Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[thedungeondelver]

Let this be a placeholder for a longer post but for now: in the context of the larger post, no, "get over it" wasn't offensive (to me). Had that been the totality of his post, or something like "oh god, you again. Get over it.", then, yeah, there'd be something.

Mercurious I'll get back to you shortly.

 

[Mercurius]

Cool, thanks dungeondelver - I'll look for it.

 

[Mercurius]

Danny, not entirely agreeing with you does not mean I don't get it. It may be that you don't get it as you are using phrases like "you don't get it," which is just as much a faux pas as "get over it" if we're talking about diplomatic, politically correct communication. Why not phrase it "I am feeling that you may not be understanding what I am trying to communicate?" Because it is a pain in the arse, that's why! And that sort of phrasing, common in interpersonal communication theories (e.g. Nonviolent Communication) has the potential to be obfuscating. I'd prefer just plain, honest talk, especially among friends.

Now of course the potential problem with "plain, honest talk" is that feelings may be hurt. It is a risk, really. I think there is a middle ground possible, which I try to tread. But I personally don't think that diplomacy must always come first, especially at the cost of expression and truthfulness. It depends upon the situation and I felt like using such language ("get over it") would be fine, or at least not overly aggressive, if framed within a context and post that was friendly in tone. I'm glad that dungeondelver didn't perceive what I said as an insult.

And pawsplay, I meant to say what I said. Danny perceived it as insulting, whereas dungeondelver (for whom it was intended) didn't. The problem with these interwebs is that it is hard to write with the tone and nuance that comes with being physically present. This is one of the reasons why flame wars rage on the internet, I think - because of pure and simple miscommunication and misunderstanding!

But all of this is just a distraction. This is a forum (and thread) about RPGs, not communication. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny perceived it as insulting

Actually, no- I was merely pointing out you were using a linguistic structure that could be- and has been- perceived as dismissive.

Generally speaking, M., I find you assert your points with honesty and integrity, but sometimes your word choice puts up little barriers to understanding between you and your intended audience, especially when you feel strongly about something.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[pawsplay]

Danny, not entirely agreeing with you does not mean I don't get it. It may be that you don't get it as you are using phrases like "you don't get it," which is just as much a faux pas as "get over it" if we're talking about diplomatic, politically correct communication.

I disagree. "Get over it" is an aggressive attempt to tell someone else what they should feel and how they should respond to a situation. "You don't get it," is just a statement of what I believe to be true.

"Politically correct" is a throwaway phrase in this context. Unless you are talking about a specific cultural viewpoint on a way of phrasing something, it's so general as to have no meaning at all.

Why not phrase it "I am feeling that you may not be understanding what I am trying to communicate?" Because it is a pain in the arse, that's why!

That's not even really a feeling. If you want to be picky, a particularly diplomatic phrasing might be: "The thing you are saying to me lead me to think you do not understand what I am trying to say."

And that sort of phrasing, common in interpersonal communication theories (e.g. Nonviolent Communication) has the potential to be obfuscating. I'd prefer just plain, honest talk, especially among friends.

"Get over it" is neither plain nor honest. It holds a number of implied meanings and judgments. Further, you can say it without any interest in the other person's feelings. Most people say "get over it" when they mean "I am not interested in your feelings on this matter."

Now of course the potential problem with "plain, honest talk" is that feelings may be hurt. It is a risk, really. I think there is a middle ground possible, which I try to tread. But I personally don't think that diplomacy must always come first, especially at the cost of expression and truthfulness. It depends upon the situation and I felt like using such language ("get over it") would be fine, or at least not overly aggressive, if framed within a context and post that was friendly in tone. I'm glad that dungeondelver didn't perceive what I said as an insult.

I avoid saying "never," but I don't think "get over it" is a hepful phrase except in situations where you wish to express a lack of concern for the other person's interest.

And pawsplay, I meant to say what I said. Danny perceived it as insulting, whereas dungeondelver (for whom it was intended) didn't. The problem with these interwebs is that it is hard to write with the tone and nuance that comes with being physically present. This is one of the reasons why flame wars rage on the internet, I think - because of pure and simple miscommunication and misunderstanding!

Also, because of communication and understanding. Clearly, if I understand you to have communicated contempt for my viewpoint, we are likely to have a disagreement.

But all of this is just a distraction. This is a forum (and thread) about RPGs, not communication. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

This is a tangent, probably one that will tidy up in a few posts. I feel distracted by the combination of your assumptions and your apparent lack of interest in modifying those assumptions, or at least your mannever of expressing them. As long as you are trying to tell people to "get over it," whatever specific phrasing you use to communicate that attitude, it is likely there will continue to be distractions. Please seriously consider what others have said to you; they invested some effort in helping you understand.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Dungeondelver, a quick aside: I'm not quoting your post because I find the font to be difficult to read; a nice font, but it is kind of distracting in this format. Just a bit of unsolicited feedback!

For the sake of this reply, I'll stick to verdana.

this time

I would take it that you don't disagree with what Mearls says in his article, taken at face value? I mean, it is a nice sentiment, right? What is there to disagree with, really? We're all playing D&D, D&D is sitting down with your friends, it doesn't matter what version you're playing, make it your own, yada yada yada...

I don't agree with the tone of what Mr. Mearls is saying in his article.

I completely agree that WotC should sell PDFs of older material. But I find this complaint to be a tad disingenuous when you say something like WotC is "not giving folks an avenue to play the D&D they like." I am sorry, dungeondelver, but that's a bit suspect. First of all, as you yourself said, there are tons of old and used material available. For 3.x, more than a lifetime's worth.

I remember that back in...good lord, 2008? Anyway what I said was:

Now consider when the last copies of those were published, versus the last published and printed copies of 3e and 3.5e books. Add in PDFs, of both editions. See where I'm going with this?

No edition of D&D is out of print. None. The print run starts again when you take the memory stick to Kinkos and knock out a spiral bound copy of THE COMPLETE PSIONCS HANDBOOK or RETURN TO THE TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL and so on.

BUT: IIRC when I wrote that Wizards of the Coast hadn't interdicted and shut down PDF sales. The options were still there to get your hands on the PDFs quickly and easily.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, the vast majority of people who want to play an older edition of D&D likely already have tons of gaming material, so their "avenue to play the D&D they like" was never shut down. WotC can't shut it down - it is your avenue. As some have commented, there is a kind of shared illusion in the gaming industry that customers (gamers) need the companies that produce gaming material. They don't. All we need are our imaginations, pencils, paper, dice, maybe a rule book or two - and maybe not even that.

I don't doubt that. I'm asking for that PDF avenue back. It'd give a lot more oomph to what Mr. Mearls is saying.

You also mention WotC's supposed slandering of older versions of D&D. I might be missing something, but all I remember are a couple tongue-in-cheek comments and/or advertising back in 2008 that said something to the effect that 4E was the newer, better version of D&D and you shouldn't be left out in the cold playing "something else." Are people really upset about that sort of thing? Really? No one seems upset about Paizo's (again, tongue-in-cheek) "3.5E survives/thrives" advertising - nor should they, imo. I think this is a case of overly thin skins.

Eh. That's a personal nuance thing, but jesus christ: go back and watch the videos. NO MINIATURES EVER EXISTED BEFORE 4E. LOOK AT THOSE CLODS. ERASERS. WHICH ONE IS THE TROLL. HA HA HA.

So what I really hear you saying is that you're pissed that WotC doesn't sell their PDFs, although probably mainly as a matter of principle, and

I'm pissed that they're entirely disingenuous about it. I'm pissed that - let me put it this way. This isn't like Coke stopping real coke (there's a whole history behind classic Coke and so on I won't go in to here) or Chevy not selling the Bel Air any more or anything like that. In those cases, the manufacturer (Coca-Cola, General Motors) made the thing and sent the thing to the shop or dealership and you bought it. When the companies in question decided to stop making the thing you like, it's not like you could demand they start the production lines up again.

This is not like that. This is like: GM gives the blueprints to a company that starts stamping out '57 Bel Aires and Coke gives the formula to a local bottling company and they start selling Coke. GM never has to run a factory (indeed the onus is on the reseller to keep the factory - or in the case of PDFs, the server - open) or anything. This is GM saying "Whoa whoa whoa, our cars are being stolen? Psh, shut it down, third party company! Quit making money and giving us money!"

I also hear you saying that your feelings are/were hurt with some of their initial advertising comments.

Their advertising was mean spirited. "People who drove bel airs were IDIOTS! HA! Back then they didn't know what a steering wheel was! Look at them!"

To this I can only say: get over it. It is done. Let it go. Bygones be bygones. Compost the sour grapes. Rejoin the larger D&D community--and that means accepting that 4E is the current, in-print, and presumably most popular version of D&D--and play the D&D that you want.

The sour grapes analogy doesn't apply here; I'm not looking longingly at something I can't reach and saying "Well, it's probably not quality anyway." I could, tomorrow...hell, in between words here I could pause and go sign up for DDI and get the core books and etcetera. It's not sour grapes for me to say "Stop doing what you're doing and loosen your grip on old D&D."

I've never been part of the larger D&D community, 4e has no appeal to me, the how's and why's of that are beyond the scope of my thesis. 4e has no cachet with me, I have no desire to detail why, for it is edition warlike.

I can tell you with all honesty and full confidence that if WotC announces 5E at GenCon this year and starts in with some "Stop playing that WoW-clone version of D&D and go back to your roots with 5E" and then they stop publishing all things 4E, I'll say "Cool, a new edition, let's check it out and if I don't like it I'll stick with 4E or, better yet, create the hybrid I've always wanted to make."

They won't, and I don't expect them to, and I don't want them to. D&D is theirs. ALL D&D is theirs.

Again, I agree that not making PDFs available for donwload is not only a bad PR move, but a poor business decision (as Gary himself explains in your signature). But in the end, 4E is the current version of D&D and WotC is still not making older PDFs available, but at the same time Paizo is supporting 3.5 possibly better than WotC ever did in the form of Pathfinder, and there are tons of retro-clones available, with the internet flooded with used material from all editions of the game.

It is a good time to be a D&D player!

Here we've come full circle. In my original post I said "Folks who say 'get over it' and 'play what D&D you like' certainly have a point" because that's all you're really in a position to do. I don't expect anything more, really. Okay! Message received! Thanks for listening and stopping to reply to me...but - and this is key - when the public face of Wizards of the Coast says "it's all D&D" and he absolutely has the pull with the company as the brand manager to say "hey you know what, if I'm going to go out there with with a 'let's all play under the big tent message' maybe we can actually, you know, make it a big tent" and won't, or won't indicate that they can or ever will, then "it's all D&D" from the offices of WotC is hollow and cynical.

And that's what I'm saying.

YOU telling me to shut up and play whatever D&D, player to player, that's one matter. HIM telling me to shut up and play whatever D&D and then not backing it up, that's onerous. WotC denied themselves money and made it more appealing to people to pirate their stuff. How dumb was that?

I don't want, and I don't expect official OD&D, AD&D, AD&D2, 3e and all 11 versions of Basic D&D and on and on to be supported by WotC. I said back in 2008 I didn't want or expect that. I said in my post that I didn't want or expect them to pack up, move back to Lake Geneva and start selling AD&D hardbacks. But what I said back in 2008 was in the shadow of ease of access. I want that ease of access returned. Then the tent is truly big enough again for everyone and not in some sorta-kinda way.

 

[Mercurius]

Actually, no- I was merely pointing out you were using a linguistic structure that could be- and has been- perceived as dismissive.

Generally speaking, M., I find you assert your points with honesty and integrity, but sometimes your word choice puts up little barriers to understanding between you and your intended audience, especially when you feel strongly about something.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Cool beans. I'll take your advice at face value and try to be more aware of it.

I don't know what you mean by "intended audience" as that seems to imply that I have some kind of agenda to proselytize. I don't. I tend to post whatever comes to mind or in response to what I read on the forae.

And I apologize if I seemed dismissive, if anything I was saying "get over it" like a friend would say to another friend who is still pining about a break-up that occurred a year before. Anyhoo...

This is a tangent, probably one that will tidy up in a few posts. I feel distracted by the combination of your assumptions and your apparent lack of interest in modifying those assumptions, or at least your mannever of expressing them. As long as you are trying to tell people to "get over it," whatever specific phrasing you use to communicate that attitude, it is likely there will continue to be distractions. Please seriously consider what others have said to you; they invested some effort in helping you understand.

Holy condescension, Batman! This is really starting to get into ad hominem territory, pawsplay. Look, I get that I kind of irritate you, but I would really prefer if we kept to the topic at hand rather than you turning it into a discussion about my communication skills (or lack there of). In other words, if you disagree with something I've said, out with it - but don't try to invalidate it with this sort of thing.

As to the the "others" you talk about, all I'm seeing are you and Danny in this thread. Or was I not awake for the intervention?

 

[pawsplay]

And I apologize if I seemed dismissive, if anything I was saying "get over it" like a friend would say to another friend who is still pining about a break-up that occurred a year before. Anyhoo...

That wouldn't be a nice thing to do to your friend.


Holy condescension, Batman! This is really starting to get into ad hominem territory, pawsplay.
[/quote]

I'm confused. In what way am I attacking your character in order to discredit your viewpoint? I have referred only to behaviors evident in this thread. I've said nothing about you personally. "Your apparent lack of interest in modifying those assumptions" is of course an inference and identified as such (hence the term "apparent"). The behavior I am talking about is the same behavior you just demonstrated: you are attacking me rather than address in any way the merits of what I said.

Look, I get that I kind of irritate you, but I would really prefer if we kept to the topic at hand rather than you turning it into a discussion about my communication skills (or lack there of).

I don't acknowledge that your communication skills are being attacked. Rather, the quality of your arguments are being examined and found lacking.

In other words, if you disagree with something I've said, out with it - but don't try to invalidate it with this sort of thing.

What sort of thing? I have stated my disagreement with what you've said.

To this I can only say: get over it.

I take objection to this expression and the attitude it suggests.

It is done.

I take issue with you claiming supremacy on the issue and attempting to unilaterally end the discussion as the victor.

Let it go.

This doesn't sound like friendly advice. It sounds like an invalidation of all viewpoints that disagree with yours.

Unless you're willing to modify you're stance in how we are going to have thid discussion, I suggest that instead of complaining about how your communication style is critiqued, you simply stop participating in the thread, which will make your communication style a non-issue. Or we can attempt to communicate, which will require you to exercise your skills.

Your ball.

 

['Arry]

I think one reason that this thread is, so far, 26 pages long, it that some people (me included), can no longer take whatever WotC says at face value. We have read what Mike Mearls wrote; we are trying to figure out what it means.

If it means what it says, which I interpret as 'play whatever D&D you like, it's all cool, don't get at other people for playing a different version'; yeah, that's sensible. Edition warring is counter productive and silly.

If Mearls' comment doesn't mean what it says . . . then you have a 26+ page thread discussing it.

 

[Mercurius]

Pawsplay, this is a waste of time. We obviously don't see eye to eye or have a lot of room to communicate, at least in this context. I'm not interested in the kind of discussion you seem to want to have, which my guess will only satisfy you if you "win." I'm not into a win-lose argument; I'm interested in discussion. As I see it, you are not interested in discussing the actual topic or substance of what I wrote, just how I said it, which is a matter of rhetoric and, quite frankly, rather tedious. Sorry, but I'm not interested.

Your two choices for me are a joke: You want me to either stop participating in the thread or play this little game with you, evidently by your rules. How about a third option: We stop wasting our time with this ridiculous back and forth and, well, get over it?