Why are D&D discussions so angry?

EricNoah · Jun 7, 2006

The 4E subject may be touchy for two reasons:

1) Some of us 3E folks were probably just like the 4E folks back in the day of 2E. This role-reversal is uncomfortable for those who don't have much intention (at least now) of following D&D to its 4th edition. The irony that I probably will be a 3E grognard and that someone else will be the "4th Edition News" guy while I stubbornly stay put is not lost on me.

2) A perceived fracturing of the community. It is inevitable. Once that 4th ed appears ... there will be those of us who stay and those who go. It's not even clear where this website will choose to go -- will it try to "have it all" and cater to both editions? Will the mods again have to quash edition wars to keep the peace? Few people are looking forward to that day.

The 4E-related emotion is not about the game and its rules per se. It's about this community, and about inaccurately ascribed motivations (as I discussed before -- i.e., if you like to speculate on 4E ,you must hate 3E right? And if I like 3E, then you must hate me, right? and on and on...)

DaveMage · Jun 7, 2006

hong said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/348932.stm

Mark Chance · Jun 7, 2006

big dummy said:
Why is it that any time any discussion about D&D comes up which could even remotely somehow be construed as some kind of criticism of D&D as-is, a select few of the forum regulars swoop down with such venomous, vicious spiteful attacks to shut it down?

I'm never angry when discussing D&D! If you say I am again, I'll make an ashtray out of your skull!

Henry · Jun 7, 2006

EricNoah said:
The 4E subject may be touchy for two reasons:

1) Some of us 3E folks were probably just like the 1E folks back in the day of 2E. This role-reversal is uncomfortable for those who don't have much intention (at least now) of following D&D to its 4th edition...

2) A perceived fracturing of the community...

Another reason: A lot of people have heavily invested in material for 3E, both WotC and 3rd party publishers; rightly or wrongly, they don't want a radically different system that is so far off that their previous material is largely invalid, much as what happened in 2e/3e. This kind of feeds back into point #2, but it's a large enough chunk of people to be a separate point, I feel.

As for generalizations on the community and tone of ENWorld -- anyone remember the old tale about the blind men and the elephant?

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
--John Godfrey Saxe

Point: No one has a complete vision of the entire community -- some of us get the tusks, and others get the other end.

big dummy · Jun 7, 2006

Hussar said:
There, I quoted it a second time and even bolded the bit. BD, did you not state this?

You don't seem to grasp, or did not read, my previous response to this.

1) I did not invent the "babies" allegory, it was a responded to it in kind. It was initated in a preceeding post. Go back and read it.
2) I was not advocating any particular strategy or way of doing things, only speaking of the idea of any kind of reform in general.

Think about these two concepts for a few minutes before you post again Hussar.

bD

big dummy · Jun 7, 2006

The_Gneech said:
Dude. Seriously. The baby allegory was the kind of thing that was very clearly implied by your vaccines post. Being disingenuous about "who made the comment" will not get you off the hook.

-The Gneech

Read the thread. The vaccines post FOLLOWED somebody else saying that the idea of reform was like walking into a baby ward in a hospital and saying they were all ugly. I responded with the flipside, walking into a baby ward and discussing a polio vaccine or disposable diapers.

We were talking about reform, about whether positive change can ever happen. I submit to you that that is inevitable. I'm sorry if it offends you that I say it so definitivley, but it's a fact.

BD

big dummy · Jun 7, 2006

EricNoah said:
The 4E subject may be touchy for two reasons:

1) Some of us 3E folks were probably just like the 4E folks back in the day of 2E. This role-reversal is uncomfortable for those who don't have much intention (at least now) of following D&D to its 4th edition. The irony that I probably will be a 3E grognard and that someone else will be the "4th Edition News" guy while I stubbornly stay put is not lost on me.

2) A perceived fracturing of the community. It is inevitable. Once that 4th ed appears ... there will be those of us who stay and those who go. It's not even clear where this website will choose to go -- will it try to "have it all" and cater to both editions? Will the mods again have to quash edition wars to keep the peace? Few people are looking forward to that day.

The 4E-related emotion is not about the game and its rules per se. It's about this community, and about inaccurately ascribed motivations (as I discussed before -- i.e., if you like to speculate on 4E ,you must hate 3E right? And if I like 3E, then you must hate me, right? and on and on...)

I can understand this.... but you realise that to a lot of folks the netresult of this comes across more than a little crazy?

BD

Raven Crowking · Jun 7, 2006

big dummy said:
Why is it that any time any discussion about D&D comes up which could even remotely somehow be construed as some kind of criticism of D&D as-is, a select few of the forum regulars swoop down with such venomous, vicious spiteful attacks to shut it down?

While there are many insightful comments about why people get riled up on these threads, I think your question actually nailed it. A select few make such attacks to shut down the thread.

It is my understanding from The Rules that personal attacks affect the status of the person making those attacks. That someone can, because they dislike a topic, jump in, flame someone else, and by so doing shut the thread down is not only bad policy, but it is abhorrent to the notion of free exchange of ideas. Yet this has happened repeatedly due to the same small minority who actively seek out these threads, heap scorn, and then see them closed.

This encourages people to be insulting on threads they don't like. I mean, what is being taught here is that if I don't like people to discuss Ptolus, I should seek out Ptolus threads and insult people. Close them down.

Just my $.02, and IMHO, of course.

RC

Piratecat · Jun 7, 2006

big dummy said:
Think about these two concepts for a few minutes before you post again Hussar.

This is a good example. Posting this kind of statement is guaranteed to cause a fight. It comes across as condescending and high-handed. A better technique might be to just drop the whole baby-analogy thing even if you know that you're right, or to defend your opinion calmly and dismissively. The minute someone tells someone else what to do or what they "must" think, problems start.

When people state things as their own opinion, things are generally fine. When they state them as unalloyed and universal truths, it's common for people to disagree.

Delta · Jun 7, 2006

el-remmen said:
Thank you Delta for giving us a perfect example of the kind of thing that is posted in humor but that can totally be taken as snark and irritate someone and lead to the derailment of a thread.

If that wasn't supposed to be a joke then consider this a warning.

If that was supposed to be a joke still consider this a warning.

See folks intention does mean much when you know what the result is likely to be. . .