Why are D&D discussions so angry?

Fair 'nuff. I disagree with it being a "debate within a debate" though as referenced by Odhanan though. How people post gets to the heart of the issue. I mentioned earlier that there were numerous 4e threads lately that have seen little or no vitriol.

/edit - sorry nothing to see here

Nyaricus said:

..snip...
You need to take a step back from your keyboard. You are painting EN World one colour, withot letting some of the quieter, less *ahem* "hostile" regulars help show EN Worlds true colours. And indeed, there are many in this rainbow. But man, just because your one thread closed down does not give you the right to call out us and give us the impression the regulars here, or a select few therein are a bunch of stalking predators waiting to swoop down on the little guy with the little postcount. We really, in all honestly, are not truely like that, and I can only hope that somewhere, you realise this adn can become a part of the community, rather than picking a fight with us.

Click to expand...

Working my way through some coffee and this thread. After my last post, with attention to the fact that tone does not carry over the internet, I want to agree with what Nyaricus said about ENWorld being by and large a place where you can have discussions about "fixing" D&D without fear of rudeness. Although far from a regular by many measures, I've been invovled a bit more than my crash decimated post count lets on and in several threads that might be considered "fixing" discussions with no problems or rudeness. Heck, it's why I tend to come here for D&D related stuff even though I don't run 3.x edition.

big dummy said:

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.

Click to expand...

By adopting the argument and using it, you made it your own. Whether you started the analogy or not is beside the point: you analogized your contributions here to being a forward thinking smart guy who is just trying to save innocent babies, while tarring everyone else as ignorant luddites irrationally opposing your benevolence.

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.

Click to expand...

Sure positive change can happen. However, many people disagree as to what a positive change is. Some people want low magic some want more magic, others want more base classes, others want fewer. Some pople hate prestige classes, some people love them. Which change is "positive"? Who is the arbiter of such an evaluation?

And more to the point, if there are already other games systems on the market that do many of these things (providing effective rules to support a low-magic setting, for example), why is it a bad thing to direct those interested in that type of game to those systems? How silly would this be:

Player 1: Chess is poorly designed because it doesn't take into account real estate management. I think we should redesign the game so people buy and sell property and charge rents.

Player 2: How about you try playing Monopoly instead of chess? It deals with real estate stuff already.

Player 1: You are a big meanie! You shouldn't crush my dreams of changing the rules of chess to incorporate real estate deals!

Because I don't see a lot of difference between this and telling people who are dissatisfied with elements of D&D that there are other games that already do the things they want to make D&D do,

As to the idea that people sweep down on those who suggest change, I would say that it's simply not accurate. There are two threads right now talking about how easy it is to change advancement rates and how much resistance is there to RAW changes. Neither sees the slightest in snark or vitriol. Granted, they aren't really talking about actually making changes, but rather testing the water to see whether such ideas are actively resisted or not, but, since both are seeing pretty strong support, the notion that EN World is somehow opposed to change is not accurate IMO.

En World is one of the best places to come for discussing the game without getting bogged down in ridiculous flame wars.

Storm Raven said:

Player 1: Chess is poorly designed because it doesn't take into account real estate management. I think we should redesign the game so people buy and sell property and charge rents.

Player 2: How about you try playing Monopoly instead of chess? It deals with real estate stuff already.

Player 1: You are a big meanie! You shouldn't crush my dreams of changing the rules of chess to incorporate real estate deals!

Click to expand...

If that was the sum total of the interaction, you would be right. Comically so, actually.

However, the way I view it is more like this:

Player 1: They came out with this new edition of chess that doesn't have rooks. I like the rest of the changes, but I really think rooks are essential to how I see chess. Can we make use of the good changes, and incorporate rooks? Do you think maybe we could get rooks included in any new edition.

Player 2: Chess is what it is. If you don't like it, don't play.

Player 3: You could use your rook as a playing piece in Monopoly....

Player 4: Rooks aren't really important in chess, at least not IMHO. You could play chess the old way, though. It still has rooks, and is just as valid.

Player 1: But I like most of the other changes.

Player 2: Why do you keep on about this? Chess is what it is.

Player 3: I'm not sure anyone actually used their rooks anyway.

Player 4: You could add the rules you like to the older edition.

Player 1: Why can't I just re-add rooks to the new edition?

etc.

The problem is that people just want different things out of their cliches. I want to use cliches involving foodstuffs. You want to use cliches involving mental pursuits. Both metaphors are fine on their own, but not when you mix them up. Then I get mental pursuits in my foodstuffs and you get foodstuffs in your mental pursuits. D&D is like a mixed metaphor right now, with foodstuffs in mental pursuits and mental pursuits in foodstuffs.

big dummy said:

I've been coming here on and off for about 7 years. Used to be a supporter. I lost my account passwords and stuff after Katrina, and then again after the recent system crash.

Click to expand...

7 years? Oh, yeah. It's 2006, so I guess it's coming up on 7 years for me, too, given that Eric started his 3e site in 99. Oddly, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I don't remember you. Have you kept the same screen name?

big dummy said:

Ok so can you remember some fairly recent threads on reforming D&D in any way that did not get really nasty and / or derailed?

Click to expand...

It's always easier to remember the ones that get one's goat, so no, I can't cite specific examples. But I know such threads exist. You're exaggerating.

Raven Crowking said:

Player 1: They came out with this new edition of chess that doesn't have rooks. I like the rest of the changes, but I really think rooks are essential to how I see chess. Can we make use of the good changes, and incorporate rooks? Do you think maybe we could get rooks included in any new edition.

Player 2: Chess is what it is. If you don't like it, don't play.

Player 3: You could use your rook as a playing piece in Monopoly....

Player 4: Rooks aren't really important in chess, at least not IMHO. You could play chess the old way, though. It still has rooks, and is just as valid.

Player 1: But I like most of the other changes.

Player 2: Why do you keep on about this? Chess is what it is.

Player 3: I'm not sure anyone actually used their rooks anyway.

Player 4: You could add the rules you like to the older edition.

Player 1: Why can't I just re-add rooks to the new edition?

Click to expand...

And most of the time, minor changes like the existence or nonexistence of rooks are met with a big "sure, if that's what you want". But that's not what we are talking about here. The suggestion raised is specifically how to "reform" D&D, a major overhaul. I'm saying that once you get to the point where you are making wholesale changes that require dozens or more pages of revisions, you've moved beyond the "minor changes" stage into the "maybe another game better suits your desires" stage.

So far as I can tell, most people who want to make massive changes to D&D to get some sort of different feel would be better off playing a different game, a game more suited to what they are looking for. But suggesting that usually draws angry responses along the lines of "don't tell me what to play". Which is unfortunate, because most people who want a low-magic (or rules light, or superhero, or space opera) game would probably actually be happier playing one of the many low magic (or rules light, superhero, or space opera) games that are out there. If you want to try flying, it is easier to use an airplane than to try to put wings on a bus.

ColonelHardisson said:

It's always easier to remember the ones that get one's goat, so no, I can't cite specific examples. But I know such threads exist. You're exaggerating.

Click to expand...

I can't remember one, but I only started with the lurking a few years ago...and that wasn't a whole lot of lurking at the time.

It's sort of like the threads Hussar points out, to me. If you say "Do you change the RAW at your table?" no one gets all that heated. If you say, "Should the RAW change?" tempers flare.

Of course, it is also true that something might seem funny to you when you're typing it, and not seem funny to people who are reading it, even if you use emoticons.

Piratecat said:

Making millions from his DM-for-pay Ponzi schemes!

Actually, I'm in loose touch with Bugaboo, who I really like; we trade emails about once a year.

Click to expand...

Really? Bugaboo trolled me mercilessly once upon a time, when I was new to the internet and didn't have the acumen to let his nonsense roll like water off a duck's back. I also swear I remember him having a flame-out (here or at an earlier incarnation of Nutkinland), ironically enough, where he petulantly related how he just couldn't take all the meanies who couldn't take a joke. May have been another of his trolls, but it seemed genuine at the time, and I haven't seen him back since.