The Gaming Den

Folks here have strong opinions (or FACTS) about their favorite games. A lot of discussion here is about that, why it's right, why something is wrong, etc.

But, online or in real life, have you ever convinced somebody to your viewpoint on a topic? How did you do it?

*This is about RPGs

Yes, quite often. By arguing with them.

I'm not really sure what your point is though, I generally assume many people convince others at some time in their life. Hell people can convince me that I'm wrong about certain opinions or facts too. As long as they don't use bullshit.

Though I must admit, sometimes things sound so much like bullshit that I look into them again and then find out they were right all along.

It helps a lot if you're right.

Not sure of the point here.

Yes. I argued with them. In particular, I presented enough evidence to support my thesis and discredit theirs that they decided that mine was "better", for some definition of better.

I think that this question would be more interesting if restricted to some particular class of thesis, such as those relating to gaming or philosophy. The really fun arguments are when neither side has any empirical evidence and everybody is reduced to arguments from first principles.

The tired claim, well tired excuse really, that "You cannot win at arguments!" is something I only see trundled out by people losing an argument who are desperately looking for an excuse to bail out without being either convinced or further embarrassed.

It's almost as bad as "Well then we (by which they mean you) just have to agree to disagree!" or "Well it (by which they mean fact) is just a matter of opinion" as far as argument losing gambits go.

You totally can convince people of stuff. If you think otherwise you are trying to convince people of really stupid stuff. And I mean REALLY stupid, because people get convinced that giant invisible sky fairies lovingly care about their every move all the time so your arguments must be extra crap!

I tend to easily convince friends of things such as "4E is crap", "Pathfinder does not actually do any of the things it is advertised as doing, it just makes you feel good about those Sorcerer levels you took" and "Dark Heresy is shit".

On the other hand, I can't convince my housemate that the rules of WoD don't work the way he thinks they do, presumably because I hate the games and he's played them for many years, so he assumes he automatically knows more through seniority. It's generally a given that fans of it haven't read the rules - if they had, they would stop being fans.

I've done my part trying to enlighten people about Pathfinder not being the "ultimate uber upgrade from 3.5e that made it perfect and will never need fixing EVER", and succeeded mostly with people I don't chat with only online. One guy dismissed my claims with bullcrap, but the guy who did that was a 2e fanboy anyway.

I also had an argument about the Oberoni fallacy yesterday with a player and a DM. It was frustrating since they both either missed the point or talked about the DM using house-rules that bordered on "Magical Tea Party" to make the melee classes more awesome (like stabbing the dragon in the eye so you can ignore any DR it has or attatching an uber-durable rope to your arrow and start pulling the manticore down if you manage to hit it with the arrow and keep it stuck on the thing), so yeah.

Yes. By showing them in the manual that I am right.

To be fair, part of the reason for starting this message board and inviting the folks I initially did was so I would know where to look.

Game On,
fbmf

Yes.

IRL, outside of the group of people I've taught how to play RPGs, no. Anyone familiar with my ranting about the local gaming group that played Pathfinder all the time is familiar with the insanity they do, and they do not listen to my opinions/arguments/suggestions.

I convinced a guy on the WotC boards that the alignment system has holes by pointing to the Barbarian and Druid classes. The PHB states that Barbarians cannot be Lawful because "they're wild at heart." Now, the Druids are also implied to be "wild at heart" by being close to nature, yet they have different alignment restrictions and can be Lawful (Neutral).

Also, it's not so much telling the truth as it is how you present the truth to others. The caustic style of some posters here can contain good factual insight and analysis, but the manner in which they present it is better for riling up the base than converting others to their way of thinking. In my above example, I can easily destroy my own argument if I insulted the intelligence of people who maintained that the Barb/Druid inconsistency did not exist. In such a case, the argument appears less like a debate about the rules and more like I have an ax to grind against the other poster.

In real life it's way more likely than online. Moreover, it's more likely if the argument you're having is ancillary to some primary task. For instance, if you're trying to actually play a game, then having an argument about fighters vs. wizards is relevant to something, and the odds of coming to an agreement about which way is better are way higher than if you're just throwing arguments at each other in theory land (i.e. online message boards). Just take the Den for example; arguments on here are very rarely resolved with, "I see your point, and that explains the observed phenomena better than my prior supposition, so let's run with yours," though that's partly due to the fact that we're never really "running" with anything. The times the Den works best is when Frank rolls out a new After Sundown or CFHB project, and ideas are debated for a far briefer time, while everyone is focused on the project at large, and not the theoretical. Other than that we're a completely dysfunctional group of 'debaters' who generally do not convince each other of anything. However, a neutral observer can pick up a lot of good game theory by observing the madness.

So, to convince someone of something, you need to have an end goal, you want something to be implemented, be it a game rule, a tax policy, or whatever else. The next step is to lay out the underpinnings of your viewpoint, and why the other viewpoint is flawed. Now, the Den will not agree with this, but doing so in a civil and even polite manner is generally going to help you convince people easier; if you make it personal, then people will be defensive no matter how wrong they are, and you won't actually convince them to go along with the correct viewpoint. Which is fine if you're on a forum debating hypotheticals, because there's certainly a cathartic value to insulting someone personally, and you have a good chance of convincing everyone observing that the person you're debating with is, in fact, as stupid/uninformed/retarded as you say they are. But remember #1: convincing observers about the mental acuity of your opponent is not your actual objective. In theory land, there are no actual setbacks to blowing up at each other and walking away, both convinced the other is wrong, so that's what happens in discussion forums. But when you're playing a game with people, or trying to make a game as part of a team, then that kind of outcome is far more detrimental than civil discussion of the objective merits of different viewpoints, even if the more correct viewpoint is not implemented in the end. You've got to learn to let go of being right when the project is threatened. In an ideal world the correct viewpoint would always be the one agreed to, but I'm not waiting for that to happen, and I'm also not willing to drag other people through the mud to make a point about something largely inconsequential. /rant.

So, keep your end goal in mind; if you need to convince the other players at the table that Tomes is a better 3.5 alternative than Pathfinder, then you need to bring objective facts, make an objective argument, and leave the attacks on their person and their loves (i.e. PF) out of it. Remember 4e's ad campaign about how bad 3.5 was? Yeah...that's what you want to avoid. If you can bring yourself to do so, you should validate their viewpoint, ("I love what Pathfinder did here, here, and here, but there are some major issues X, Y, Z, that Tomes fixes in ways A, B, C, which makes it play better for everyone.") Rarely do you get the chance to make such a logical, thought-out, and drawn-out explanation, but that's what you should aim for.

Finally, be prepared to lose graciously. Whether they actually have a good reason to resist your assertion, or whether they're just reluctant to change, you need to decide beforehand whether or not you will bite the bullet and keep going with them, or leave the group if it's that important to you.

tl;dr:

Step 1: Identify your end goal (you want to convince Person(s) A that X is superior to Y).

Step 2: Don't make it personal (no character assassination), but be thorough in your evidence.

Step 3: Validate their attachment to X.

Step 4: Be prepared to lose. If they refuse to change from PF, be prepared to play it or graciously excuse yourself from the group.

One thing to keep in mind about online arguments is survivor bias. In real life you talk to maybe four people at a time. On a message board it's more like twenty people minimum. And quite often the only ones to post will be those who disagree with you. So any time you are having a 10 page discussion with a single poster it likely means that the other 50 people who also read the thread agree with you. Your 10 page discussion is not an indicator that you can't win an argument online. If anything it shows you that you already persuaded everyone else.

I don't know if I've ever convinced someone that something bad is actually good, or vice versa, just by argument alone. I have, however, convinced people to give something a fair shot, though (e.g. non-core material like psionics or Tome of Battle classes) which has resulted in changed opinions.

For me... the proof has always had to be in the pudding. Having people generate characters and get into the playing the the only way you can get someone into actually liking a game.

So far, I've seen Tomes convert about 27 people from all ends of the edition spectrum. I've had a "pamhplets pre 1e" player that's moved all the way to 3.5 work with Tomes material, and 4e players that got into it with no memorable hitches.

So, in terms of math and mechanics the Tomes are "edition agnostic" for the most part. The fact that the pdfs are typeset to look similar to the classic 1e/2e is an awesome touch.



They dove right into the stuff. That's what good writing does, it pulls you right in. One of the biggest mistakes of 4e was thinking that "adding stuff" was more important than "good writing".

Now, the number is small, but it's also a constant percentage. I've yet to have a player not enjoy the content, or watched DMs change from anything 3.X to a Tome game (myself and 4 other DMs have made the switch, either from 4 to Tomes or from 3.5 to Tomes). Getting a DM to "change systems" to your house rules is a pretty good testament to the quality of said rules.

The tactical, story-focus, character immersion levels of these people goes all over the place. Honestly, there's not a single one that does not get into their character and role play, some are much more expressive, or immerse themselves in their characters; while others want to see the big numbers and/or be/ride a big monster that goes pew-pew-pew. Letting the players get an equal share of the different pies in a game is

Another bias to keep in mind is that a lot of forum arguments are effectively a couple of parties trying to convince a third party that their position is the correct one. In such a case you often can accomplish something even if the person you are most directly arguing with never admits to defeat. You're not always just shouting into a wind tunnel.

I've convinced gamers of the Right Way (my way) only when I've had extended periods of time with which to wear them down.

In situations where time was limited, I've never been successful. I've argued that Defensive Throw is not overpowered for a Monk to use against a hydra. I've argued that Tome of Battle classes are not overpowered. I've argued that Shadow Illusion depends on the level of the spell including effects that change the spell's level. I've argued that Fighters are underpowered. I've argued any number of undeniably true shit, but always been unsuccessful.

Whipstitch wrote:Another bias to keep in mind is that a lot of forum arguments are effectively a couple of parties trying to convince a third party that their position is the correct one. In such a case you often can accomplish something even if the person you are most directly arguing with never admits to defeat. You're not always just shouting into a wind tunnel.

Pretty much this. I have been convinced by one side or another in many of the threads here, even when my initial assumption was quite different. However, in a direct debate there is a definite stigma attached to being the "loser", so people are much more likely to use dishonest techniques, change their position or gloss over good points from the other side than admit they were wrong about something.

And of course it also has an effect on how people post in the first place. Gentle cajoling--well, barring serious leverage of some sort, at any rate-- is often the only really viable path to convincing an entrenched opponent to willingly taking up your position. It's tricky and often a longshot, but it beats making them into an intractable enemy. But when you just care about what some third party thinks? Grab your opponent by the balls and discredit them. Fallacious or not, it can work wonders.

OgreBattle wrote:Folks here have strong opinions (or FACTS) about their favorite games. A lot of discussion here is about that, why it's right, why something is wrong, etc.

But, online or in real life, have you ever convinced somebody to your viewpoint on a topic? How did you do it?

*This is about RPGs

No, but I am one of the rare few who has been convinced. Not like, a complete reversal of my original position but lurking/posting here has definitely adjusted my viewpoint about RPGs gradually over time in quite a few ways.

Whether that's for good or ill, who can say, but whenever anyone mentions "munchkins" or "power-gaming" or "min-maxing" while my reaction might once have been agreement or sympathy it now tends to be more like....

Some yes. Some no. I've played D&D with my best friend for about 18 years now, and with a bit of work, I convinced him of some of 3E's problems and what things are strong and what are weak.

There's another guy that played in my games that I could not convince that monks sucked. He was certain that it is the the best class printed (he even used the term "broken"). No amount of arguing or actually watching his PC suck at the table convinced him of it. What was more funny is he considered himself a powergamer. I think part of this problem must have stemmed from a previous DM who must have had a rules-lite, anything-goes attitude about action resolution.

Was talking to two friends after a dnd session (mc & a player) and mc said that monkey grip is overpowered. So I disagreed and told him that he could dislike the 'fluff' but that monkey grip is actually underpowered.

I followed that up with something like this: monkey grip gave the cleric player (who was not present) a -2 to attack rolls for a 3.5 (1d6) average dmg increase from the increased size of the great sword while power attack would give him +4 dmg for that -2.

That argument immediatly convinced the other player who was present, yet mc still believes monkey grip is overpowered.

I believe that because he dislikes the idea of someone wielding an oversized weapon that it must be overpowered, no matter what it actually does.

I usually try, but during the actual discussion it turns into telling them how that game looks, and how it feels to play it from my own viewpoint. And convincing someone to take on your own viewpoint is not a good idea. You don't want mindless drones (unless you're a self-centered prick with ego obesity problems), you want people with whom you can discuss things, argue, and have fun talking to.