On the brand VS the game...

[billd91]

D&D is a real role playing game.

D&D is not a real role playing game.

Really? There's no difference in the inflamatory nature of those two statements?

I decide what will offend me or inflame my anger. How I respond to either statement is my responsibility. If I respond and turn statement into a flame fest, I am to blame and should be blamed for my childish behavior. I can respond like a sensible individual by reasoned arguments, by stating my opinion, by ignoring the thread (and possibly the poster). If I thought the original poster were persisting in pointlessly rude behavior, I might report the post, or call him on it directly. But if someone honestly seems to believe either statement and posts in an otherwise polite fashion and is willing to back up his opinion with his rationale, I'm not really going to hold it against him. He's entitled to his opinion no matter what I think of it and, as long as he follows the rules of the board, is free to express it without my breaking the rules of the board to harass him, be rude to him, or otherwise make a jerk out of myself.

 

[AngryMojo]

I decide what will offend me or inflame my anger. How I respond to either statement is my responsibility. If I respond and turn statement into a flame fest, I am to blame and should be blamed for my childish behavior. I can respond like a sensible individual by reasoned arguments, by stating my opinion, by ignoring the thread (and possibly the poster). If I thought the original poster were persisting in pointlessly rude behavior, I might report the post, or call him on it directly. But if someone honestly seems to believe either statement and posts in an otherwise polite fashion and is willing to back up his opinion with his rationale, I'm not really going to hold it against him. He's entitled to his opinion no matter what I think of it and, as long as he follows the rules of the board, is free to express it without my breaking the rules of the board to harass him, be rude to him, or otherwise make a jerk out of myself.

There are, however, topics of conversation that aren't broached respectfully. The listed comments are inflammatory, not because you intend them to be insulting, but because they frequently are found insulting. Just because you aren't insulted by them, doesn't mean nobody else will be. In any given social situation, there are topics and words you don't use out of respect for others beliefs. For example, I know my in-laws have radically different political views than I do. While I have every right to say what I want, I don't talk politics around them, both out of respect for their sensibilities, and because I don't want a fight on my hands. This doesn't make me a bad person, nor does it make me weak in my convictions. It makes me respectful.

Comments that you know are inflammatory, like "4e isn't real D&D", are generally considered baiting. They cause flamewars, and if you want to dispute this I can reference two years worth of evidence to back up my claim. Remember, baiting is a form of trolling, and violates TOS.

 

[billd91]

There are, however, topics of conversation that aren't broached respectfully. The listed comments are inflammatory, not because you intend them to be insulting, but because they frequently are found insulting. Just because you aren't insulted by them, doesn't mean nobody else will be. In any given social situation, there are topics and words you don't use out of respect for others beliefs. For example, I know my in-laws have radically different political views than I do. While I have every right to say what I want, I don't talk politics around them, both out of respect for their sensibilities, and because I don't want a fight on my hands. This doesn't make me a bad person, nor does it make me weak in my convictions. It makes me respectful.

Comments that you know are inflammatory, like "4e isn't real D&D", are generally considered baiting. They cause flamewars, and if you want to dispute this I can reference two years worth of evidence to back up my claim. Remember, baiting is a form of trolling, and violates TOS.

There is a reason that religion and politics aren't fair game around here. They aren't on topic. Controversial opinions on games... are.

But if you think a post violates the forum rules, report the post. Don't bend or break the rules to try to shut the poster or opinion down (something I would probably also be able to show quite a bit of evidence for over the last 2 years of edition wars) because that's not conforming to board rules either.

 

[Hussar]

Bill91, turn it around a second. Numerous posters have, and continue to, claimed that the marketting of 4e was insulting.

Is it your opinion that it's entirely on them to be insulted by the marketting? That any insult is entirely in their minds and that they feel insulted is their fault? And any response they make based on that perceived insult is entirely their own responsibility?

Is the original speaker absolved of all responsibility for their claims? Everyone can claim whatever they want (so long as it isn't political or racist as per board rules) no matter what, and any resulting fall out of those claims is not their responsiblity?

Man, I really, really wish that was true.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you find something insulting. The fact that numerous people DO find it insulting should be good enough that you should find a different way of expressing yourself.

That, or the WOTC marketting of 4e was a brilliant piece of work.

 

[Hussar]

There is a reason that religion and politics aren't fair game around here. They aren't on topic. Controversial opinions on games... are.

But if you think a post violates the forum rules, report the post. Don't bend or break the rules to try to shut the poster or opinion down (something I would probably also be able to show quite a bit of evidence for over the last 2 years of edition wars) because that's not conforming to board rules either.

How is, "Please don't tell me that the game I'm playing isn't the one true game?" shutting down lines of conversation?

Or, to put it another way, what, exactly, are you trying to communicate when you claim that edition X isn't really D&D (to you or anyone else I don't really care)? Are you trying to say that the changes in Edition X are so far from what you like as D&D that you no longer consider it D&D?

Then why not phrase it that way? "Hey, man, they've changed bloody everything in this game. This really isn't Edition Y anymore. I really prefer Edition Y because it has This and This and This. That makes Edition Y great" is a much less inflamatory statement than "Edition X isn't D&D anymore because it doesn't have This and This and This."

Because that second statement is just going to spin the hamster wheel as people try to tell you that Edition X either actually has This and This and This, or that This and This and This aren't really what makes D&D, well, D&D.

And on and on and on.

I know people keep trying to paint these kinds of issues as a freedom of speech thing. Maybe it's because I'm not American that this is never really the issue for me. Could be a culture thing. "Try to communicate in a way that will effectively move the conversation forward" seems a much better approach than "continously post stuff that will grind conversation to a halt."

Even if that means I have to self censor a smidgeon from time to time.

 

[billd91]

Bill91, turn it around a second. Numerous posters have, and continue to, claimed that the marketting of 4e was insulting.

Is it your opinion that it's entirely on them to be insulted by the marketting? That any insult is entirely in their minds and that they feel insulted is their fault? And any response they make based on that perceived insult is entirely their own responsibility?

Is the original speaker absolved of all responsibility for their claims? Everyone can claim whatever they want (so long as it isn't political or racist as per board rules) no matter what, and any resulting fall out of those claims is not their responsiblity?

Man, I really, really wish that was true.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you find something insulting. The fact that numerous people DO find it insulting should be good enough that you should find a different way of expressing yourself.

That, or the WOTC marketting of 4e was a brilliant piece of work.

I'm not saying that people who post their opinions have no responsibility for the consequences of their posts. They may, through their post, convince me that they are idiots and that I want to have nothing more to do with them. What they don't bear is the responsibility for my behavior as a follow-up poster on this forum. That's all on me. My responsibility to this message board is to follow the rules and not make this place hostile for anyone else who also follows the rules.

I do, in fact, hold the opinion that WotC marketing was amateurish and could be seen as insulting. I expressed that opinion multiple times here, quite often in response to other people saying that opinion was "wrong". I don't believe I've ever broken the board rules while expressing my opinion on the matter. I've never held WotC's marketing responsible for my posting behavior here - other than, I suppose, inspiring me to express my opinion in the first place. My have lowered my opinion of WotC as a corporation run by professionals based on their marketing. That didn't stop me from buying Star Wars Saga Edition products though it probably did contribute to my lack of desire to buy anything further for 4e. None of that, of course, encouraged me to break message board rules with my posting behavior.

 

[Hussar]

Sigh, three in a row. Well, a new thought occured to me. Deal.

Two D&D fans get talking. Fan A claims that Edition X is not D&D to him. Ok, fine. A pretty reasonable response at that point is, "Why not?" And Fan A explains that D&D for him has This and This and This. Much like Wicht did several pages back. And 4e doesn't have This and This and This, therefore it's not D&D.

That's fine as far as it goes, but, a further question occurs to me at least. If not having This and This and This makes something not D&D, then what about Settings A and B and C? Which is what I asked Wicht back several pages ago. If not having This and This and This makes something not D&D and settings like Dark Sun, or Planescape or Spelljammer don't have This and This and This, am I still playing D&D?

Yep, you're still playing D&D.

Buh? What? And here comes the double standard that you see almost every single time. It's perfectly ok for games to not have This and This and This so long as they are under the umbrella of an edition that we like. However, once you change editions, then not having This and This and This means that it's not D&D anymore.

You're not playing D&D if your character comes from splats and non-core books, but my drow cavalier from the 1e Unearthed Arcana is playing D&D.

You're not playing D&D if you don't have vancian casting, but, if you're using a point based caster like a 3e Psionicist, you're still playing D&D.

You're not playing D&D if you use a battlemap with 1-1-1 count, but you're playing D&D if you don't bother marking position AT ALL.

On and on and on. Round and round the hamster wheel.

"4e is not D&D" isn't bad because its inflamatory. It's bad because it's virtually indefensible. Unless your definition of D&D is limited to a single edition, nearly anything you find in 4e can be found in previous editions in some form or other.

 

[billd91]

I know people keep trying to paint these kinds of issues as a freedom of speech thing. Maybe it's because I'm not American that this is never really the issue for me. Could be a culture thing. "Try to communicate in a way that will effectively move the conversation forward" seems a much better approach than "continously post stuff that will grind conversation to a halt."

It is related to freedom of speech because it comes from the same general body of liberalism. Without the freedom to post ideas, no matter if they are controversial, you'll never have a free marketplace of ideas to draw from, to synthesize with other ideas. You'll never know the full range of what could effectively move conversation forward if everybody's looking over their back, overly worried about offending someone. In that kind of environment, you need to be tolerant of ideas you don't like so that you're not impinging on the potential for ideas you like to be expressed.

 

[billd91]

Sigh, three in a row. Well, a new thought occured to me. Deal.

Two D&D fans get talking. Fan A claims that Edition X is not D&D to him. Ok, fine. A pretty reasonable response at that point is, "Why not?" And Fan A explains that D&D for him has This and This and This. Much like Wicht did several pages back. And 4e doesn't have This and This and This, therefore it's not D&D.

That's fine as far as it goes, but, a further question occurs to me at least. If not having This and This and This makes something not D&D, then what about Settings A and B and C? Which is what I asked Wicht back several pages ago. If not having This and This and This makes something not D&D and settings like Dark Sun, or Planescape or Spelljammer don't have This and This and This, am I still playing D&D?

Yep, you're still playing D&D.

Buh? What? And here comes the double standard that you see almost every single time. It's perfectly ok for games to not have This and This and This so long as they are under the umbrella of an edition that we like. However, once you change editions, then not having This and This and This means that it's not D&D anymore.

You're not playing D&D if your character comes from splats and non-core books, but my drow cavalier from the 1e Unearthed Arcana is playing D&D.

You're not playing D&D if you don't have vancian casting, but, if you're using a point based caster like a 3e Psionicist, you're still playing D&D.

You're not playing D&D if you use a battlemap with 1-1-1 count, but you're playing D&D if you don't bother marking position AT ALL.

I think you're looking at things in a far too limited and binary fashion, particularly with those specific bits about vancian casting yet psionicists using points or using a 1-1-1 battlemap vs not marking position at all. Think of it more in a gestalt fashion. Think of the game as a whole on one side of a balancing scale, the D&D side of the scale. Now start thinking of elements in 4e that are different and putting them on the other side of the scale, the not D&D side. If your impression of those elements on the not D&D side cause the scale to tip in that direction, then you'd see 4e as not being particularly D&D-ish except in name.

In other words, it's not factor A+B+C makes something D&D while lack of those factors make it not D&D. It's more a question of factors A+B+C+...+Z+A2+B2+C2+...+Z2+A3+... etc. A lot of little changes all together sends the game into different territory, into a different groove, so to speak. If the same impression did not occur from 1e to 2e, from 2e to 3e, from 2e to Darksun (which used most of the 2e rules), from 1e to Oriental Adventures (which used most of the 1e rules), then they'd still be D&D while 4e, from the standpoint of the observer, may not.

 

[Hussar]

It is related to freedom of speech because it comes from the same general body of liberalism. Without the freedom to post ideas, no matter if they are controversial, you'll never have a free marketplace of ideas to draw from, to synthesize with other ideas. You'll never know the full range of what could effectively move conversation forward if everybody's looking over their back, overly worried about offending someone. In that kind of environment, you need to be tolerant of ideas you don't like so that you're not impinging on the potential for ideas you like to be expressed.

But, how does that jive with repeating the same conversation over and over and over again to the same result every single time.

I totally agree with you the first time. Heck, I'm bloody minded enough to agree with you the fifteenth time. But, after twenty some years of seeing the exact same statement dropped (Edition X isn't D&D) to the same effect, I'm thinking that even I don't have that kind of stamina.