4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[Jasperak]

This thread was in response to a quote from another thread that spoke of people responding as if 4E should be immune to criticism, and my response that a lot of the so called criticisms are statements of preference as opposed to discussion points, and other ways that "criticism" isn't criticism. After recent posts, I would add that a lot of negative 4E comments aren't criticism as much as they are salvos in an "edition war".

Then the question is: Are people allowed to come to EN world and start a thread or join a thread stating their preferences? With the caveat that people from both sides need to follow the posting guidelines here.

 

[Stalker0]

People expend a lot of energy here discussing things they don't even like.

But what your forgetting is...many people simply like discussing! People like to debate and argue things.

I've personally spent a great deal of time discussing the pros and cons of 4e (see my threads that discuss the 4e subsystems) and I greatly enjoy writing every one. I love getting to deconstruct a game system and find out what works and doesn't work. Sometimes I write positive stuff about 4e, and sometimes I write negative things, but I enjoy the discussion and debate no matter which side I'm currently on.

There's nothing wrong with people being passionate about the discussion of a game system, or about any particular "edition war". The only thing wrong is when people are illogical about their discussions or put their discussions in the wrong place.

First, people who rant and rave with no logic do not serve the boards...they just create a hostile image. People who calmly tear down a particular game system they don't like with rational points I never have a problem with, these people are giving others information, information those people are free to do with as they please.

Second, people should place their posts in the right area. If I open up a thread talking about general things about 4e, that's an open field for fiery debate. If I open a thread asking people to tell me about their favorite 4e character, that is not an appropriate place to start tearing down the system, no matter how logical and calm the argument.

 

[FireLance]

Second, the thread title is "4e being immune to criticism." Are you implying that 4e should be immune to criticism?

I personally don't have a problem with criticism. What I do have problems with are the following:

1. Spreading of misinformation. For example, claiming that encounter abilities refresh at the start of an encounter or after five minutes have elapsed even if you do not rest, when it is stated in the rules that encounter abilities are regained after a short five-minute rest.

2. Wilful misinterpretation. For example, claiming that a warlord's inspiring word must be narrated as causing the actual healing of visible wounds, instead of restoring the intangible aspects of hit points or allowing a character to fight on despite his wounds.

3. Overstated or unsupported arguments. These usually take the form of "4e introduced this; we never had this in previous editions", when the actuality is more along the lines of "4e does this to a greater or more obvious extent; it was not so prevalent or obvious in earlier editions". For example, encounter abilities, speed of non-magical healing, effects that reduce hit points without dealing physical injuries, etc.​

Discuss, argue, and state your opinion all you want, just don't engage in badwrongcriticism.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Then the question is: Are people allowed to come to EN world and start a thread or join a thread stating their preferences? With the caveat that people from both sides need to follow the posting guidelines here.

Sure people are allowed. Expecting said opinions not to upset people or to draw heated responses is naive. Or to explain why people feel those responses are warranted. That would be more along the lines of my point.

 

[JeffB]

You win the InterWeb.

Thanks. This is gonna look great on my resume.

 

[Jasperak]

But what your forgetting is...many people simply like discussing! People like to debate and argue things.

I've personally spent a great deal of time discussing the pros and cons of 4e (see my threads that discuss the 4e subsystems) and I greatly enjoy writing every one. I love getting to deconstruct a game system and find out what works and doesn't work. Sometimes I write positive stuff about 4e, and sometimes I write negative things, but I enjoy the discussion and debate no matter which side I'm currently on.

There's nothing wrong with people being passionate about the discussion of a game system, or about any particular "edition war". The only thing wrong is when people are illogical about their discussions or put their discussions in the wrong place.

First, people who rant and rave with no logic do not serve the boards...they just create a hostile image. People who calmly tear down a particular game system they don't like with rational points I never have a problem with, these people are giving others information, information those people are free to do with as they please.

Second, people should place their posts in the right area. If I open up a thread talking about general things about 4e, that's an open field for fiery debate. If I open a thread asking people to tell me about their favorite 4e character, that is not an appropriate place to start tearing down the system, no matter how logical and calm the argument.

What gets me about both sides is how so few know how to engage in debate, nor show the ability of rational thought. D&D seems to sit at the very core of some people and in my opinion sets many to react emotionally and without much logic.

 

[Fifth Element]

I've personally spent a great deal of time discussing the pros and cons of 4e (see my threads that discuss the 4e subsystems) and I greatly enjoy writing every one.

Yes indeed! But I'm talking about those who only talk about the cons. They start thread after thread about the cons, they introduce the discussion of these cons into threads that are not about them, etc.

The only thing wrong is when people are illogical about their discussions or put their discussions in the wrong place.

First, people who rant and rave with no logic do not serve the boards...they just create a hostile image. People who calmly tear down a particular game system they don't like with rational points I never have a problem with, these people are giving others information, information those people are free to do with as they please.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Jasperak]

I personally don't have a problem with criticism. What I do have problems with are the following:

/snip

Discuss, argue, and state your opinion all you want, just don't engage in badwrongcriticism.

I agree.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

But if all you want to do is complain about some imagined slight... could you do it elsewhere? Please?

It'll never happen, and the forums will continue to have the "stuff" they've been displaying for months and months, if not years. Sure, it'll die down - but you'll always have a group (call them 'loyal' or call them 'nuts' or call them whatever you'd like to call such people) that will continue to post and complain about a game that they do. not. play.

Why? Human nature.

Actually, I asked that very question of DaveMage whom, I'm sure we all know, is happy to be a 3.5er. His answer possessed logic: There's a belief among certain crowds that the more negativity they heap on 4e, the sooner 5e will arrive. If they are "silent" now about the things they don't like, then those same things may raise their heads in the next edition.

If we take 8-10 years as an average lifespan of an edition, even if that's shortening over the long haul, we've got what we've got for quite some time.

And - guess what? 5e will just start things anew.

And Michael - you made a game that is fun to play and reinvigorated a handful of old farts that haven't gamed with me since they days of yore in my buddy's basement in the mid-80s. Shake off the griping. Water off a duck's butt and all that. As Nietzsche said, "Madness in individuals is rare; in mobs, it is the rule." This is the internet; we're a mob. It's not supposed to be rational.

By the way, you should have kept half-orcs in the PHB and dropped eladrin. What the hell were you thinking?

Sorry, had to.

So spaketh
Frederich Wilhelm Wisdom Penalty

 

[Darrin Drader]

What gets me about both sides is how so few know how to engage in debate, nor show the ability of rational thought. D&D seems to sit at the very core of some people and in my opinion sets many to react emotionally and without much logic.

I'm actually finishing up my degree right now after not having done so during my first attempt at college. Sad, I know. My major is English - Rhetoric/Professional Writing.

If you were to ask a hundred different college professors what the definition of rhetoric is, you would get 100 different answers. Foss, Foss, and Trapp define rhetoric simply as "communication." One of my professors defines rhetoric as gaslighting. The generally accepted concept behind rhetoric is argument, or trying to persuade people to your way of thinking.

There are three concepts that are central to rhetoric: logos, pathos, and ethos.

Logos is when the rhetor makes an appeal to logic. I could get into deductive and inductive reasoning, but the nuances are really for those who actually want to study it. The point is that logos is the type of argument you make when you're trying to influence people using facts.

Pathos is when the rhetor makes an appeal to emotion. This often has a negative connotation when speaking in the real world. The word "pathetic" is a derivative of pathos, and it is perfectly reasonable to describe an emotional argument as a "pathetic argument" in an academic sense without intending to denigrate it.

Finally, ethos isn't an appeal, but refers to the speaker. A person who is accomplished is said to habe situated ethos. Someone who is knowledgable about a subject but isn't an authority can invent ethos. For example, people listen to Monte Cook when he speaks because he has something like 25 years in the RPG business, wrote the D&D 3.0 DMG, and has contributed or wrote some of the most notable gaming products for as long as I can remember.

Now, the point of this is that most of my professors believe that most people form their opinions based on pathos, but they use logos to justify them and influence others. Sure, you can make as many logical arguments you want about something, but once you've made a decision, committed to that decision, and then start arguing about it, it's because there is something that resonated with you emotionally. It is admirable to want to examine things logically, and in fact, if you can't justify something from a logical point of view, you should probably take another look at why you hold to a certain belief, but a person should also not be ashamed to admit about something that it just doesn't work for them and they don't like it.

Ultimately there is no objective way of determining a better game system from an inferior one, no matter how hard you try. In fact, the concept of an inferior game system in and of itself denies the notion that you don't have to have a better game system to have fun playing it. That is the reason why arguing strongly for or against this is ultimately emotional.