On the brand VS the game...

[Raven Crowking]

However, expressing views that are divisive, rather than inclusive, is not good for the health of the message board.

So, we are faced with three possibilities:

(1) The fault lies with having the opinion.

(2) The fault lies with expressing the opinion.

(3) The fault lies with response to expressing the opinion.

I can think of no instance of (2), off the top of my head, that is not really an instance of (1).

Moreover, "X is not Y" is no more (or less) divisive than "X is Y", unless everyone just happens to hold the same opinion. See (1), above.

Note that (3) is also a subset of (1), because the problem with the reaction is rooted in a desire to attempt others to either not hold, or not express, opinions that differ from that of the reactor. However, I would say that if you wish no one to have, or express, opinions that differ from yours, you really are at fault for that opinion.

YMMV, of course.


RC

 

[Mercurius]

So you're fighting for your right to express an opinion, Raven? What about my right to point out how your opinion is erroneous? And then you can reply with, "No its not, it is subjective, as is your opinion about my opinion."

And around and around we go, on the semantic hamster wheel. There is really no point to it, and you defending your right to your opinion comes off as a sidestepping of the critique that saying that 4E is not D&D is a fallacious, limited perspective. How about we stop with the meta-discussion and talk about the the actual issue?

I mean, I can say "Barry Bonds is the greatest LF ever to play the game of baseball" and you can say, "No he's not, Stan Musial is." And then we can discuss the issue, provide backing to our opinions, and have a jolly good time. Or one of us can essentially end the real and interesting discussion with some variant of, "But your view is your view and my view is my view, and everything is subjective." This sort of extreme relativism ends up in a performative contradiction, and kills any sort of meaningful dialogue (and no, I really don't want to get into a discussion of semantics, postmodern philosophy, or relativism, thankyouverymuch). I mean, yeah, we are all entitled to our own subjective opinion. But can we get on with it? That is so, like, 1990 ).

So Raven, a couple questions:

1) Do you think that 4E is not "real D&D"?
2) If so, why?

 

[AngryMojo]

It's also a matter of showing restraint and wording things differently to avoid inflaming the situation. Whether you think it is or not, the statement "Edition X isn't D&D" in any of it's variations is an inflammatory statement. You may not get upset about it, but it's a hell of a trigger for many people. Yes, you have the right to say it, and yes you have the right to your opinion.

Similar to how if a woman asks you "Do these jeans make me look fat?" you absolutely have the option of saying "Yes they do." or "No they don't, your face does." That may be an honest to god opinion, but it's not one you should voice like that. If you think about it, you can find hundreds of examples of rephrasing an opinion to make it more palatable for the masses or individuals. This is what we refer to as "tact"

If somebody dealt with you in your business life with no tact, you'd think he's a jerk. Why should a civil conversation on a message board be any different?

 

[billd91]

So you're fighting for your right to express an opinion, Raven? What about my right to point out how your opinion is erroneous?

That would be the first problem. You don't need to correct someone's opinion or say it's erroneous. If the facts cited behind it are wrong, point that out. If you disagree, say so and explain why. But approaching the topic as if the opinion were erroneous isn't merely an entry point onto a semantic hamster wheel. It's a major rudeness problem on the boards, particularly in edition war threads.

I mean, I can say "Barry Bonds is the greatest LF ever to play the game of baseball" and you can say, "No he's not, Stan Musial is." And then we can discuss the issue, provide backing to our opinions, and have a jolly good time. Or one of us can essentially end the real and interesting discussion with some variant of, "But your view is your view and my view is my view, and everything is subjective." This sort of extreme relativism ends up in a performative contradiction, and kills any sort of meaningful dialogue (and no, I really don't want to get into a discussion of semantics, postmodern philosophy, or relativism, thankyouverymuch). I mean, yeah, we are all entitled to our own subjective opinion. But can we get on with it? That is so, like, 1990 ).

Why would someone come back with a statement that the opinions are relative unless they felt they'd been backed into a corner by someone trying to claim their opinion is flat-out wrong? Why would that be necessary without someone first calling the opinion out as if the poster were posting fact?
If we accept that people have their opinions and actually tolerate them whether we agree or not, then there's no need for someone to defend themselves by saying "well, the judgments are all subjective anyway". There'd be no need to resort to that defense if there were no attack.

 

[Mercurius]

That would be the first problem. You don't need to correct someone's opinion or say it's erroneous. If the facts cited behind it are wrong, point that out. If you disagree, say so and explain why. But approaching the topic as if the opinion were erroneous isn't merely an entry point onto a semantic hamster wheel. It's a major rudeness problem on the boards, particularly in edition war threads.

Yes, I agree, which is pretty much what I said later in the same post - that we should focus on discussing the issue itself, even on debating our perspectives, rather than fall back on either "It is all subjective" or "You are wrong, I am right."

But you are right, I shouldn't say "You are wrong." A more tactful way would be to say, "I disagree, and here's why." On one level they amount to the same thing, but the tone is quite different (just as the tone of "4E is not real D&D" and "4E is not my preferred version of D&D" is quite different. Even saying "I think 4E is by far the worst form of D&D" is different than flat-out denying the reality of 4E as a form of D&D).

Why would someone come back with a statement that the opinions are relative unless they felt they'd been backed into a corner by someone trying to claim their opinion is flat-out wrong? Why would that be necessary without someone first calling the opinion out as if the poster were posting fact?
If we accept that people have their opinions and actually tolerate them whether we agree or not, then there's no need for someone to defend themselves by saying "well, the judgments are all subjective anyway". There'd be no need to resort to that defense if there were no attack.

I agree to some extent, but think that this sort of thing is also a way to avoid what another is saying. For example, you could say "The sky is blue" and if I didn't want to really get what you are saying, I could say "But that's just your opinion." Conversation over.

But again, we're talking about the semantic issues. What about the actual issue at hand? Is 4E real D&D or not? If so, why? This semantic stuff is, for the most part, a waste of time.

 

[Hussar]

Another way to frame the discussion then, academic though it may be, is in terms of a proposition that might (if only hypothetically) be falsified.

Imagine a hypothetical 5th edition, 6th edition, 7th edition, ad infinitum into the future. Perhaps published by WotC, perhaps published by some other company to whom the torch has been passed. Imagine significant overhauls to the rules of each game. But they all carry the brand name, "Dungeons & Dragons."

Is it reasonable, although we have no knowledge of these games and know nothing of what they'll be like, to declare that they are, de facto, D&D? And for those of you who say that the answer is an unequivocal "yes," at what point would such a game not be D&D anymore? Or doesn't such a line exist?

The sense I get so far about the majority opinion around here is this: "D&D is definitionally any role-playing game that carries the D&D brand name." Not that there's anything wrong with that per se, but I think intellectual honesty demands an answer to the fundamental question: at what hypothetical point does the plausibility of that opinion break down? Where would a game branded as "D&D" cease to actually be D&D?

This is actually a pretty difficult question. I mean, AD&D and 3e D&D were radically different animals. Mechanically they share pretty much nothing. If you picked up a 1e player and plunked him down at a 3e game and told him to make a character, he couldn't. Not without a LOT of coaching. Chargen is pretty much completely different and even though a number of the terms are similar, they can mean very different things.

Same way as if you picked up a 1e DM and plunked him down in front of a 2e group. While the mechanics might be pretty similar, the design philosophies and play assumptions between the two games are very, very different. The 2e players are expecting a 2e game, which generally means grand sweeping stories, epic fantasy. The 1e DM is likely not thinking that way.

Not that one group or the other can't change. Of course they can. But there's going to be a lot of friction in that group before things settle down. The two games, despite mechanical similarities, have almost polar opposite approaches to how the game is played.

For me, for a D&D branded game to stop being D&D it would have to stop being a role playing game altogether. By that I mean that the basic, findamental assumption at the table is that each player will take on the fictional role of some sort of character and their play will be informed by that assumption. Everything that occurs during the game will flow from that role assumption.

Board games do not carry that assumption. While you can role play during a board game, the game itself does not presume that you are going to.

For a D&D branded game to no longer be D&D, for me, it would have to remove the presumption of role assumption by the players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So you're fighting for your right to express an opinion, Raven? What about my right to point out how your opinion is erroneous?

Actually, I am fighting for my right to read your opinion, if you think 4e is not D&D, even though I do not share it. It is my express opinion that an EN World where that opinion is acceptable is more vibrant, and more valuable, than one where it is not.

Frankly, unless I am trying to alter your opinion, there is no reason to go around and around on the semantic hamster wheel. And if I wish to contest your opinion, that is my fault, not yours.

So Raven, a couple questions:

1) Do you think that 4E is not "real D&D"?
2) If so, why?

Since you missed it, (1) Sure, why not? and (2) I can still see the line of genesis. But I can see the opposite side as well.

It's also a matter of showing restraint and wording things differently to avoid inflaming the situation.

I have no problem with anyone choosing to show restraint. But that is not what is happening here. What is happening is an attempt to say that others should show restraint, iwithout imposing the same equally on both sides.

There is no difference between "X is Y" and "X is not Y". If either is inflammatory, both are. If "X is not Y" should not be said, one should show equal restraint in saying "X is Y". Both are equally triggers.

The question is, what ideal should we uphold? That posters with different opinions just shut the hell up? Or that we accept different opinions?

Because if you want them to simply STFU, you will lose the richness that is EN World. I value that richness. I value the opinions of a lot of people here, some of whom play Edition X, and some of whom play Edition Y, some of whom play both, and some of whom play neither. It is not necessary to agree with someone to gain valuable insight from them.

It now matters very little to me what edition anyone plays. Outside of my own little circle, I doubt anyone is playing the game I am!

You may also gain the same effect as STFU by using the Ignore button, if you wish.

But once those voices are actually silenced, I will no longer gain the rich diversity that I do now. Those voices will go elsewhere, into pockets of forums dedicated to a very narrow subset of games. And real division will have been accomplished.

Us talking about this is not divisive -- at least certainly not to the degree that us not talking is.

And, who knows? Perhaps something you love will be the next unpopular/supposedly inflammatory thing, and perhaps you will be the next to be told to STFU.



RC

 

[billd91]

But you are right, I shouldn't say "You are wrong." A more tactful way would be to say, "I disagree, and here's why." On one level they amount to the same thing, but the tone is quite different (just as the tone of "4E is not real D&D" and "4E is not my preferred version of D&D" is quite different. Even saying "I think 4E is by far the worst form of D&D" is different than flat-out denying the reality of 4E as a form of D&D).

Of course it's different to say you don't like 4e than to say it's not really D&D. But, for a number of people who have posted in this thread have said, it would be incorrect for them to say that since that's not what they feel. Should they lie to avoid upsetting the people who feel strongly that 4e is the best D&D that's ever been? Or should the strong 4e fans be more tolerant of the "4e isn't really D&D" opinion? Which is really better for this message board? That an opinion should be expressed, even if controversial, or that opinions should be repressed in case a distressed reader should respond with trouble? Which is a preferable behavior? Which standard should we be held to?

 

[Hussar]

There is no difference between "X is Y" and "X is not Y". If either is inflammatory, both are. If "X is not Y" should not be said, one should show equal restraint in saying "X is Y". Both are equally triggers.

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?

At least in the case of 4e isn't D&D, no one seems to be trying to claim that 4e isn't even a role playing game.

 

[AngryMojo]

At least in the case of 4e isn't D&D, no one seems to be trying to claim that 4e isn't even a role playing game.

Actually, a lot of people claim that. It's one of the finer low points of the edition war.