Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A New Culture?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hillsy7" data-source="post: 7190479" data-attributes="member: 6689191"><p>I think a large part of it is the medium of the discussion - namely internet forums.</p><p></p><p>Case in point, you have people being arguing with each other about at which edition people started arguing with each other. Which is only fractionally less of a parody of itself than a thread arguing Hitler was the personification of Godwin's law.</p><p></p><p>OK - pithy joke out of the way....</p><p></p><p>Some armchair psychology goes thusly: I think John Scalzi said that the failure state of 'Clever' is 'A$$hat'. On these and many other internet forums, you have an enormous amount of people extremely knowledgeable with a specific subject, with differing opinions, all crammed together arguing fine points of detail. The chances then of one of these clever people flipping into the fail state of Clever to make a point (or even just to take a cheap shot) is incredibly high. I think blending that in with a general human trait of experience bias, varying levels of empathy/dismissal, and the more pervasive issue of having to use language to communicate rather than vulcan mind-melding, which we all have differing skill-levels......You are going to get highly nuanced discussion poisoned by hyperbole.</p><p></p><p>A good example of this is, as you mentioned above, the Rapier/Short Sword debate. I have literally read people who call players "incapable" or "stupid", if they don't take a Rapier (and don't intend on TWFing). This is driven by a similar process as psychological pricing. With the Rapier and Short Sword, you are comparing two quantifiable numbers (6 & 8) against a known scale (higher=better), while at the same time comparing the value of something unquantifiable: how much your character wielding a certain weapon will add to your enjoyment. This is going to invariably lead to a disagreement between someone focusing on the clearly quantifiable, vs the person wanting a clear character concept. People being people, defending their position opens up the possibility for hyperbole to appear ("If you deliberately pick a Short Sword, you are actively ruining the game for your friends by not Maxing DPR"), which poops on everything.</p><p></p><p>Also worth noting that many, many threads and discussions start from a position of conflict of opinion: "I think rule [x] is poorly designed and would be better like [y]". Which is immediately going to be antagonistic to a decent number of people, one way or another, unless it's carefully/well worded.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hillsy7, post: 7190479, member: 6689191"] I think a large part of it is the medium of the discussion - namely internet forums. Case in point, you have people being arguing with each other about at which edition people started arguing with each other. Which is only fractionally less of a parody of itself than a thread arguing Hitler was the personification of Godwin's law. OK - pithy joke out of the way.... Some armchair psychology goes thusly: I think John Scalzi said that the failure state of 'Clever' is 'A$$hat'. On these and many other internet forums, you have an enormous amount of people extremely knowledgeable with a specific subject, with differing opinions, all crammed together arguing fine points of detail. The chances then of one of these clever people flipping into the fail state of Clever to make a point (or even just to take a cheap shot) is incredibly high. I think blending that in with a general human trait of experience bias, varying levels of empathy/dismissal, and the more pervasive issue of having to use language to communicate rather than vulcan mind-melding, which we all have differing skill-levels......You are going to get highly nuanced discussion poisoned by hyperbole. A good example of this is, as you mentioned above, the Rapier/Short Sword debate. I have literally read people who call players "incapable" or "stupid", if they don't take a Rapier (and don't intend on TWFing). This is driven by a similar process as psychological pricing. With the Rapier and Short Sword, you are comparing two quantifiable numbers (6 & 8) against a known scale (higher=better), while at the same time comparing the value of something unquantifiable: how much your character wielding a certain weapon will add to your enjoyment. This is going to invariably lead to a disagreement between someone focusing on the clearly quantifiable, vs the person wanting a clear character concept. People being people, defending their position opens up the possibility for hyperbole to appear ("If you deliberately pick a Short Sword, you are actively ruining the game for your friends by not Maxing DPR"), which poops on everything. Also worth noting that many, many threads and discussions start from a position of conflict of opinion: "I think rule [x] is poorly designed and would be better like [y]". Which is immediately going to be antagonistic to a decent number of people, one way or another, unless it's carefully/well worded. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A New Culture?
Top