So I thought maybe I should explain something. No, it's not why I've been gone. When I write this blog I try to stay as far away from using examples or analogies as possible. So, today I'm going to explain why. This isn't exactly advice for arguing with someone, instead it's advice on how to be better understood at the gaming table, because every time you're misunderstood is a tiny, tiny weight hung onto your game. Too many, and it might sink. This is also advice on how to properly understand a rule book, because most of them have some small element of poor design in them, and the overuse of examples is a very common one.
An example is a powerful tool, though. That's why so many rulebooks use them. There are times(particularly with complex systems) that an example of real play can hit home how a system is supposed to work. That's the idea, anyway. You can tell I don't agree. Anecdotal evidence SUCKS, but most of the time when I encounter someone who's confused over the rules, it's because of the following reasons:
1. The book's wording is complex, obtuse or misleading.
2. The rules were explained poorly by another individual.
3. They read the example first, or ONLY read the example, or the example made them second guess their understanding of the rules.
So yeah, that third one's a pretty specific event, huh? I see it all the time. In fact, number two can be a culprit of 'examples' too, more on that later. Honestly, the only one we can't really do anything about is the first. So how SHOULD you read a rule book? I want to tell you to utterly ignore any play examples unless you're extremely confused AND tried to reread the rule AND there's nobody handy who knows the system better than you. Actually? I'm gonna suggest that. No 'but' this time. The example isn't the rule, it's meant to illustrate the rule, and if it's wrong? You can't in good conscience use the example as ANYTHING. It's NOT the rule, it's NOT a clarification, and it's certainly not a reason on its own to argue interpretation of an otherwise clear rule. It's just there to try and explain the rule and if you already understand it...you don't need it.
The other problem is using examples to explain something. It's a neat little shorthand, but shorthand can be deadly to someone who doesn't already understand something. You're most likely to use these tactics in a new player situation where you don't really know where their understanding lies, and that's(ironically) the least helpful time. What I see happen often is that you either oversimplify the rule with the example and the other person misses some of the subtlety and trips up later, or that you find a great example only because YOU'RE wrong about the rules. Obviously that's a little bad, but it's compelling when you think of a great example. It's like coming up with a great joke: You REALLY want to tell it, even if it's not exactly right.
Try to resist. I should also parrot some awesome advice I heard from Spoony here too: When someone's confused, don't just answer their question, try to find out why they're confused and solve it. "What do I roll?" shouldn't necessarily be met with "D8.". Saying "You hit, so you're rolling damage, it's right here. Longswords are D8 damage plus your strength." is a hell of a lot better.
A special shoutout goes to using examples or analogies in discussions or arguments. I think most people know I can't stand this. If you want to convey your opinion, it's not exactly in your best interests to simplify it unless you think the other person is stupid. ALSO, you shouldn't talk as though you think other people are stupid. I learned that from the classic game Go, which I have no idea how to play. Overuse of examples or analogies proves you don't really have much to say; it's very easy to fill talking time with them because all you're doing is rewording your argument. If you're having a rules discussion, this habit can lead to a lot more confusion than clarity, because people bring 'baggage' along with an example due to associations. If you tell me a system is exactly like grappling in Dungeons and Dragons, I may start to believe you mean to say it's poorly balanced and confusing, when all you meant was you have to roll hit to touch and then initiate a contested check.
So, yeah. What did we learn? Examples are shorthand, and shorthand is terrible for learning, and pretty bad for trying to explain yourself.
Really, I'm just upset that I couldn't get through the examples post without using one. I guess there's a time and place, right?
...Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment