Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

See title.

I've seen, on this forum, people get really salty over other forum-goers playing a game differently than them. (Usually 40k.)
It just seems odd to me to be so upset that someone you don't know and will never play a game with plays the game in a way different than yourself. I honestly do not understand why they're so emotional about it.

Players who don't use a dice tray, and shaker, should be reported immediately to the Wargamers' guild in Ankh Morpork.

I'm sure there are a number of reasons, but the big one, in my experience and usually related to GW games*, is a desire to see improvements from the company. The only way GW is going to respond to criticism is a hit to their finances. Logically, people with different ideas, standards and desires who happily spend their money on stuff that is seen as problematic make a product successful that from the perspective of others shouldn't be successful if positive change is to happen.

It can be quite frustrating to see continued economic success of things that are subjectively or objectively bad. That is in part owed to the company positioning itself cleverly to provide a diverse product that appeals to so many people that dissatisfaction among one part of the customer base can be compensated by the others, but it also requires enough customers to play along. The latter is where emotion plays into it the most, in my opinion. There's only so much emotion you'll invest in a company trying to make money. But in the case of other customers, people who are ostensibly on the same side of the company-customer relationship as you but seem to act more in the interests of the company rather than the customer, it can be easy to lose sight of the diverse nature of people's interests and become attached to the idea that they are on the wrong side of a simple two party conflict, be it by choice or through manipulation, and that they need to be set straight and returned to the right side.

It's quite unfortunate, but somewhat unavoidable. Everyone just trying to have fun in their own way may not be done with the explicit desire to hurt others' fun, but that outcome is just a reality when irreconcilable interest are involved. Would be nice if people were more understanding of each other's position instead of being at each other's throats over it.



*Outside of wargaming, the video game industry and its buggy releases and microtransactions are a good example of this as well. The worse the situation or practice, the more hostility you can expect for tolerating or supporting it.

Counter-question: why do some people have trouble distinguishing between criticism/disagreement and being genuinely upset about something?

In my experience I see a lot of comments about WHY U SO MAD when it's very obvious that the person who made the "mad" post is, at most, mildly annoyed about something. It seems like there's this weird thing where people obsess over "civility" and "everyone's opinion is valid" and anyone not complying with the hugbox must be portrayed as some kind of raging donkey-cave with massive anger issues.

It depends.

If a thread is about say, the lore and is in the background section, having someone complain about game related stuff is just…wrong place, wrong time, please sod off.

If a thread is about a highly themed list because the OP wants to field it, and is looking for pointers and group think on now to get it workable, having Johnny WAAC blunder in and just vomit a netlist? That’s wrong place, wrong time, please sod off.

Likewise if a thread is about your prep for an upcoming tournament, which you’ve assembled a netlist for and want input on how to squeeze the most out of it? Having Johnny Casualisking blunder in moaning about competitive play and those who enjoy it? Wrong place, wrong time, please sod off.

This next bit may read as an insult, but I assure you it’s not. Please read before commenting.

We do have to remember social skills and maturity also vary poster to poster. We don’t really know much about each other. That person wibbling on could be very young, or simply not that articulate when writing. This can lead others to dog pile them, as there’s almost an automatic assumption everyone is on the same level.

We also see what I think we can call busybodies responding to a conversation they weren’t party to, taking offence on behalf of one of the participants who doesn’t actually seem offended themself. Recent example would be me commenting and recognising that a poster’s flag suggested English might not be their mother tongue, and acknowledging an issue we were clashing on (allies, and what allies are) may simply be a language barrier issue, rather than bloody mindedness. That poster didn’t appear to take offence (and none was intended). But someone else decided to be offended for that poster, which is frankly bizarre behaviour.

Even if the other poster was offended? It’s them I’d owe the apology (and fairly so. Just because I didn’t intend offence doesn’t mean offence wasn’t caused). Not some busybody trying to pick a fight.

I know I can't stand symmetrical terrain setups and it is a specific bugbear of mine when people go and get nice gaming mats and then just ignore what's on them, placing buildings and other things right in the middle of city streets and whatnot.

Does that count?

 JNAProductions wrote:
I've seen, on this forum, people get really salty over other forum-goers playing a game differently than them. (Usually 40k.) It just seems odd to me to be so upset that someone you don't know and will never play a game with plays the game in a way different than yourself. I honestly do not understand why they're so emotional about it.

Do you have any examples?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I know I can't stand symmetrical terrain setups and it is a specific bugbear of mine when people go and get nice gaming mats and then just ignore what's on them, placing buildings and other things right in the middle of city streets and whatnot.

Does that count?

 JNAProductions wrote:
I've seen, on this forum, people get really salty over other forum-goers playing a game differently than them. (Usually 40k.) It just seems odd to me to be so upset that someone you don't know and will never play a game with plays the game in a way different than yourself. I honestly do not understand why they're so emotional about it.

Do you have any examples?

For the first, it depends.

Does it irk you, and you don’t want to play that way? I get that-we all have our personal bugbears.
If you go out and tell other people you’ve never met in real life they’re doing it wrong and shouldn’t do it at all, that’s what I don’t get.

For the latter, this was inspired by the Table Size thread, but it usually crops up in painting threads. I can’t link right now, as I’m phone posting.

 JNAProductions wrote:
See title.

I've seen, on this forum, people get really salty over other forum-goers playing a game differently than them. (Usually 40k.)
It just seems odd to me to be so upset that someone you don't know and will never play a game with plays the game in a way different than yourself. I honestly do not understand why they're so emotional about it.

The only way you can get an satisfactory answer for your query is to find the users who post what you deem emotional, and send them a Direct Message and ask them.

No other human being on the planet can answer your question besides those people in particular. This thread will not answer your curiosity, as you are just asking random people to make subjective psychological guesswork.

Good point. I’ll try that.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

We also see what I think we can call busybodies responding to a conversation they weren’t party to, taking offence on behalf of one of the participants who doesn’t actually seem offended themself. Recent example would be me commenting and recognising that a poster’s flag suggested English might not be their mother tongue, and acknowledging an issue we were clashing on (allies, and what allies are) may simply be a language barrier issue, rather than bloody mindedness. That poster didn’t appear to take offence (and none was intended). But someone else decided to be offended for that poster, which is frankly bizarre behaviour.

Even if the other poster was offended? It’s them I’d owe the apology (and fairly so. Just because I didn’t intend offence doesn’t mean offence wasn’t caused). Not some busybody trying to pick a fight.

You lied to a non-English speaker about the common usage/meaning of a word in order to confuse their argument (an argument you could not otherwise win).

Stepping in when you see abuse occurring because of a power differential (in this case the difference between an longstanding, widely-known member of a community who is speaking their first language and a new user who may be speaking their second language) is an ethical intervention. But I'm not really surprised that you subscribe to a bully's theory of "mind your business" that advantages the most empowered of multiple people involved an interaction; it fits with the rest of the image you present of yourself.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Counter-question: why do some people have trouble distinguishing between criticism/disagreement and being genuinely upset about something?

In my experience I see a lot of comments about WHY U SO MAD when it's very obvious that the person who made the "mad" post is, at most, mildly annoyed about something. It seems like there's this weird thing where people obsess over "civility" and "everyone's opinion is valid" and anyone not complying with the hugbox must be portrayed as some kind of raging donkey-cave with massive anger issues.

You do realize that you're one of those people JNA is talking about, right?

ccs wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Counter-question: why do some people have trouble distinguishing between criticism/disagreement and being genuinely upset about something?

In my experience I see a lot of comments about WHY U SO MAD when it's very obvious that the person who made the "mad" post is, at most, mildly annoyed about something. It seems like there's this weird thing where people obsess over "civility" and "everyone's opinion is valid" and anyone not complying with the hugbox must be portrayed as some kind of raging donkey-cave with massive anger issues.

You do realize that you're one of those people JNA is talking about, right?

Yes, and that was my point. I'm not "so emotional" about anything. I disagree with certain people but the level of emotional investment is just slightly higher than reading the phone book to kill time.

I honestly think that’s worse.

You’re not angry and responding like a jerk because of your emotions. You’re actively and coldly choosing to be a jerk.

 JNAProductions wrote:
See title.

I've seen, on this forum, people get really salty over other forum-goers playing a game differently than them. (Usually 40k.)
It just seems odd to me to be so upset that someone you don't know and will never play a game with plays the game in a way different than yourself. I honestly do not understand why they're so emotional about it.

I don't know that I've seen alot of upset-ness as an initial reaction. I have however seen alot of threads where a disagreement between two positions (and not just in discussions about playstyle) escalates until it's nearly impossible to tell whether the folks are arguing over an actual original point of view or whether they're primarily offended at a personal slight that emerged during the conversations downward spiral. This then often get's magnified when others step into the fray when tempers are already boiling and take sides not only based on the initial issue, but often at the perceived issue post-escalation.

I quite like participating in topics about hobby standards and approaches but if I glance over these sorts of threads and see folks accusing each other of ableism, elitism, classism, etc. then the plot has already been lost and that's an unquenchable dumpster fire that I (and others I think) would do well to avoid.

Lastly, I would add that in an online space it can be hard to express a strong preference or personal standard for a given way of playing -especially if it excludes others- without being perceived as jerk'ish. Witness the hulabaloo that followed a blog post I made years ago "In defense of hobby standards"
https://www.chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/2014/08/painting-matters-in-defense-of-hobby/

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I know I can't stand symmetrical terrain setups and it is a specific bugbear of mine when people go and get nice gaming mats and then just ignore what's on them, placing buildings and other things right in the middle of city streets and whatnot.

Does that count?

 JNAProductions wrote:
I've seen, on this forum, people get really salty over other forum-goers playing a game differently than them. (Usually 40k.) It just seems odd to me to be so upset that someone you don't know and will never play a game with plays the game in a way different than yourself. I honestly do not understand why they're so emotional about it.

Do you have any examples?

For the first, it depends.

Does it irk you, and you don’t want to play that way? I get that-we all have our personal bugbears.
If you go out and tell other people you’ve never met in real life they’re doing it wrong and shouldn’t do it at all, that’s what I don’t get.

For the latter, this was inspired by the Table Size thread, but it usually crops up in painting threads. I can’t link right now, as I’m phone posting.

I feel the same as HBMC on the first point. i specifically acquire and position terrain to fit the layout of the table. like it belongs there. it is part immersion and part tactical play. if the table is a mirror copy you might as well be playing chess and not a modern version of Kriegsspiel that 40K and WHFBs was originally based on.


I think the other problem not mentioned here is the desire for unified play IE demanding players use the most current edition no matter how bad or good it is. this goes for any game.

With infinity i love N2 core rules and still use them. i can easily plug in N3 weapons and gear and still use the previous rule set (aside from hacking). same for warmachine. i have zero interest in the rules changes for MKIV and our group will continue to play MK III

At least with battletech the core rules are basically unchanged for the past 30 years and they provide you with an entire book of official optional rules and equipment you can pick and choose from as your players desire.

the real rub comes with 40K and most other GW games to a lesser extent. the pendulum swing between core rules or codexes between editions as well as the near constant supplements, updates, errata, FAQ's , etc... only burden the players when combined with the general community attitude of their only being one way to play the game based on the most current update. no matter what GW may claim about optional ways to play.

Then you combine that with the fact the company is really bad at writing rules, always has been (well at least since they started pushing a tournament scene with RTs and GTs 20 years ago) and seems to be getting worse at it. back prior to 7th ed. people often complained about one codex or another being a bit "overpowered" in the hands of a tournament minded player. but we were nowhere near the place we are now where entire books are being negates shortly after release or even before they are released. in recent memory iron hands, admech and league of votann come to mind. even as somebody who doesn't play late 8th ed or 9th ed even i am fully aware of the problems with them.

You see players do what my group has done as well as what Mezmorki has done with his pro-hammer classic project. you will see pushback because our goal is to make the game more focused on the "fun" aspect of the game outside of just winning (lore/theme etc..). that means we are playing outside the most current up to date rules. like anything else the game is permissive. i cannot force people to play my hybrid 5th edition or prohammer any more than i can be forced to play 9th ( i find nothing appealing or redeeming in the rules mechanics of the edition). while i may have a very good track record of over 90% of the people trying out our hybrid 5th ed game absolutely loving it. there are people who do not like it, rather they are more at home in the tournament scene or used to the current completely different iteration of the game.

I have long theorized that games such as 40K attract an unhealthy amount of people who are Autistic, have OCD issues, or both. Would explain the endless bickering about RAI vs RAW and so on.. Its not just "playing" the game wrong, these sort of people think everything in life should be how they want. Everything else is stressful/tiring/confusing to them, and can upset them.

Just one of those things in life you just have to deal with I suppose.. "Care less" is always a valid option

 tauist wrote:
I have long theorized that games such as 40K attract an unhealthy amount of people who are Autistic, have OCD issues, or both. Would explain the endless bickering about RAI vs RAW and so on.. Its not just "playing" the game wrong, these sort of people think everything in life should be how they want. Everything else is stressful/tiring/confusing to them, and can upset them.

Just one of those things in life you just have to deal with I suppose.. "Care less" is always a valid option

I think a better explanation is the fact that the game designers in england had at one time an entirely different mindset when approaching the game than players in other parts of the world which led the RAI/RAW debates. as one game dev commented that the fact somebody would try a certain combination didn't even cross their minds even if it was technically legal because that wasn't how the unit was supposed to operate. Since you do not know what the designer was thinking you could not know what they intended.

 tauist wrote:
I have long theorized that games such as 40K attract an unhealthy amount of people who are Autistic, have OCD issues, or both. Would explain the endless bickering about RAI vs RAW and so on.. Its not just "playing" the game wrong, these sort of people think everything in life should be how they want. Everything else is stressful/tiring/confusing to them, and can upset them.

I wouldn't suggest considering a second career as a psychologist. RAW vs. RAI has nothing to do with your condescending nonsense about autism/OCD/etc, it's an inevitable consequence of an adversarial game where the publisher is too cheap to hire a technical writer to ensure that the rules are clear and functional without any need for interpretation. You will always have arguments when there are three different interpretations of how a rule works, everyone has their own theory about what the author meant it to be, and players have a personal stake in getting everyone to agree on the interpretation that benefits them most.

(And let's not forget that many of these RAW vs. RAI arguments are the result of a tiny minority of trolls deliberately arguing absurd positions to provoke people into getting angry about it. Most of the time "JFC YOU'RE AN IDIOT" isn't about someone's fragile mental health being unable to cope with a point of view outside their own preferences, it's that the person they're yelling at is being a complete donkey-cave and deserves every bit of it.)

This reminds me that there was a period around 4th ed 40k when GW's designers would answer some FAQ questions with "common sense" instead of doing their job and providing a clear answer to settle the matter once and for all. That's GW's fabled "we hire for attitude, not skill" culture making matters worse. GW being cheap is only part of the issue. The best technical writer will only get so far if the prevailing attitude in the studio favors blaming the customers for the designers' inadequacies and refusing to rectify their mistakes.

 Geifer wrote:
This reminds me that there was a period around 4th ed 40k when GW's designers would answer some FAQ questions with "common sense" instead of doing their job and providing a clear answer to settle the matter once and for all.

Could be worse. Could be them using fluff to answer a rules question like answering "Being angry can't make a jump pack fly faster!" when asked if Blood Rage would increase the movement of a model with Daemonic Flight, Daemonic Flight representing everything from Jump Packs to wings, which I imagine could beat faster depending on the mood of the person who owns them.

I will never forget that FAQ answer...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Could be worse. Could be them using fluff to answer a rules question like answering "Being angry can't make a jump pack fly faster!" when asked if Blood Rage would increase the movement of a model with Daemonic Flight, Daemonic Flight representing everything from Jump Packs to wings, which I imagine could beat faster depending on the mood of the person who owns them.

I will never forget that FAQ answer...

I'm sure it annoyed some folks, but I would love to see more fluff answers like that from companies, especially if it's paired with a clear answer to a rules question.

As for "use common sense" that actually goes a long way in games that are not tournament focused and bogged down in layers of rules. With 40k being both of those things however, there really is no choice but to make straght-forward rulings and lots of them because neither the setting, the rules, nor approach of the hardest core fans to the game are overly burdened by "common sense".

Well, I can only speak for myself. There are two things that really get my goat when it comes to this topic.

1. When people tell me I am playing the games I designed wrong. Thankfully, I only design games for myself, because I have no idea what other people find fun.... like.... at all. I only know what I find fun.

2. People telling me that a game must be "balanced, competitive, etc" because that always makes the game better! I have seen this NOT be true many, many times.

Now, I don't expect many people here to agree with any of this. That's cool. I have been told that my views make me an elitist. Sure, I guess.

No need to convince me that your point of view is right, go do your thing and have fun the way you like. I have no idea what you find fun, and I will not try to stop you from having fun doing it. I would prefer you are out there having fun with wargaming, than not having fun with wargaming. We can co-exist and the world will continue to spin just fine. Thanks.

I'm not going to get into the weeds of diagnosable conditions, but I think that in terms of personality types, the "rules lawyer" and the "scold" tend to share the same archetypes: high conscientiousness, low agreeableness, and low openness. This leads to suspicion and mistrust of others and valuing order rules over anything else. It's not the typical role of the troll, but rather the person ranting about how a slight change to a cartoon "ruined his childhood."

 Eilif wrote:
I'm sure it annoyed some folks, but I would love to see more fluff answers like that from companies, especially if it's paired with a clear answer to a rules question.

The problem is that any answer that includes fluff is inherently unclear. To go back to the jetpack example HMBC mentioned, an answer of "no, being angry can't make a jump pack fly faster" does include a clear "no" answer but then it muddies the waters by adding on the fluff justification. Maybe that doesn't cause a problem for that one specific ruling but then it raises questions about other situations. Is it mean to be a ruling that any effect that is themed as "anger" can't increase movement speed? Is there something specific about flying movement vs. other movement? Why is the answer to the original question "no", and what consequences does it have in pure mechanics terms that XYZ rule description leads to a conclusion of "no movement speed increase"? If having a fluff description related to anger is relevant then which fluff sources should be considered? The effect name? The nearest fluff text in the codex? Some obscure novel from 1995 that happened to describe a thing as being driven by anger?

And that's how you get rule arguments between perfectly normal people. One simple sentence, question after question about how it should be interpreted and no clear answer that everyone can agree on.

As for "use common sense" that actually goes a long way in games that are not tournament focused and bogged down in layers of rules. With 40k being both of those things however, there really is no choice but to make straght-forward rulings and lots of them because neither the setting, the rules, nor approach of the hardest core fans to the game are overly burdened by "common sense".

There's a reason "common sense is not common" is a phrase. Appealing to "common sense" should never be done in a rules context because everyone has different ideas about what interpretation is "common sense". One player could argue that it's "common sense" that you apply the interpretation that best aligns with the background fiction, another player could equally reasonably argue that it's "common sense" that you play by the written text of the rule even if you don't like the consequences of it. A good technical writer will understand this and write rules that do not require interpretation and give a clear and explicit answer to every question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm not going to get into the weeds of diagnosable conditions, but I think that in terms of personality types, the "rules lawyer" and the "scold" tend to share the same archetypes: high conscientiousness, low agreeableness, and low openness. This leads to suspicion and mistrust of others and valuing order rules over anything else. It's not the typical role of the troll, but rather the person ranting about how a slight change to a cartoon "ruined his childhood."

I don't know, given the number of times I've seen people arguing for completely nonsensical and non-functional rules interpretations like "if this unit attempts to shoot the rules can not handle it and the game can not continue", interpretations that nobody could ever play by in the real world, I'm pretty sure most of the RAW trolls are doing it purely to provoke a fight.

FWIW, angry people tend to drive faster.

 JNAProductions wrote:
. (Usually 40k.)

That's it in a nutshell. I've been knocking around a while now and no other system, certainly outside of the GW range, breeds such fractious and divisive ongoing discourse.

Sure, you can probably point to examples in other systems, but they tend to stand out as exceptions, as opposed to systemic and essentially institutional problems.

As others have said, it's in large part down to wooly rules writing providing an environment for competing and, not unusually, equally valid viewpoints. This then leads a discussion away from the facts towards nebulous ideas such as "fair play" or "sportsmanship" and non-rules based (ie Lore based) arguments.

There's also another factor which is an inconsistency in the editorial voice around the game over the years. It seems to have gone away with the current generation of staff, but "beardy" was a term that rang through the columns of White Dwarf every bit as much as it did the tables of hobby stores, JJ and Nigel Stillman both penning notable articles about what is fundamentally the idea that a player has responsibility not to abuse the rules, and those that play legally but (here it comes) the wrong way, are figures to be ridiculed for trying too hard to win, for simply having a different opinion on how to the play the game, even when that opinion doesn't contravene anything in black and white.

Fast forward 20 years or so, and the ongoing messaging now seems to be that 40K is a game that's worthy of tournament play. The implications being that players are free to push for the win as hard as possible, because the game's ruleset is strong enough to keep any excesses in check and ensure a balanced environment for everyone to stand a chance. There's no "beardy" anymore, because "beardy" has been coded out of the program.

Is it any wonder that given all the ambiguity surrounding the game, as well as that in the game itself, breeds different attitudes and opinions? It's then inevitable that when those differing ideas and opinions are brought together then conflict will occur.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I've been knocking around a while now and no other system, certainly outside of the GW range, breeds such fractious and divisive ongoing discourse.

The one game I've seen that comes close is "casual" MTG, especially EDH games. And the roots of it seem to be the same things: a fundamentally unbalanced game paired with layers of unwritten rules about how the game "is meant to be played" that are different for every player. So you have people building their "fun" decks, decks which have no hope of winning against an optimized competitive deck, and then creating a culture of public shaming against anyone who tries "too hard" to win in a desperate attempt to protect the very specific play style they want to use. The main difference I see is that most of the "casual" MTG players seem to splinter off into their private cliques (which eventually die because no new players are coming in to replace the people who leave) and rage about "WAAC" players in person, while the CAAC 40k players have a much more vocal online presence and stick around even when they've shunned everyone in their local area and have nobody left to play with.

Warhammer 40K drives conflict online because the most people play it and feel a strong opinion about it in the wargaming community.

When you go outside wargaming, you see that the most popular games always drive the most discussion, such as World of Warships, D&D, MtG, etc.

Number of players = more people with strong opinions about it

Opinions are fine, 40K and GW have a history of making things so wooly people have their own facts.

Rules questions on other forums and groups for other games go
"Is this how this works?"

Then the answer is
"Yes" or "No, and here's why."

By and large that's the end of the discussion.

Just on the first page of YMDC here, several threads have over 40 responses and 6 threads have been locked.

There's a distinction between strong opinions on the game and strong opinions on how it's even supposed to work.

I can easily have long discussions on the relative merits of a given unit in other games, and I can have those discussions with people who feel differently for reasons as valid as those I have for my opinions, but not once in those discussions do we have to establish whether we agree on how those units work

 Azreal13 wrote:
Opinions are fine, 40K and GW have a history of making things so wooly people have their own facts.

Rules questions on other forums and groups for other games go
"Is this how this works?"

Then the answer is
"Yes" or "No, and here's why."

By and large that's the end of the discussion.

Just on the first page of YMDC here, several threads have over 40 responses and 6 threads have been locked.

There's definitely more heated discussion around 40k than most other games I play. That's often down to other games having much tighter rules so even if a rule seems like it's not working as intended, it is at least clear. Those other games also usually FAQ or errata things relatively quickly (and know the difference between a FAQ and errata). They often also have designer commentaries that are worth a damn, which can help aid understanding.

That said, I wouldn't use YMDC as evidence of anything. The majority of rules issues brought up there are things that I've literally never seen come up in real life. At the moment there are 1 or 2 people on that board who seem to delight in coming up with certain "interpretations" of rules, and then fail to listen to any reason afterwards, which results in lengthy threads with no resolution. I'd wager the vast majority of those 40+ response threads involved 1 specific user who seems particularly bad with this behaviour.