Are people still mad about . . .

[Axolotl]

A GAME is the most important things some folks have to be concerned about in their lives?

Why are people not allowed to get annoyed by changes that decrease they're enjoyment of a game? I play DnD to have fun and whether or not I have fun in life is fairly important in my mind.

As for people only being offended I personally certainly wasn't trying to be offended I was and still am a fan of 4e. But alot of the developers comments still rubbed me the wrong way for various reasons. The one that sticks out in my mind being a column that said Planescape was boring and unfun, I forget the exact wording and am currently unable to look at it again but it sticks out in my memory.

 

[Mark]

Why are people not allowed to get annoyed by changes that decrease they're enjoyment of a game? I play DnD to have fun and whether or not I have fun in life is fairly important in my mind.

As for people only being offended I personally certainly wasn't trying to be offended I was and still am a fan of 4e. But alot of the developers comments still rubbed me the wrong way for various reasons. The one that sticks out in my mind being a column that said Planescape was boring and unfun, I forget the exact wording and am currently unable to look at it again but it sticks out in my memory.

Well said. It is sad that the online feedback that might positively effect the development of a game is largely stunted by the more vocal factions of messageboards that see any comments that could be perceived as dissatisfaction as injurous to their own person. I think this often creates a bubble in which development proceeds in directions that can be less than useful. Of course, your example highlights what happens when group think on a design project fails to catch a bias before it is revealed to the public but perhaps after it has already left its mark on a project. One has to wonder how long that anti-Planescape bias influenced the project and how things might have been different if it had been refuted earlier.

 

[billd91]

Now, I can sort of understand getting offended if someone attacks you personally, but for criticism of a game rule or a playstyle? Really? A GAME is the most important things some folks have to be concerned about in their lives? Kinda puts things into perspective.

People get passionate about their hobbies, their avocations, their interests. And lots of people use them to help define their identities whether it's as a Civil War reinactor, a home brewer, a Packer fan, a DAR, a club rugby player, a model train collector, a kite flyer, a fan-fic author, a blogger, a marathoner, or a gun collector. Get critical of or suggest a substantial change in any one of these passtimes and you're likely to see people get a little vocal in their reactions.

It's rarely a question of people having nothing else important in their lives (as if you could even tell what the most important thing anyone has in their life from postings on a messageboard), but with voluntary passtimes, as opposed to the obligations and responsibilities of life, people have chosen to participate and can make the passion even stronger.

 

[Shemeska]

One has to wonder how long that anti-Planescape bias influenced the project and how things might have been different if it had been refuted earlier.

I'll be honest, I'd have loved to see the office situation the day after the one podcast was released where Wyatt and Mearls were awkwardly giggling and making fun of Guardinals - because their coworker Rich Baker was the guy who wrote the book that they first appeared in (Planescape Monstrous Compendium II). Awkwardness.

 

[Scribble]

I'll be honest, I'd have loved to see the office situation the day after the one podcast was released where Wyatt and Mearls were awkwardly giggling and making fun of Guardinals - because their coworker Rich Baker was the guy who wrote the book that they first appeared in (Planescape Monstrous Compendium II). Awkwardness.

Probably depends on how Baker feels about Guardinals now?

 

[Gothmog]

Can you offer an example of an idea that could not be discussed?

I'm certainly in a group that finds 4E less appealing because "the math works" and "easy to DM" were the trumps of the design approach.

I've seen plenty of emotionally venting and agitation flow toward 4E. But just try to start a conversation about removing the negative consequences of these issues and every bit as much emotional venting and agitation comes flowing back the other way.

(And no, I'm not interested in starting the conversation over at this point. I'm not mad about anything at all. To the contrary, I'm really happy with the alternatives I have.)

All I'm saying is, one way to know for certain that you are wrong, is if you are saying it is all the other side's fault.

Ah, ok- I think we have a miscommunication here. What I should have said is once the emotional hotbutton topics start being thrown around, where subjective opinions are stated as fact or outrageous statements are made simply to provoke people, then further discourse on that particular topic is pretty pointless- it just gets derailed by folks on both sides of the issue. Thats why the mods tend to lock down edition war threads around here.

And I'm in no way saying the emotional responses are one way. Whenever one side fires a volley with ill-informed arguements or things that aren't true, it typically gets the ire of the defenders up, and they fire back. Its a sort of mutually assured destruction that will have one hell of a hard time generating anything positive from it.

What we're dealing with here is a sort of confirmation bias. Here is the definition from Wikipedia:

"Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. People can reinforce their existing attitudes by selectively collecting new evidence, by interpreting evidence in a biased way or by selectively recalling information from memory."

Thus, for example, some folks interpret the 4e design team's (or other people's) criticisms of 3.x as an attack, and are more likely to interpret further statements from them as an attack, even if they are not. Their biases might even alter their recollection of an event or discussion to mean something it doesn't. Likewise, after a first volley of anti-4e arguements are made, some 4e supporters are likely to interpret anything someone who is criticizing 4e says as an attack, even if what was being stated was a valid and well thought-out criticism.

Its no one's "fault"- in fact is basically how people process and integrate information. We use our own viewpoints and beliefs to interpret events and give them meaning. Maybe by being aware of this fact, and realizing that most of the time no personal offence was meant by critical comments (excluding the hotbutton ones MEANT to provoke a fight or emotional response), useful critical discussion can go on about 3.x AND 4E.

 

[WizarDru]

Mad? Really only about one thing.

That the switchover caused ENworld to be such an angry, angry place.

 

[Gothmog]

People get passionate about their hobbies, their avocations, their interests. And lots of people use them to help define their identities whether it's as a Civil War reinactor, a home brewer, a Packer fan, a DAR, a club rugby player, a model train collector, a kite flyer, a fan-fic author, a blogger, a marathoner, or a gun collector. Get critical of or suggest a substantial change in any one of these passtimes and you're likely to see people get a little vocal in their reactions.

It's rarely a question of people having nothing else important in their lives (as if you could even tell what the most important thing anyone has in their life from postings on a messageboard), but with voluntary passtimes, as opposed to the obligations and responsibilities of life, people have chosen to participate and can make the passion even stronger.

I understand people are passionate about their hobbies, just as I am (and most of us here are) about gaming. However, criticism of an edition of D&D (in our example) is NOT a personal attack or criticism on the person who enjoys the pastime. However, quite a few folks seem to take it that way, and get far too riled up about something that isn't even directed at them. This typically escalates into more ridiculous arguements, hyperbole, and misunderstandings of what was intended to be said. What I'm trying to say is before getting angry and firing back, take a deep breath, think about it, and decide if what was said merits the vitriolic response that was considered, or if the point that is being made could, in fact, be a valid criticism which was NOT meant to provoke an emotional response.

 

[billd91]

What I'm trying to say is before getting angry and firing back, take a deep breath, think about it, and decide if what was said merits the vitriolic response that was considered, or if the point that is being made could, in fact, be a valid criticism which was NOT meant to provoke an emotional response.

That would also be good advice to people who respond back the other way, would it not? Someone venting a spleen about the latest dig at their game doesn't really need someone coming in and telling them they're wrong to get worked up or that their reaction is overblown. That's not for anybody else to decide. The emotional reaction doesn't need to be refuted, particularly when doing so is a personal criticism and could be expected to make matters worse rather than improve them.

 

[Gothmog]

That would also be good advice to people who respond back the other way, would it not? Someone venting a spleen about the latest dig at their game doesn't really need someone coming in and telling them they're wrong to get worked up or that their reaction is overblown. That's not for anybody else to decide. The emotional reaction doesn't need to be refuted, particularly when doing so is a personal criticism and could be expected to make matters worse rather than improve them.

In my opinion, its good advice no matter who you are, or what "side" you are on.