Why are D&D discussions so angry?

Status
Not open for further replies.

big dummy

First Post
rounser said:
It's all relative, but I think techno production has RPGs beat in those terms. The interesting thing is that, like here perhaps, those who are actually using the tools the most - and being productive - are the quietest. It's exam season for me, so that's my excuse. ;)

Ok, youve convinced me. I'm going to stay the hell away from techno production forums!!!

BD ;)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

big dummy

First Post
ColonelHardisson said:
Unless you're using an alt and are a regular here, you really haven't been here long enough to know if the boards in general are that bad.

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.

It really depends on how one approaches a topic, as Piratecat 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? I was just involved in starting a thread which wasn't even really about D&D reform, so much as simply making an official setting or sourcebook in D&D for what I admitted up front was a minority (about 25% based on numerous polls) of people who prefer playing in Lower magic. I was told D&D can't be played lower magic, and both I and several regulars who took my position were repeatedly personally attacked and the thread was totally derailed into bogus side tracks and then closed.

I usually go months and months without posting here (such as between Katrina and my latest restart) but always check in to look for new developments. inevitably if I notice a D&D reform thread, no matter how tactfully broached, it ends up horribly vile and nasty. It doesn't seem to matter if it's one of those dumb "my hat of d02 knows no limits!11!!" type posts or a very reasonable discussion or poll brought up by some polite forum regular, it always ends up the same way with the same people shouting it down.

In fact when I posted my own little quasi-reform thread, I thought it wasn't going to be contraversial at all. At best unpopular with some people, I thought the rest of us who liked the idea would be able to discuss it and develop it a bit. We didn't get half a chance.

BD
 
Last edited:

Nonlethal Force

First Post
Piratecat said:
Speaking from the six years I've spent here, let me be the first to say that the way the initial question is posed has a huge impact on the tone of the discussion.

If the original poster appears to have an agenda or insults people's opinions when posing a question, I can almost guarantee that the thread will go south within half a page. The same question (even a negative one!) asked from a more neutral view does a lot better.

I think of EN World as a party at Morrus' house. I won't pick a fight with someone when we're both guests, so I won't pick a fight with other posters; I may disagree with someone, but that's as far as it goes. The rules of conduct in polite society still stand, so no matter what I may think of someone personally I can still share the space with them.

Some people, though, forget that they're a guest in someone else's house. They treat EN World as if everyone else is a guest in their house -- and that way lies madness.

iwatt said:
- Generalize
- Post an opinion in the form of a factual statement
- Add qualifiers to a segment of the ENWorld population like "venomous", "vicious", and describe their attitude as "swooping down", which is usually associated with birsd of prey.

Above two items are quoted for truth.

There is a general rule in a fight: the one who retaliates is more likely to get caught. Why? Because typically it takes a second to realize that the gauntlet has been thrown down by someone else.

I've found that in general when an angry post hits the board there is a post before it that evoked the angry post. Sometimes that chain goes all the way back to the OP and the way the subject was phrased.

In general, if you want a war - state your opinion in a manner that exalts your opinion and puts another opinion down. That brings a war quicker than anything else. But, if you want to have a profitable discussion state your opinion in a way that demonstrates you have your own ideas but are open to other interpretations.

People respect when their ideas are valued. I will respect a person that I totally disagree with yet who can respect our ability to disagree far more than a person who agrees with me but insults others.
 

Hairfoot

First Post
What often happens to me is that I'll state a preference, and others will perceive it as a claim that my way is the best and any other opinion is rubbish. So, I try to explain my position as clearly as possible, which often begets the ugliest of responses: my OP quoted and trashed line by line.

The anger is also because roleplaying everywhere is not equal. Some people have a wide experience of styles and games, others inhabit a monoculture with unchallenged axioms.

We make a big investment in the games we play. We spend money and time, manage relationships, make sacrifices, and through frustrating trial and error we all try to determine how to get the very best from RP games.

Given the investment, it rankles to hear someone suggest that they play very differently, and have a better time because of it. In those situations, the temptation is to shout the poster down so we don't have to hear them challenge our orthodoxy, rather than consider it on merit and face the task of shifting our group's paradigm in an an experiment which may prove fruitless.

For example, I've bought a heap of FR books over the years. I've familiarised myself with setting, the history, the locations. I've tinkered with it round the edges and negotiated consesus with my group about the way we like to portray Faerun.

Thus, when Eberron came out and people began lauding a novel, progressive setting, my first reaction was to shut my eyes and criticise Eberron-philes for their love of a shallow, kitschy setting. I didn't want to think that the campaign setting I'd poured so much energy into might have been superseded, forcing me to start at square 1 if I wanted to get the most out of D&D.

Over time, I've grown to like Eberron, played a short campaign there, but concluded that it doesn't suit the style of game I most enjoy. I'm happy with that.

Pre-crash I posted my "conversion" on the forum, expecting at least some open minded debate about the pros and cons of magicpunk vs high-fantasy opera. Instead, I was trashed from all sides. Eberron people were outraged that I hadn't embraced the setting and renounced FR forever, while Realmsers branded me a sell-out.

Despite my intentions, the thread brought us no closer to understanding the universal qualities of a "good" campaign. It just cemented resentment and knee-jerk opposition.

Ego, comfort, fear of the new. It's not so strange. The only difference is that on the internet we feel freer to be aggressive because we don't have to deal with each other face to face.
 

big dummy

First Post
iwatt said:
See, right here in your first sentence you've already included enough fuel to start a flame-war. I'm not trying to be rude, but in this one line you:

- Generalize
- Post an opinion in the form of a factual statement
- Add qualifiers to a segment of the ENWorld population like "venomous", "vicious", and describe their attitude as "swooping down", which is usually associated with birsd of prey.

Any one of these points will cause irritation on many board members. When you include all
.

And yet, a whole bunch of people seemed to imemdiately recognize that there is indeed a problem and knew exactly what I was talking about. Do you have to mince around and phrase everything like a lawyer? The way I stated that may have been blunt but everyone knows it's true. Can enworld "handle the truth?"

If it's a contraversial idea I'll qualify it, but really, there is a limit for the sake of bandwidth alone on how many qualifiers you can use, for one thing, and for another, I've seen too many threads where more experienced forum regulars made reform statements as gently as humanly possible and still got exactly the same reaction.

BD
 

big dummy

First Post
Andre said:
Of course, this is no different than the real world. How many times have you been in a meeting, trying to convince the powers that be, and the person no one likes speaks up...to support your idea. :eek: The kiss of death! :eek:

Seriously, there are a few individuals who have regularly crossed the line in being rude, intolerant, ignorant, whatever, that I tune out whatever they say. But I see this happening to too many posters who either don't belong to the right clique, or have a few die-hard haters who seem to enjoy raining on their parade. It gets old fast.

5. We're all opinionated jerks!!!! Ok, just kidding. (Really) But think about it: why post on a board unless you believe you have something important or original or thought-provoking or profound or funny or...to say. We're all a bit like authors, whom Asimov called the most egotistical people in the world because they actually expect people to pay to read what they have to say. I've dramatically reduced the amount I post just by reminding myself that most of what I have to say doesn't add much (if anything) to the conversation. I just wish a few others would follow that example... ;)

And in reference to point 5 above, I hope my post wasn't a complete waste of everyone's time... :)

Not at all, I think that was wisely written.

BD
 

JustaPlayer

First Post
Me? I think that if you ask questions of people, I don't know, such as should such and such a good idea. It's not a good idea to tell the first person who responds and says no then trys to point you in a direction it sound like you want to go, to just go take a swim.

Lets face it. That thread was pretty much doomed from post 3.
 

James Heard

Explorer
I participate in politics and religion forums. So I decided to write some of my general recommendations and reminders on how to particpate when people might rip out your throat for misstepping. It's an art:

1. Write the initial volley of your absolutely correct opinion in the most professionally neutral tone that you can muster. You may fail, expect to be called on it. Don't assume that people know what you're talking about, so include as much information as you can fit into the post without feeling like a blowhard.

2. When you disagree with someone, don't tell them that you disagree. Ask them why they hold such an opinion, then ask them to explain that opinion some more, and then again at least once. If you understand why people disagree with you, you're better equipped to tell them why they're wrong or at least cognizant of the concept that sometimes nothing you can say will change someone's mind. You also, in this stage, sometimes learn things that change you mind, because you can be wrong too. If you're wrong, tell everyone you're wrong. A willingness to be wrong is critical in everyone accepting that you're right all of the rest of the times your mouth opens.

3. Disassemble their opinions for logical inconsistency. Pool resources from well spoken allies. Use references to respected websites that support your position whenever possible. Do not use adjectives except very clearly in statements such as "In my opinion" or "As I see it". Use short sentences to promote a slightly aggressive tone.

4. Reply to escalating tone with respectful one. Admit credible points existing in the other poster's replies. Repeat dissassembly of opposing viewpoint's opinion. Introduce new knowledge that may or may not be related to the discussion at hand, but seems to. Repeat any opinions, this might be a good time to use underlining, bolding, or italics to show the other posters that you recognize your own opinion even if they don't validate your own. This is the time you break out definitions, reference material, and enterprising posters use math. Even if your math is wrong, people will respect you for trying to do math. Math is good.

5. Never whine, seem defensive, or say anything to the order of "But you don't understand" or "Since you don't seem to get what I'm saying" Expect to fail. I've been on forums in one way or another since the mid 80s and I still freak out and do this wrong once in a blue moon. Once someone can't comprehend you, you've won. Bask in internet victory, don't try to beat them over the head with their misunderstanding you by getting frustrated with their lack of reading comprehension.

Sometimes it is acceptable to to edit your contentious post though: if you're telling everyone how much you want to have elf babies and they're thinking you hate elves and can't wait for 4e, then you should probably work on things offline & with a spellchecker before posting anyways.

6. Wait for "I don't see where this thread is going", your other posters to call someone or you a poopy-head, or "We'll just have to agree to disagree." Any of those answers means you've won. Go eat a cookie. Every once in a blue moon, someone else will tell you that you are right. This is proven to give all people on the internet chest hairs and bragging rights in the afterlife of your choice.

7. When all else fails. Make a cute joke, or better yet an in-joke. Never make a joke you think is funny that isn't though, so know your audience. A badly received joke is the worst of all possible things to do on the internet besides post pictures of your genitals and a note "What do you all think of this?"

Note: All stages and recommendations above work for just about any other less volatile communication, except you laugh more and actually respect the opinions of the other people posting. Except if you don't win, don't eat a cookie - They make you fat.

I think I'll restate something from 7 though: Know your audience. If you think that some idea won't be well received somewhere for some reason, it's probably not a good idea to try it out in the first place unless you've got the thickest of skins. It's always easier to start with an idea that everyone agrees with and to gentle move them over to correct and right ways of thinking than bolding your ideas that you know/feel/heard in the bathroom that everyone disagrees with in the first place. Unless you're a popular political figure that's universally adored and loved by millions you're unlikely to carry the weighty charisma to pull it off.

This is especially important in regards to the first post in this thread: If you think that ENWorld harbors lingering resistance to a certain idea in the first place then it's probably not the best idea to challenge the status quo right from the get-go. That might not seem "right", but it's just common sense. It's why almost every netiquette book ever praises lurking, and why most people don't bring up their religious and political views with strangers they've just met. If you don't know how something will be received or know something will be received badly then you're engaging a brutal and uphill battle almost always from the start because people hate to be wrong - and sometimes they're right.

Above all, don't write up a bunch of garbage like this on a whim and then sit paralyzed for some long minutes about whether or not to post it. Usually if you're polite and respectful, or make jokes about cookies, no one will complain. And if they do, it's only the internet and there are probably a hundred things any one of us should be doing besides wasting our time here. :D
 

big dummy

First Post
James Heard said:
I participate in politics and religion forums. So I decided to write some of my general recommendations and reminders on how to particpate when people might rip out your throat for misstepping. It's an art:

Appreciate the general advice, and it's well stated. I got a lot of this kind of response and it's been quite insightful for the most part, and applicable to any web forum as you said. What I'm still wondering is what it is about RpG's in particular and the idea of anything even in the ballpark of reform specifically which triggers such a violent reaction (why is the mere mention of 4E such a lightning rod for example?). I guess it's just a given that some subjects can't be discussed in some places. My next question then is, is there any other (public) place, and if not, what does this mean for the future of RPG's ?

BD
 

Andor

First Post
big dummy said:
Appreciate the general advice, and it's well stated. I got a lot of this kind of response and it's been quite insightful for the most part, and applicable to any web forum as you said. What I'm still wondering is what it is about RpG's in particular and the idea of anything even in the ballpark of reform specifically which triggers such a violent reaction (why is the mere mention of 4E such a lightning rod for example?). I guess it's just a given that some subjects can't be discussed in some places. My next question then is, is there any other (public) place, and if not, what does this mean for the future of RPG's ?

BD

The problem is the word reform, which is a loaded, dangerous word. Simply by using it you are stating that the existing situation is flawed and does not accomplishing what it's supposed to do. Something is in error. Something is broken and must be fixed.

RPGs are games. They exist in the main to provide fun. If people are having fun with it then it does not need any reform, for them. It may well for you, but it is an opinion, not a fact that reform will cause the game to provide more fun. Furthermore most of us have been through enough new editions to have seen a least one excellent campaign get ripped apart by new rules in the name of 'reform'. When you tell some people a game needs reform it is the same as telling them that their way of having fun is wrong, and yours is right. And no matter how vindicated or in the majority you may feel, you are not discussing facts, just opinions. To walk onto a gaming site and discuss the obvious need for reform is about as polite and non-confrontational as going onto a maternity site and asking why everybody else's babies are so ugly.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top