You don't like [rule x]? Play a different game!It's most often seen when somebody criticises some aspect of D&D and the knee-jerk brigade leaps to its defence. For example, from a recent thread about demihumans and optimisation:
You missed a solution: play a different game. In D&D the important character creation decisions are all about optimization. There are other fantasy games with Elves and Dwarves and similar races where race is not a character optimization. It's up to you as to which game you play.I always picture the poster typing away with a smug smile on his face, as if he's come up with the most wonderful, brilliant destruction of any criticism to the game ever put forward.
The thing is, it's utterly ridiculous. It's like saying: "Don't like the 'influencing play' clause of the offside rule? Play another sport." Or: "Don't like the death penalty? Move to another country." Or: "Allergic to caffeine? Don't drink coffee." Patently stupid, and yet endlessly recycled in the lower reaches of places like rpg.net.
I should really stop spending time on that site, because all it does is make me want to Break Stuff. My wife once said "The only thing you change by posting on that site is your blood pressure." Pretty much. Although perhaps that's part of the addiction.
So...what you're saying is "Don't like inane arguments? Post to a different forum!"...?
ReplyDeletePrecisely! But that would be an inane argument in itself in light of my logic in this post. So I suppose that means I ought not to post in a different forum, on principle.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind (and I have not read the thread to which you linked, and most likely won't, because it would probably just annoy me) the problem is not with the poster's suggestion that one should play a different game.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is with his assertion that "the important character creation decisions are all about optimization."
To my mind, that bespeaks not of a flaw or feature of any particular game system, but rather of a mindset in how that game system is applied. I guarantee you, if I ever decide to play in a 4E game (or any other RPG, for that matter), the decisions that drive my character creation process will have nothing to do with how I can wring the most damage per round out of the rules, or be able to cast the most spells in the least amount of time, or anything like that. They will revolve entirely around a fictional personality I wish to see come into being, and that personality's needs, history, and the consequences therefrom. Of course, if the rules prevent me from fully realizing every aspect, I can live with that-- it is a game after all-- but if they allow me to grow into the elements I can't have at the start, I'll be happy with that too.
The offensive bit isn't the suggestion to play another game. It's the assumption-- that the game should only be played a particular way-- which gives rise to that suggestion, that is offensive.
Joseph: I agree, but that whole road is just too depressing to go down. I'd rather focus on things that are merely annoying, rather than utterly despair-inducing!
ReplyDeleteIf they phrase it right sometimes I link to this comic: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24/
ReplyDeleteIt's essentially the same attitude: you can't criticize my game because it's not for you!
The "Go play another game!" or "If you don't love this country, then move!" arguments is that it really is just a variation of the "Picking up my toys and going home" sort of attitude to discussion and debate.
ReplyDeleteIt's the anti-debate defense.
It's weak and nonsensical.
And hopelessly juvenile. [I could be polite and say "unsophisticated," but I won't.]
Speaking of odd reactions to criticism I also occasionally see the "well this discussion isn't going to change anything so you should just shut up" response. It's essentially the same kind of move: an attempt to shut down criticisms without responding to them.
ReplyDeleteHmm... If you're allergic to caffeine maybe you shouldn't drink coffee. Or at least switch to decaffeinated.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the main you are right, it is a ridiculous way to behave and shows no respect to the person or their opinion.
the myth: Exactly. "Well, yah boo sucks!" is about as sensible.
ReplyDeleteanonymous: That annoys me too. I always think it shows somebody knows they have lost an argument.
zero zero one: Of course I was referring to de-caff, you absolute BRAINLESS IDIOT MORON!!!!!!!!!!1
To be fair, there are times when it's clear that the person wanting to "fix" some aspect of an existing game -- usually D&D -- neither understands nor indeed likes the game he wishes to fix. I'm talking about people who beyond house ruling some aspect of the game to better suit their preferences and goes into a wholesale rewrite of one of its important mechanical foundations. In cases like that, "Go play another game" isn't always an anti-debate tactic. Heck, I wish the designers at WotC had decided to go play another game.
ReplyDeleteHeck, I wish the designers at WotC had decided to go play another game.
ReplyDeleteThey did. And they called it 4th Edition. Sure doesn't bear any resemblance to what went before...
Totally agree with what James said there. I would've said the same thing myself, but I'm an inarticulate prat, so I let smarter folk do it for me.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of what I was saying a while back about arseheads wanting to outlaw races as classes in BD&D. It's a pretty big part of the flavor of that particular version of D&D, and getting rid of it pretty much turns the game into a Big Mac version of Advanced. In that case, I would tell those people to go play another game (it's called AD&D), because you're never going to convince them otherwise.
-Matthew
James, Joseph, Arcona: You're right, in a sense, although I'm much less cynical about the WotC designers. I don't believe they hated the old D&D at all; in fact Mike Mearls is well known to love a bit of OD&D and indeed runs it in his lunch hours at WotC.
ReplyDeleteThere were various press releases and spoilers put out in the months leading up to 4e that seemed to suggest the designers loathed older editions of D&D. (The one on treasure being the most heinous example.) But I think really that was just PR.
The WotC designers were misguided, I believe, but I think their hearts were firmly in the right place: they wanted to make a game they loved better. They didn't achieve that, but...
In broader terms I think the question comes down to where you draw the line. If you wanted to use D&D to pretend to be Anne Rice-esque vampires enduring terrible ennui in a modern setting, you really would be better off playing Vampire: The Masquerade. But there's a difference between that and (say) wanting to get rid of racial stat bonuses in D&D.
There's also a big difference between "Why don't you play x game, because it seems like it could suit your needs better?" and "Go play another game!"
In fact even if you did play a different game that suited your tastes better than D&D that doesn't mean you can't critize D&D (for example, I often critize communism despite not actually living in a communist state). To reply to arcona: even if I did play a later edition of D&D that doesn't mean I can't attack race-as-class or that "go play another game" is a legitimate response to criticism directed at race-as-class.
ReplyDeleteOf course. You have free will, you can attack whatever you wish. It's just like, despite the fact that you hide your identity anonymously, I can still 'critize' you personally for your lack of spelling ability.
ReplyDelete-Matthew
As I can critcize you for dodging the issue.
ReplyDeleteThere is no issue for me to dodge. My example was just that, an example, and has nothing to do directly with the original post. If you'd like to debate me one-on-one, find an appropriate forum for it. I'm easy to find - I don't hide behind anonymous posts. Judging by your online posture, I'd say you're an rpg.net troll anyway.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I can 'critcize' you for STILL not being able to spell correctly.
-Matthew
You example was a poor one; one can criticize race-as-class if they like. Saying "there are other games that don't do race-as-class" is non-response. Whether race-as-class is good or bad has nothing to do with what other games to, and whether removing it would substantially alter the game has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad either. Just as the fact that I don't care about my spelling in a comments form says nothing about whether my points are good or bad, while your obsession with it reveals you to be a nit-picky jackass.
ReplyDeleteTruthfully, I don't even know what you're going on about. Some superfluous nonsense about 'attacking' Communist nations despite not living in one. Maybe it's being a 'nit-picky jackass', but when your form is so poor I can't understand what your point is supposed to be... well... How is one expected to have any kind of intelligent dialog with you?
ReplyDeleteDon't answer that. It was entirely rhetorical.
All my original comment was intended to be was a nod of agreement to James' post about folks wanting to 'fix' some part of the game, ANY game, they believe to be broken, when in actuality that part of the game they want to fix is an essential element to the game, whether it be in actual rules or in flavor or anything else (this is entirely opinion, naturally). Either that, or they consciously or unconsciously do not like the game, period. My example of this is that races as classes is an essential part of the flavor of BD&D, and that 'fixing' it via house ruling is not necessary (again, opinion).
I'm sure some players might very well have some compelling arguments as to why they may have house-ruled them out of their BD&D games, I don't really know, it's not important in this case. But let's just say for example, that Person X is the one who is considering utilizing such a house-rule, possibly even a whole gaggle of house rules intended to 'beef up' what they consider a weak or broken game. AND they are doing this because they either do not understand race-as-class in BD&D (or any other rule you wish to insert here) or they simply do not like BD&D. Person X is in the midst of discussing it on a forum, asking for ideas and such. I would suggest to this person that perhaps they should play another game, AD&D maybe, because it may serve their needs better instead of mucking about with a bunch of house-rules.
Therefore, while it may not be said in the exact manner, the "go play another game" response would indeed be a legitimate response.
-Matthew
If the blogger won't go to the forum, the forum comes to him.
ReplyDeleteCan we keep the flamewarring down to a minimum? If there's any ranting and insult throwing to be done around here, it's my job and my job alone. ;)
ReplyDeleteLet's say I have a Honda Civic, and I want to have a digital readout of my current MPG. I there are cars that come with that, but I don't have them, I have a Civic. So I set about altering my Civic.
ReplyDeleteNo one thinks this is unreasonable, because there is a high cost associated with getting a different car.
If the same is true of playing a different game, then passing that off as a solution is as silly as saying "Oh, there's a Mercedes that has all you're looking for, why don't you try that?"
I know that for me, personally, playing an entirely new game is a very, very low cost activity. In fact, it might even have a negative cost in some situations, with the novelty attracting me. "Just think," I think, "after I've played this, I'll have seen something new!"
Although, even if you're just looking to modify your Civic, it might be of use to look at other cars that run the way you want yours to run, to give you ideas of how to accomplish it yourself.
...Backing away from the metaphor and going back to the specific case, it's terrible, if perhaps not smug, advice. Divorcing mechanics from race-choice and giving it to some other choice seems extremely straight-forward.
Nick: I agree entirely that there's nothing onerous about playing a new game. My main objection is to the awful arrogance of the way the advice is delivered, which is worse than its faulty premise.
ReplyDelete