Why are D&D discussions so angry?

The web has always offered a certain degree of anonymity, although many of the more senior members do know each other on a personal level.

Because of this, a lot of people don't seem to care about etiquette and manners, common courtesy, and just how to be a nice person.

And rules of letter writing (i know, in this day and age, who knows how to write a letter anymore) still applies. Never write when you are emotional. If you do, write two, and throw away the first one.

*Personal Note*
I sent my GF a couple letters (not emails- the real one with stamp and envelope) for the first time last year. We have been dating for 5+ years. You should have seen how happy she was just to receive a letter from me. Go figure...

Andor said:

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.

Click to expand...

"Reform" was the most diplomatic term I could come up with.

I understand why people might be resistant for various reasons, but to rationalize a total prohibition on the very idea of reforming anything in the game seems rather amazing to me. The game IS going to evolve, shouldn't we at least be able to discuss how? (Or even, as I did, discuss some slightly less than mainstream ways of playing the game?)

To use your analogy, what I would see is that it would be like going into the baby ward in 1920 and discussing the possibility of a polio vaccine, or the possibility of using disposable instead of cloth diapers and having everyone shout you down!

BD

I understand why people might be resistant for various reasons, but to rationalize a total prohibition on the very idea of reforming anything in the game seems rather amazing to me.

Click to expand...

Because it challenges the way people already do things. People are sensitive to the idea that the way we do things isn't the best way, because we've/they've already invested a lot of time and effort in the way things already are. To accept that there might be a better way puts into question the investment we've/they've already made, to an extent. Now, sometimes I think the "don't change" crew are right, and that the old ways are best - conservatives are a political force wherever you go, and in some arenas I have no doubt you're one of them. I know I am. Some changes people asked for are smokescreens for other issues, or a case of people not knowing what's good for them (haha), or simply change for change's sake, or lead to needless complication....whatever.

To put things in perspective that this is in no way unique to RPGs or ENWorld, on another forum, someone's asking for a better sampler (a dance music production instrument) and asking why they're not as fully featured as synthesizers and sequencers, and that there must be a better way to meet their needs. A lot of people are chiming in to say that things are fine as they are, and that they don't need the new features, or that they're better off in another piece of software called an audio editor etc. I agree with the guy asking for change, and think samplers are underfeatured for no good reason other than tradition (and as a result I've had to make my own workarounds because the market doesn't provide what I want). Same thing, really.

big dummy said:

"Reform" was the most diplomatic term I could come up with.

I understand why people might be resistant for various reasons, but to rationalize a total prohibition on the very idea of reforming anything in the game seems rather amazing to me. The game IS going to evolve, shouldn't we at least be able to discuss how? (Or even, as I did, discuss some slightly less than mainstream ways of playing the game?)

To use your analogy, what I would see is that it would be like going into the baby ward in 1920 and discussing the possibility of a polio vaccine, or the possibility of using disposable instead of cloth diapers and having everyone shout you down!

BD

Click to expand...

It can be discussed. There have been dozens if not hundreds of threads on that very topic on these boards. That's part of the problem, most of the people who like calm rational discussion on topic have been there, done that, and no longer pay attention to such threads. Most 4e threads these days are tounge-in-cheek trolls. I only skimmed the other thread but I don't think you very clearly communicated what you meant by 'low magic campaign' until it was far too late to save the thread. It is a very broad term, and since you had a specific, narrow definition in mind as the topic of discussion you should have provided that definition in your first post. When I want to write a post that detailed I usually work on it at length in a wordprocessor then paste it onto the board. That technique lets you stop and the reread and edit at a later time even before you post which can save you a lot of confusion.

And no matter how bad the flaws in the game, or how obviously beneficial the vaccine, some people will not want to change anything. There are people today in this country who refuse to let their children be vaccinated. There are people who don't use disposable diapers. There are people who think D&D is the tool of the devil.

frankthedm said:

Because it seems to me ENworld Mods are more willing to close threads than to temporary ban / close accounts of those who willfully try to derail those threads. :\

Click to expand...

It's worth mentioning that we have recently been more likely to order certain posters out of a thread if it still looks salvageable. That doesn't always work, though, and there's a certain balance to thread value vs. required vigilance that may still result in a thread being closed.

We try to treat people equally, but posters who continually cause problems are a lot less likely to get the benefit of the doubt. We don't have a secret "we let these people get away with stuff" list. But we're human too. My own biggest rule has been not to moderate when angry at someone, because I'll occasionally overreact just because I'm irritated. I'm one of those people who takes a lot to wind up, and who then stays mad for some time -- so when I'm getting that way, I tend to walk away from the keyboard for a while and reevaluate my post when I return.

Just to be clear, I am a loud angry, angst driven d20 Scarred Lands Sage and I got this tattoo to piss off everyone!

A moderator's opinion on why things are so angry - some people have not learned when to walk away, or when to leave well enough alone.

I have repeatedly seen the refrain "But I didn't break any rules!" And the speaker is usually entirely correct. That doesn't make continuing to argue wise, good for themselves, their point, or the boards as a whole. There is a fine art to choosing one's battles - applying that better part of valor known as discretion.

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.

Click to expand...

People do indeed notice when posters are agressive and push their agenda; everyone does this to some extent: were the agenda to stick to gaming I don't think there would be that much of a problem.

Do you have to mince around and phrase everything like a lawyer?

Click to expand...

But then you run into ad hominem arguments...

The way I stated that may have been blunt but everyone knows it's true.

Click to expand...

And begging the question statements...

Can enworld "handle the truth?"

Click to expand...

Prejudicial language...

If thats what y'all like here, so be it.

Click to expand...

Associating qualities of the part with the whole...

And other naughty things as you can well imagine. Add to that the tendency for folks to remember how you post (I regard iwatt as well spoken and polite, and so will give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to him potentially being rude; I will not do this with other posters) and you will find ENWorld can be as rude, or as polite, as you yourself are, with allowances for the odd do-gooder and internet villain.

Frankly I have always found ENWorld to be a wonderful forum, where problems arise only when the start of a thread asserts one opinion to be fact (Jiffy shouldn't sell creamy peanut butter, it's not as good as crunchy), or when an otherwise tame assertion (I would like the Bard to be more powerful) is presented in an unappealing way.

As for why you haven't seen threads begin politely and responded to politely go on for 8 pages and then get locked is because those threads drop off the first page before they reach a post count of 40.

"I think A is cool."
"Neat. A is cool."
"I don't like A as much as B."
"That's cool man, rock on with B."

It just isn't that interesting and those threads don't survive long. You've an adverse selection problem; you most often see threads that survive, and those threads that survive generally have some conflict within them due to something or other, and don't evince a "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they're all equally valid" tone.

---

EDIT:

Since I've already used posts in this thread, I figure I'll do something with the opening line:

"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?"

Translated to:

Why is "if A then B" true?

It's hard for me to respond to this question because answering with my opinion wouldn't actually answer the question: I don't beleive that "If A then B" is true; I can't tell you why it's true. I would argue, "It's actually 'If C or D then B'", and that kind of start isn't healthy for a thread.

A better edit is:

Is it the case that "If A then B"? Why or why not?

It might seem to be hair-splitting, but I do believe it does make a difference. My proposed edit at least allows the possibility of my opinion being wrong, and that allowance can go a long way with people.

/EDIT

On these boards, you get what you give.

- Don't start a thread and expect everyone to agree with you, it's not going to happen. That would be boring.
- When someone disagrees with you, don't get offended, even after you've offered a counter-argument. Sometimes you have to just agree to disagree. There's not always a right or wrong.

Those who show up to these boards with the intent of starting a fire tend to get burned themselves. They then stop frequenting ENWorld while claiming it to be elitist and cliquish when I just see it as civility.

It just isn't that interesting and those threads don't survive long. You've an adverse selection problem; you most often see threads that survive, and those threads that survive generally have some conflict within them due to something or other, and don't evince a "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they're all equally valid" tone.

Click to expand...

So....some of the best threads die quickly because everyone's in agreement? That makes messageboards a bit like current affairs shows - without drama and conflict, there's no story.

It's ironic that the well-thought-out posts that everyone agrees with tend to kill threads.