"Discussion killers" Topic

Two comments seem to appear in almost every TMP rules or scenario thread:

"Your game / your table, your rules. If you don't mind it, nobody else should."
" 'I disapprove of how you are playing with toy soldiers.' Stop telling me that!"

Both statements are, in themselves, true. No one is obliged to play a certain way, and fun is subjective.
But I wonder if they've also become conversation-stoppers rather than contributions.

If taken to their logical conclusion,however, they can effectively end any discussion of rules mechanisms, historical plausibility, balance, or design intent. Any criticism—constructive or otherwise—can be dismissed with a slogan rather than engaged with.

Posting on a discussion forum surely implies at least some willingness to hear alternative views, comparisons, or suggested improvements—even if one ultimately ignores them at the table or opposes them in the thread.

So where do people here draw the line between:
– the unhelpful: "You're having fun wrong" commentary, and
– Legitimate discussion of whether a rule or scenario does what it claims to do?

I would say that everything I write is merely meant as personal opinion & I think that is true for all posts on TMP?

I'm interested in how others see this.

NB apart from in the political threads, I find TMPers to be a delight- helpful, kind & pleasant.

You're essentially looking at the philosophical question 'can there ever be a right answer' to which virtually all non-religious philosophers answer no and all religious philosophers answer yes [well they should, but who knows..]. When it comes to wargaming there are of course some who apply the religious principle and some who don't.

In my opinion you can express any opinion you like because it's a discussion board so I'll discuss anything. You don't know where I live so you can't threaten me, so why not. Will you change my mind; that depends on the strength of your argument. I'd like to think that largely depends on evidence and/or logic; but I know enough abut psychology to know my subconscious is having it's say and anyway David Hume showed logically that logic isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Clearly there are people on this board who struggle with admitting to being 'wrong', but that's their problem, not mine.

I would not have regarded either answer as such, though I'll grant you there's not a good follow-up to the first. "Your table. your rules" is more or less an expression of good wishes. "You're having fun the wrong way" almost always includes some intimation of that the poster regards the right way to be and why. Surely that's the point of a conversation?

Or am I missing something? Wouldn't be the first time.

Sometimes the guys make a comment or two about rules (usually when they don't go in their favour) but otherwise the conversation is both polite and entertaining – especially the polite but witty trash talk

Who is the governing authority to police us to play by the right rules?

Personally, I keep my mouth shut and don't bitch about the game while I'm playing, even if I'm not enjoying it.

I've always found it amusing when two players, neither with the pertinent military experience or knowledge, attempt to convince each other that their rules are better and more realistic than yours.

Wolfhag

I may not have been clear.

I'm not arguing that either phrase is wrong or illegitimate. I'm asking whether, in practice, they sometimes function as a rhetorical full stop rather than a starting point—particularly in rules discussions where the original poster has invited comment.

"Your table, your rules" can be a friendly sentiment, but when offered as the entirety of a reply, it doesn't really engage with the substance of the question being asked.

That's really all I was getting at.

Ah. Quite right in that sense. By itself, neither advances a discussion. I tend to regard the first at least as moral support and let it go at that. After all, while all threads do, as you say, "invite comment" not all original posters are equally thrilled by negative comment. And not all persons commenting feel they have anything positive and original to add.

Seldom my problem, I'll grant you.

I suppose the real point isn't whether there is a right answer, but that discussion itself has value. David Hume* argued that certainty is elusive and that our beliefs are grounded in experience rather than proof.

Forums give us a place to compare those experiences, test our assumptions, and sometimes rethink them. Agreement is optional; engagement is not.

.* NB bring up the Scottish Enlightenment to a 'Thistle-basher' at your peril!

I recently said ‘your house, your rules' to a question of whether or not it is ok to use proxies in your own game on your own table. Honestly, I don't consider that a discussion stopper or trite answer. I meant it. If you come to my table and complain about me using proxies, I will politely tell you that your opinion is worth f'all and you can go play elsewhere. If you then persist, I will tell you to leave. If I go play at someone's table and complain about them using proxies, then I am a real douche and wouldn't expect to be invited again. That is really how I feel.

You can feel free to disagree with me here and discuss it further. I try to be open minded and could be convinced of the error of my ways if you have a good argument. It is just my opinion and worth exactly what you or I paid for it, which is nothing.

Tgerritson +1

This thread wasn't meant as a conversation stopper, nor as a licence for rudeness — just an acknowledgement of a basic social reality that already operates in most hobbies. If I'm a guest at someone's table, I adapt; if I'm hosting, I set expectations. That doesn't preclude discussion about why certain expectations exist or whether they're helpful. You write your opinion is worth nothing. I would vehemently disagree. You have a wealth of hobby experience and knowledge and, clearly, strong feelings about them. Such qualities are invaluable in any hobby-related discussion you care to take part in.

David Hume made the point that social conventions work not because they're objectively "right", but because they're mutually recognised and useful. In that sense, table rules — proxies included — are conventions, not moral laws. They function best when understood, not enforced with indignation, or rudeness, on either side. You use the word "complain". I'm fairly certain I used the word "discuss". I would love you to point out any approximation of a judgemental "error of my ways" used in that discussion.

So by all means, let's discuss proxies, aesthetics, immersion, standards or any hobby-related topic— that would be the point of *this* thread. And actually, the point of this forum.

Your house, your rules. I'm a guest and will behave like one, or not get invited again.

Immersion: The more realistic the terrain and figures, the better. However, I have a hard time immersing myself in IGYG-type games as the action just does not happen that way.

Standards? Who sets them? I'd expect the players themselves do. They'll compare setups and register to play the ones that meet their standards. That's been my observation. They judge mainly by the visuals, not the rules used.

Proxies? If they are close and painted. Not everyone has the money to buy everything.

Wolfhag

Didn't mean to be rude, just honest. Happy to discuss anything, really. Just pointing out that I disagreed with your original premise.

I thought this was going to be a Montgomery vs Paton thread…

"Your house, your rules."

Not a big fan of that and thankfully that is not the practice among our gaming group. We try to come to a consensus. Fortunately we are all adults and have had no major problems in a number of years. Most of those who had such problems have long since left the group.