Why are D&D discussions so angry?

ColonelHardisson · Jun 7, 2006

Raven Crowking said:
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.

Yeah, but really, there are tons of them. No, I can't quantify that statement, but come on...every such thread results in a flamewar? I wouldn't have stuck with EN World as long as I did if thatw as true. It's just the threads that result in a flamewar that are negatively memorable.

Thornir Alekeg · Jun 7, 2006

Coming back to the original question, this particular forum is all about D&D. The people who come here generally like the game. If they didn't they probably wouldn't hang out here.

I have seen discussions about changing the game, some of them can be long and thoughtful. There may well be people who come in and attack people who post, the original person or others. But why do those people need to be attacked back? That's where the problems come.

I'm not perfect when it comes to this, but usually after making one or two less than constructive comments, I realize the way the thread may go if I continue that way and either try and refocus my own thoughts, or stop posting altogether.

In the end each of us is responsible for our own behavior. If you don't want a thread to degenerate into flames, don't respond aggressively to attacks. If an arguement starts, kindly ask people to keep things on track and constructive. If others are doing it on the side while good discussion continues, report it and when you do request to the mods to let the thread live but maybe edit flame posts and advise people to keep on track.

And if your post is misinterpreted by others because what you wrote wasn't clear (or maybe even incorrect), don't be afraid to apologize and clarify. I've done that a few times, it really confuses people.

Raven Crowking · Jun 7, 2006

Storm Raven said:
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.

But for a lot of people, taking rooks out of chess is a major overhaul. And that some of this is changing chess to a game without rooks, then complaining that adding rooks back in, is sort of the point I was trying to make.

Each edition has been a major overhaul of the game (although what constitutes a major overhaul has changed with time). Moving from the blue box to AD&D seemed like a big change. Changing from 1st Ed to 2nd Ed seemed like a big change. The change from 2nd Ed to 3rd was an even bigger change. It follows that the change from 3rd to 4th will be palpable, if not as great as that from 2nd to 3rd.

As far as low magic goes, any edition can handle a low magic campaign. It was just easier in earlier editions because there was no mythical dime's-edge that the game balanced on. For some of us who enjoy low-magic games, it's like going to the airport and discovering they only do flights to half the destinations they did a year ago.

And, yes, it might be that there will never be official flights to service those destinations, but that doesn't mean that people cannot or should not say that they want to fly to Virginia.

EDIT: Of course, it does sometimes seem as though folks are worried that flights to Virginia mean a cut to flights to Los Angeles, or that the extended service means that their fares will go up. :lol:

FireLance · Jun 7, 2006

Raven Crowking said:
As far as low magic goes, any edition can handle a low magic campaign. It was just easier in earlier editions because there was no mythical dime's-edge that the game balanced on.

I have a slightly different perspective: it seemed easier in earlier editions because each DM had his own way of balancing (or not balancing) his game, and there was no objective standard to compare to. Now that there is a standard, some players may feel that they enjoy games that adhere to the standard more than games that do not. I don't think it's any more difficult to run a low-magic game in 3e than in any previous edition because the DM has to do the same eyeballing of inter-PC effectiveness and PC vs monster balance without reference to standard wealth levels or CR, just as he would have done in previous editions. However, low-magic games may no longer be as popular because players' tastes and expectations have changed.

Nightfall · Jun 7, 2006

*hands Ny a baby wipe* There you are and if you say one more thing bad about Scarred Lands I will open up your skull like Mark Chance suggested. Or at least semi-suggested.

*isn't angry and angsty* At least not right now. Friday I will be with an exam.

diaglo · Jun 7, 2006

ColonelHardisson said:
Yeah, but really, there are tons of them. No, I can't quantify that statement, but come on...every such thread results in a flamewar? I wouldn't have stuck with EN World as long as I did if thatw as true. It's just the threads that result in a flamewar that are negatively memorable.

i know of very few that don't end in flamewars.

heck, just simple questions here sometimes flame out.

like asking about pens. or paying your DM. or creating a halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf.

iwatt · Jun 7, 2006

diaglo said:
i know of very few that don't end in flamewars.

heck, just simple questions here sometimes flame out.

like asking about pens. or paying your DM. or creating a halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf.

Or about creating Level 100 epic character's

and it's:

creating a halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf ninja

Primitive Screwhead · Jun 7, 2006

Lots of good stuff in this thread, and..interestingly enough.. lots of examples of what to do and what *not* to do regarding maintaining a polite and productive discourse.

I failed my will save. I was going to simply avoid the rest of the subject.. after 3 pages of constructive advise on why threads degenerate into hostility, with an oft mentioned point of avoiding assumptions..comes this quote from the OP.

big dummy said:
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.

Check.... What is positive change to you may not be positive change to me. As a matter of fact, your positive change may be the one key element of the game that keeps me playing DnD instead of {insert RPG here}. Defining your opinion as fact, as you have in the quote above, leads to pointless debates.

Other point, being offended when {insert RPG here} is recommended when a poster submits a suggegtion for reform {reform being used here as major changes to the basic structure of the RAW}. Its like the following conversation:
1 - I want a game that does X and Y. I can change DnD to do this by altering F, G, H, I, and Z
2 - Y'know, game S handles that pretty well
...
How to respond? either
- politely with a 'I have checked that out and it doesn't fit' or 'Hey, cool I will look at that..but still want to see how my reform works out'

- or you can go the road of pointless debates and vitrolic nonsense.

Take the time to examine your perceptions and assumptions...

JustaPlayer · Jun 7, 2006

iwatt said:
Or about creating Level 100 epic character's

and it's:

creating a halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf ninja

Or is it simply creating a Level 100 halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf ninja?

ColonelHardisson · Jun 7, 2006

diaglo said:
i know of very few that don't end in flamewars.

I have to say I simply don't see it. Yeah, there are plenty of flamewars. Don't get me wrong, I see that. But most end in flamewars? I disagree. But I guess some see it differently. :shrug: (it's too bad the shrug smiley isn't here, by the way. Love that potato-looking thing).