understand folks that ask about a specific rule to make it bit more clear but to argue about which way a rule should go is just pointless. The rules of each and every game depends on the GM. Attacking the Dev's doesn't make things any better either. They built the world & rules how they saw fit. In my eyes the Dev's did a good job on all the SR4 books, even tho there are some things I don't fully agree with (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

A wise saying fits to this: An opinion is like an asshole, we all got one.

[Stahlseele]

basically?
it's about me being right and the rest of the world being wrong in most cases i think . .

[Glyph]

Our lively (but scrupulously polite) rules discussions on Dumpshock let us hash out possible rules interpretations until we reach a consensus.

For example, now we all agree that the sasquatch can only mimic human speech if he's using the bioware version of echolocation to cast heal through the wall that he's used improved invisibility on, and then walk away while he's sustaining the spell to make it permanent.

[Chrysalis]

The reason is that the forums are OUR sandbox and some ADULT comes along and demands us to play FAIR according to the RULES THEY MADE UP!

And then some older kids come along and insist that this is their sandbox and we should share. So what do we do? We grab some sand and throw it in their face, then they take our sand castle and STOMP all over it!

This is ALL SO UNFAIR!!

I hate it how you laughed at how I dressed up my barbie in G.I. Joe uniform to fit in. You SAID that tea parties was too kiddie for it to compete with your games of soldier and shiites!

NOW ME; I am going to go around the corner and see if I can get a smoke from the older cooler boys over there.

Edit: Pointing out that yes this is poignant sarcasm.

[shuya]

Both Stahl and Glyph raise good points. I think that, for a subsect of the gamer community, the "modeling" of a semi-realistic real-world interpretation is important. They feel that it makes for a better experience for their game, and think (hope) that it will make a better experience for other people's games as well. Beyond that, the shift in the positions of gaming companies over the past decade (forgive me if I have got this wrong, but even the FASA -> FanPro -> Catalyst transition happened relatively quickly and left the licenses in the hands of what might be accurately called "a more player-developer oriented design team") shows that even the fans CAN have a say in the direction their game goes. I am sure that for those DFers who have shown up in Shadowtalk over the years (i am almost absolutely sure there are some, although my memories of the last few years are a little "Bad Karma" hazy) have been thrilled that they have been able to influence the canon game world even a tiny bit.

I guess my real point is, in that these days of "open source" and "file sharing" and the prevalence of free information ideals and whatnot (an ethos on which many fictional cyberspace undergrounds hinder, btw) it really IS possible for somebody "small" to make a difference in something "big." people care about the game because they care about the community at large.

(i am sorry if this sounds a little bit sappy but what do you expect from people who are posting at 4 in the AM's (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Cain]

The point is, we the fans can have an impact on the game, if we raise enough of a stink about it.

The devs hang out here, and they participate in the fiery debates that go on. And sometimes, we'll point out something that would actually help make the game better. For example, there's been a house rule that started somewhere on Dumpshock: using Logic + Skill in the Matrix, with program rating acting as a success cap, just like spells. I can't recall who came up with it, but it made it into Unwired as an optional rule.

There's a lot of others. The Teamwork test is a good one. So's the Agent Smith Army, and Bloodzilla. Why'd these loopholes get closed? Because the fans made a huge ruckus about it here, and the devs responded by fixing the ruleset. Here, we actually have the ability to change the direction of the game.

The trick is, like any Internet forum, is to get the complaint threads big enough to draw in everyone. Once that happens, the controversy will cause things to feed upon themselves. Repeat this enough times, and the developers *have* to respond to the fanbase. We have a very direct ability to affect the way the game is going. So, all that rules "bitching and whining" has a purpose-- if you do it often enough, you can get a rule shoved through.

[Ryu]

The point is, we the fans can have an impact on the game, if we raise enough of a stink about it.

(snip: examples for something else)

The trick is, like any Internet forum, is to get the complaint threads big enough to draw in everyone. Once that happens, the controversy will cause things to feed upon themselves. Repeat this enough times, and the developers *have* to respond to the fanbase. We have a very direct ability to affect the way the game is going. So, all that rules "bitching and whining" has a purpose-- if you do it often enough, you can get a rule shoved through.

Not so. No. It does not work that way.

[paws2sky]

Our lively (but scrupulously polite) rules discussions on Dumpshock let us hash out possible rules interpretations until we reach a consensus.

Uh... which sub-forum are you reading? Is there a super-secret one that not everyone is allowed into? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

-paws

[Falconer]

A lot of times I argue either because I see something as broken. Or because I simply don't know that section of the rules well enough and by arguing a position I learn those rules VERY quickly w/ the help of other posters. Then there's other times I think the other poster is wrong and the rules are grey and could go either way (EG: smartguns mods on a drone, I don't think it would apply... Tarantula thinks it would... it's a significant power increase for drones if it does though). You can check the thread... we disagree, but unlike many forums it hasn't been a flame war. Each of us had made our points and moved on.

Then there's another reason... as the 'twink of all trades' I do my utmost never to get accused of cheating. So I play devil's advocate and argue something from the GM's perspective so that it's clear to me I'm not either abusing the rules or off in some grey area. In that case, I'm arguing specifically to hear others positions AND REASONS (rationale is important) and adjust my position. (Devil's advocate is a good thing)

[Kurious]

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."

-- Joseph Joubert

...It does not always work out though.

[Wesley Street]

For example, now we all agree that the sasquatch can only mimic human speech if he's using the bioware version of echolocation to cast heal through the wall that he's used improved invisibility on, and then walk away while he's sustaining the spell to make it permanent.

I disagree. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

I hate house ruling but the rules can be way too open to interpretation in some places (or are simply written in a confusing way). I participate in the rules arguments as they help me greatly in clarification, especially when I'm flat out wrong in my understanding.

Mob rule isn't ideal but it's the best option I have.

[BookWyrm]

Because some people think they can do better, or they are just not satisfied with the rules as they are. Or some just like to grouse.
But the honest, honorable ones pose a question, or opinion, or a simple POV & request feedback from another POV.

[Cain]

Not so. No. It does not work that way.

Actually, it does. Bloodzilla would never have gotten fixed if the fans hadn't raised a stink over it. Just recently, when they realized Unwired had left a hole intact for Agent Smith, it was fans than noticed and complained, and got a promise from Synner that fixed it. (There's still ways around it, but they're a lot more involved and not as easy.)

If the fans raise enough of an objection, the devs have to respond. The fans can control the direction of the game, by raising the objections here. You just have to catch their attention, first; the easiest way to do that is get your thread to increase by four pages overnight.

[Caine Hazen]

Uh... which sub-forum are you reading? Is there a super-secret one that not everyone is allowed into? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

-paws

You haven't found your way there yet? Guess we're keeping the secret well (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[TKDNinjaInBlack]

To be honest, I just try to better understand the rules also. I hate house ruling because I usually can't keep a group going long enough because everybody's lives are so crazy with the economy failing and keeping/finding jobs out of school. I love having the rules in the book that new or other players can reference. It makes for a smoother transition when a new player reads through the book and finds it's the same as the game we play instead of finding something that isn't happening in the game and then asks a hundred times "why aren't we doing it like this."

It's not our world we created, it's the world the devs created for us to play in. I'll always argue on the side of the rules because these guys put forth the time and effort and playtesting to make it the best they can, and who are we to critique them for it? That's like biting the hand that feeds and is bad karma. Most of the time we need to put our egos aside and ask a question instead of saying something is stupid and starting an argument.

[Blade]

Because everyone (but me) is wrong.

[Sweaty Hippo]

What's the point of whining, complaining, crying, griping, bitching and arguing just about all the rules of SR in these forums? I mean if one understands the rule but does not agree with it, why not use a house rule for example? I understand folks that ask about a specific rule to make it bit more clear but to argue about which way a rule should go is just pointless. The rules of each and every game depends on the GM. Attacking the Dev's doesn't make things any better either. They built the world & rules how they saw fit. In my eyes the Dev's did a good job on all the SR4 books, even tho there are some things I don't fully agree with (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

A wise saying fits to this: An opinion is like an asshole, we all got one.

You can always make a houserule, but some people want/expect their books to be better than what they expected. That, and some people just complain to complain.

But from what I've noticed, most people here have some valid concerns for some crazy/weird rules.

Heck, Shadowrun's a great RPG game, but that doesn't mean that people won't get riled up. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Ryu]

Actually, it does. Bloodzilla would never have gotten fixed if the fans hadn't raised a stink over it. Just recently, when they realized Unwired had left a hole intact for Agent Smith, it was fans than noticed and complained, and got a promise from Synner that fixed it. (There's still ways around it, but they're a lot more involved and not as easy.)

If the fans raise enough of an objection, the devs have to respond. The fans can control the direction of the game, by raising the objections here. You just have to catch their attention, first; the easiest way to do that is get your thread to increase by four pages overnight.

You are mixing things up there. A constructive criticism, combined with suggested fixes, is productive. Trying to raise objections and controversy is spending 40BP on race. It even hampers constructive fixes, because it piles a ton of not-worthwhile distractions on top of the useful bits.

[Cain]

You are mixing things up there. A constructive criticism, combined with suggested fixes, is productive. Trying to raise objections and controversy is spending 40BP on race. It even hampers constructive fixes, because it piles a ton of not-worthwhile distractions on top of the useful bits.

I'll just point out that the history here on Dumpshock, and especially of SR4, says differently. The devs have been very responsive to fan feedback, even when it didn't come in the form of "constructive criticism".

[Ryu]

The devs have been very responsive to fan feedback, even when it didn't come in the form of "constructive criticism".

That I can agree with, but it does not contradict my previous statement.

[Cain]

That I can agree with, but it does not contradict my previous statement.

Not exactly contradict; but the point comes down to certain truths about internet forums. Among these is the fact that politely-worded, politically-correct, noncontroversial posts seldom get much attention. For some reason, loud, rude, flaming trolls tend to get noticed, and thus, listened to. By causing controversy, you get a lot more people to notice your problem. By getting more people to notice the problem, you increase the chances of people acting to do something about it.

The truth is, flame wars increase traffic to forums. Now, that increased traffic may or may not be a good thing. One the one hand, you've just let in a lot of trolls. On the other hand, you also lose out on people who can actually solve the problem. But I'm digressing.

Basically, every time someone has discovered a gaping hole in the SR4 rules, someone here has raised a huge stink about it, and the devs responded by trying to fix the problem. Problems that few people raise an issue with, tend to get ignored. That's just the way of the internet forum.

[Sweaty Hippo]

Not exactly contradict; but the point comes down to certain truths about internet forums. Among these is the fact that politely-worded, politically-correct, noncontroversial posts seldom get much attention. For some reason, loud, rude, flaming trolls tend to get noticed, and thus, listened to. By causing controversy, you get a lot more people to notice your problem. By getting more people to notice the problem, you increase the chances of people acting to do something about it.

The truth is, flame wars increase traffic to forums. Now, that increased traffic may or may not be a good thing. One the one hand, you've just let in a lot of trolls. On the other hand, you also lose out on people who can actually solve the problem. But I'm digressing.

Basically, every time someone has discovered a gaping hole in the SR4 rules, someone here has raised a huge stink about it, and the devs responded by trying to fix the problem. Problems that few people raise an issue with, tend to get ignored. That's just the way of the internet forum.

Most trolls just complain to complain about problems that aren't really there, or blow things up out of proportion, and nothing productive gets accomplished with their flaming.

[Cain]

Most trolls just complain to complain about problems that aren't really there, or blow things up out of proportion, and nothing productive gets accomplished with their flaming.

Like I said, to put it politely: The devs so far have been good with responding to fan complaints, even those that aren't worded as "constructive criticism". In fact, constructive criticism tends to get ignored unless there's some controversy attached. Frank's Matrix rules are a good example of that.

Fact is, while not a lot gets accomplished from flame wars, it's works a great deal more than than polite criticism.

[Ryu]

Not exactly contradict; but the point comes down to certain truths about internet forums. Among these is the fact that politely-worded, politically-correct, noncontroversial posts seldom get much attention. For some reason, loud, rude, flaming trolls tend to get noticed, and thus, listened to. By causing controversy, you get a lot more people to notice your problem. By getting more people to notice the problem, you increase the chances of people acting to do something about it.

The truth is, flame wars increase traffic to forums. Now, that increased traffic may or may not be a good thing. One the one hand, you've just let in a lot of trolls. On the other hand, you also lose out on people who can actually solve the problem. But I'm digressing.

Basically, every time someone has discovered a gaping hole in the SR4 rules, someone here has raised a huge stink about it, and the devs responded by trying to fix the problem. Problems that few people raise an issue with, tend to get ignored. That's just the way of the internet forum.

Not exactly contradicted, so repeated:
"You are mixing things up there. A constructive criticism, combined with suggested fixes, is productive. Trying to raise objections and controversy is spending 40BP on race. It even hampers constructive fixes, because it piles a ton of not-worthwhile distractions on top of the useful bits."

Frank is not an example for what you claim works, because Frank also created dozens of pages of conclusive houserules. Some of the discussion techniques are admittedly the same.

The worth of traffic depends on the content. A flamewar may be fun for Trolls, but it is so unfun for everyone else that they are actually forbidden. Your "gapping holes" tend to get fixed were people show that they care, and suggest possible fixes. If the trolls take a topic over, anyone who has a valid concern, but no idea of a fix, gets thrown into the troll category. Anyone who has a fix gets burried under a stream of "not so!" statements, and certainly no constructive discussion with a dev, because it would not be possible to have it. Any troll who successfully claims to have a real concern also wastes the energy of those users who want to help.

[Cain]

Frank is not an example for what you claim works, because Frank also created dozens of pages of conclusive houserules. Some of the discussion techniques are admittedly the same.

The worth of traffic depends on the content. A flamewar may be fun for Trolls, but it is so unfun for everyone else that they are actually forbidden. Your "gapping holes" tend to get fixed were people show that they care, and suggest possible fixes. If the trolls take a topic over, anyone who has a valid concern, but no idea of a fix, gets thrown into the troll category. Anyone who has a fix gets burried under a stream of "not so!" statements, and certainly no constructive discussion with a dev, because it would not be possible to have it. Any troll who successfully claims to have a real concern also wastes the energy of those users who want to help.
traffic depends on the content. A flamewar may be fun for Trolls, but it is so unfun for everyone else that they are actually forbidden. Your "gapping holes" tend to get fixed were people show that they care, and suggest possible fixes. If the trolls take a topic over, anyone who has a valid concern, but no idea of a fix, gets thrown into the troll category. Anyone who has a fix gets burried under a stream of "not so!" statements, and certainly no constructive discussion with a dev, because it would not be possible to have it.

The reason I cite Frank as an example is because his efforts wouldn't have been noticed if he hadn't raised such a controversy. Aaron Pavao have created some very nice cheat sheets, but they don't get nearly the mention that Frank's house rules do. Personally, I think Aaron's sheets are more useful than Frank's optional rules. But the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as my mom said.

I've seen this happen enough times, on a multitude of forums. The high volume of posts that a flame thread gets means people are more likely to notice it. Ideas that are ignored in other threads suddenly become recognized when rephrased to annoy. I think mom was right: whoever can make their wheel squeak the loudest, will get the grease.