D&D 5E Arguing, ideating and solution-seeking on the D&D Enworld forum

[Mind of tempest]

This applies in both directions though. You don't see it quite as often here as on, say, reddit, but people who don't know much about a subject, but know, say, hugely more than their friends, often think they're amazing super-expert, and when they talk to people who know vastly more than them, they can't even comprehend that. On reddit you often see it with the history of videogames. Some 20-something who has watched tons of YouTube videos on gaming history and maybe read a few wikipedia articles, will make these wild claims about games, which literally anyone who was around then and gaming with the devices/games in question knows isn't true, but he's an "expert" and another "expert" on YouTube sort of implied it was the case, so people arguing with him are dummies.

The best recent one was a guy trying to tell me that open-world games didn't exist until GTA3. He was very determined. When I and others showed unavoidable examples he started just trying to argue we'd edited Wikipedia to try and prove him wrong, and he refused to watch videos of the games in action about "YouTube can be faked" lol. Before that someone was very insisted that "CRPG" meant "Classic RPG", despite the fact that the term went back to when those game were new lol. That was pretty amazing.

so know nothing know it alls is who you are describing?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I'd like to vote on a fourth category on the overuse of under-explained polls around here...

 

[payn]

This applies in both directions though. You don't see it quite as often here as on, say, reddit, but people who don't know much about a subject, but know, say, hugely more than their friends, often think they're amazing super-expert, and when they talk to people who know vastly more than them, they can't even comprehend that. On reddit you often see it with the history of videogames. Some 20-something who has watched tons of YouTube videos on gaming history and maybe read a few wikipedia articles, will make these wild claims about games, which literally anyone who was around then and gaming with the devices/games in question knows isn't true, but he's an "expert" and another "expert" on YouTube sort of implied it was the case, so people arguing with him are dummies.

The best recent one was a guy trying to tell me that open-world games didn't exist until GTA3. He was very determined. When I and others showed unavoidable examples he started just trying to argue we'd edited Wikipedia to try and prove him wrong, and he refused to watch videos of the games in action about "YouTube can be faked" lol. Before that someone was very insisted that "CRPG" meant "Classic RPG", despite the fact that the term went back to when those game were new lol. That was pretty amazing.

This is exactly why I have been so depressed about the great reddit/discord migration...

 

[Seramus]

This applies in both directions though. You don't see it quite as often here as on, say, reddit, but people who don't know much about a subject, but know, say, hugely more than their friends, often think they're amazing super-expert, and when they talk to people who know vastly more than them, they can't even comprehend that. On reddit you often see it with the history of videogames. Some 20-something who has watched tons of YouTube videos on gaming history and maybe read a few wikipedia articles, will make these wild claims about games, which literally anyone who was around then and gaming with the devices/games in question knows isn't true, but he's an "expert" and another "expert" on YouTube sort of implied it was the case, so people arguing with him are dummies.

This is true! Dunning-Kruger makes fools of us all.

 

[TwoSix]

Picked "right amount" for all 3. People want to argue, this is a pretty safe space for it and the mods do a good job walking the fine line between shutting down animosity and giving people space to let things out.

And there's thoughtful posts presenting new ideas almost every day here, the signal-to-noise ratio is a lot higher than plenty of other online locations.

 

[Minigiant]

If anything there's not enough creation and brainstorming here and D&D as a whole.

The community has a bit of a case of brainlock.

 

[Umbran]

To much arguing about semantics rather than ideas. I understand sometimes you need to define terms to not talk past each other, but arguing the definitions isn't helping anyone.

Arguments, in general, aren't terribly constructive. I don't see a lot of difference between arguing definitions, or ideas - they are still arguments.

Discussion is not the same as argument. It tends to generate more useful material, but folks have to walk into them without the need to have the "winning idea".

 

[Umbran]

The community has a bit of a case of brainlock.

Humans tend to that. And the state of the world at large isn't helping.

 

[TwoSix]

This applies in both directions though. You don't see it quite as often here as on, say, reddit, but people who don't know much about a subject, but know, say, hugely more than their friends, often think they're amazing super-expert, and when they talk to people who know vastly more than them, they can't even comprehend that. On reddit you often see it with the history of videogames. Some 20-something who has watched tons of YouTube videos on gaming history and maybe read a few wikipedia articles, will make these wild claims about games, which literally anyone who was around then and gaming with the devices/games in question knows isn't true, but he's an "expert" and another "expert" on YouTube sort of implied it was the case, so people arguing with him are dummies.

You never see more Dunning-Kruger in action than in internet comments.

 

[DarkMantle]

But though I don't mind the arguing I'd far rather it be over principles and ideas rather than semantics or word definitions* or people trying to lawyer threads around to a particular viewpoint.

For what it's worth, when I started this poll, that's along the lines of what I was thinking behind "Too much arguing" etc.

Edit: And I agree that "discussion" is not the same as "argument" due to the "winning" part.