D&D 5E Toward a new D&D aesthetics

[SkidAce]

His is the second post in the thread. That is a location that most thread readers are likely to see and respond to. And that particular post insists on a problematic and sweeping generalization.

How can the responses have gone differently?

Indeed the initial responses were polite with reasonable objections and requests for clarification.

Things became uglier because of personal insults at the objecters and questioners.

To answer your questions; imo...

We are/were discussing art, which is subjective.

Asking for clarification for a better understanding is perfectly fine, but it felt more like the OP was being asked to provide proof, show cause and effect, and to debate and defend their position.

When OP provided examples they felt illustrated their point, those examples were picked apart.

Perhaps the OP couldn't articulate the exact point they were trying to make, and once the discussion turned to debate, it went downhill.

That is what it looked like to me, and I grew uncomfortable following the discussion even though I also don't agree with the OP.

So I made my post about them being "hauled up on the debate stage".

Thank you for asking.

 

[Yaarel]

To answer your questions; imo...

We are/were discussing art, which is subjective.

Asking for clarification for a better understanding is perfectly fine, but it felt more like the OP was being asked to provide proof, show cause and effect, and to debate and defend their position.

When OP provided examples they felt illustrated their point, those examples were picked apart.

Perhaps the OP couldn't articulate the exact point they were trying to make, and once the discussion turned to debate, it went downhill.

That is what it looked like to me, and I grew uncomfortable following the discussion even though I also don't agree with the OP.

So I made my post about them being "hauled up on the debate stage".

Thank you for asking.

Actually, your comment about "hauled up on stage" made me think why. I concluded, well, his is the second post - thats gonna get attention.

Also, "I want such-and-such" is subjective. "There is a trend" is mathematical, an assertion about something objective.

Even saying something "sucks" is rude and even an assertion as if objective. On the rare times I do it myself, I am prepared to explain why a thing is problematic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It was obvious. Please. You are being intentionally obtuse. The poster meant that the art seemed cutesy/childish to them. Which you already know (or should!), but I am stating for clarity. Any responses to that initial post should have been addressing that and not adding baggage to the original statement.

Mod Note:

Mind reading is a difficult trick. Perhaps some additional clarification was genuinely needed.

However, accusations that posters’ requests for clarification are “obtuse” or “disingenuous” are potentially inflammatory because you’re making it personal. You’re accusing the poster of engaging in deception. If that is genuinely how you feel, it is probably best to disengage from that poster as opposed to escalating the situation.

And if you think people are being unreasonably persistent with a line of questioning like that, reporting the behavior, stepping back from the thread, or even using your ignore list are potentially better coping methods. Heck, you can even do all of those or mix and match.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, if that was what was happening here, great. But the truth is, it wasn't anything like you're describing. Look, with honesty, at the tone of the answers that were given to this poster. It was like a swarm of vultures homing in on a dying zebra. It was bizarre to watch. It was a set of people with their own preconceptions attacking en masse a person who was not a part of their herd. Absolutely zero effort to accommodate this person's viewpoint. The polar opposite of intellectualism and seeing the value in all people.

Intellectualism isn’t a virtue we particularly need to pursue, firstly. You make the final statement as if it is, but that is a matter of debate. The overvaluation of intellectualism and “hard logic” is a matter of fairly vigorous debate on other platforms, but off topic here, so I’ll leave it at this; enworld has its rules for good reason, and the folks here can be vigorous in challenge to certain lines of thinking for good reason.

But what you describe is also quite inaccurate. The opinion expressed was largely unsupported, and when challenged the response to those challenges was mostly angry defensiveness and doubling down without providing any more support for the position being doubled down on.

The suspicion of many respondents is quite understandable when you review the sort of rhetoric in previous thread on similar topics.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is disingenuous. This poster is not 'debating in bad faith'. His detractors really are though. This post of yours includes you in the latter group.

For clarity, Umbran didn’t say that beancounter was arguing in bad faith. He advised them not to accuse others of bad faith for criticizing their claims.

No, that is not what you were doing. You were not giving friendly advice. Insulting people seems to be your modus operandi, actually. Exactly what you are doing now. If you have a genuine counter argument, make it. Save the sanctimoniousness.

I speak as someone who has gotten teeth-grinding angry with Umbran on a few occasions. When I had spiraled into regularly acting like a caustic, petty, intentionally-inflammatory, jerk, during the so-called shutdown, @Umbran told me off quite effectively and snapped me out of it (for which I am still very grateful).

In short, he and I butt heads sometimes.

Like others who have complained in this thread, I strongly disagree with certain aspects of moderation here, though not the same aspects as those criticized ITT.

I say all of that to give you full context when I say that this is absolutely unfair to Umbran, needlessly aggressive and accusatory in tone, and generally very rude and inappropriate.

At worst Umbran can be impatient with people in certain contexts, and can come across more snarky than is needed in some conversations. But habitually insulting? Nah.

I’ve been “dog piled” before on these and other forums. It sucks. That isn’t what happened here anyone here intended. Beancounter has me on ignore, but I do apologize for coming across that way. Being familiar with all the posters in question, none of us were being disingenuous, we just either strongly disagree with the premise, or wanted clarification on what specifically makes them think this supposed trend is a thing.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

For clarity, Umbran didn’t say that beancounter was arguing in bad faith. He advised them not to accuse others of bad faith for criticizing their claims.


I speak as someone who has gotten teeth-grinding angry with Umbran on a few occasions. When I had spiraled into regularly acting like a caustic, petty, intentionally-inflammatory, jerk, during the so-called shutdown, @Umbran told me off quite effectively and snapped me out of it (for which I am still very grateful).

In short, he and I butt heads sometimes.

Like others who have complained in this thread, I strongly disagree with certain aspects of moderation here, though not the same aspects as those criticized ITT.

I say all of that to give you full context when I say that this is absolutely unfair to Umbran, needlessly aggressive and accusatory in tone, and generally very rude and inappropriate.

At worst Umbran can be impatient with people in certain contexts, and can come across more snarky than is needed in some conversations. But habitually insulting? Nah.

I’ve been “dog piled” before on these and other forums. It sucks. That isn’t what happened here anyone here intended. Beancounter has me on ignore, but I do apologize for coming across that way. Being familiar with all the posters in question, none of us were being disingenuous, we just either strongly disagree with the premise, or wanted clarification on what specifically makes them think this supposed trend is a thing.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on a lot of what you've said here but I do appreciate you taking the time to make a thoughtful response.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Intellectualism isn’t a virtue we particularly need to pursue, firstly. You make the final statement as if it is, but that is a matter of debate. The overvaluation of intellectualism and “hard logic” is a matter of fairly vigorous debate on other platforms, but off topic here, so I’ll leave it at this; enworld has its rules for good reason, and the folks here can be vigorous in challenge to certain lines of thinking for good reason.

But what you describe is also quite inaccurate. The opinion expressed was largely unsupported, and when challenged the response to those challenges was mostly angry defensiveness and doubling down without providing any more support for the position being doubled down on.

The suspicion of many respondents is quite understandable when you review the sort of rhetoric in previous thread on similar topics.

I'm using the term intellectualism in the sense of having an honest debate. As in both sides speaking directly and plainly. Maybe not the best use of that term... I hope this explanation makes my intent more clear. It's not so much about 'hard logic', but about being clear and genuine about the intent of the statements one is making.

It wasn't really a matter of an unsupported opinion being expressed by @beancounter in my opinion. Just to pick an example, when someone uses the term Disneyfication, there's not any nuance. It's a commonly used expression that means 'overly softened and simplified so as to be inoffensive... but with anything interesting disappearing in the process'. Filing off the edges.

It's possible (if not likely) that a non-native English speaker is not familiar with the term of course. It's also possible (but unlikely) that a native speaker has never heard this expression. The number of people who requested clarification on this term though... it stretches the boundaries of belief that there are that many people who are unfamiliar with this expression or are at least unable to glean the intent even if they aren't familiar with it. That's what I meant by disingenuous and anti-intellectual. And I imagine is also why @beancounter was getting upset. Even if that wasn't the intent, it comes across as passive aggressive and by connotation, secretive and dishonest about someone's motivation for responding.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

I'm using the term intellectualism in the sense of having an honest debate. As in both sides speaking directly and plainly. Maybe not the best use of that term... I hope this explanation makes my intent more clear. It's not so much about 'hard logic', but about being clear and genuine about the intent of the statements one is making.

It wasn't really a matter of an unsupported opinion being expressed by @beancounter in my opinion. Just to pick an example, when someone uses the term Disneyfication, there's not any nuance. It's a commonly used expression that means 'overly softened and simplified so as to be inoffensive... but with anything interesting disappearing in the process'. Filing off the edges.

It's possible (if not likely) that a non-native English speaker is not familiar with the term of course. It's also possible (but unlikely) that a native speaker has never heard this expression. The number of people who requested clarification on this term though... it stretches the boundaries of belief that there are that many people who are unfamiliar with this expression or are at least unable to glean the intent even if they aren't familiar with it. That's what I meant by disingenuous and anti-intellectual. And I imagine is also why @beancounter was getting upset. Even if that wasn't the intent, it comes across as passive aggressive and by connotation, secretive and dishonest about someone's motivation for responding.

For what is worth, I'm from Italy, bad english indeed, no deep knowledge of US culture, still I've got it right away.

 

[Hussar]

Except that you are ignoring the contextual meaning of the word "Disneyfication" which has been used repeatedly, over and over again, for years, particularly by a particular brand of grognard, as a perjorative term to mean infantile, immature and bad.

Wide eyed proclamations of only meaning the word in a specific sense is pretty trolling 101.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's possible (if not likely) that a non-native English speaker is not familiar with the term of course. It's also possible (but unlikely) that a native speaker has never heard this expression. The number of people who requested clarification on this term though... it stretches the boundaries of belief that there are that many people who are unfamiliar with this expression or are at least unable to glean the intent even if they aren't familiar with it. That's what I meant by disingenuous and anti-intellectual.

I am no native speaker and did not know the history of the word. My problem with this whole thread is threefold:

- asking for clarification should never be dismissed as disingenuous, because it is always better to take the time and clarify instead of accusing other people of being dishonest. Even if the meaning is relative clear, sometimes it is still good to explain why specifically this picture falls into this category.

- my first reaction was: a single point of data is not cconstituting a trend. Funnily just when I wanted to post exactly that, the latest poster expressed the same thing in nearly the same words.
So the question for a few more examples should also not be dismissed.

- I am also noticing a trend, that some people seem to be offended that the core game becomes more kids friendly. That peaked when a few words/sections from the DMG and Volo's guide were replaced/removed. So my initial reaction to this thread was "oh, another poster that seems to feel threatened".
So while I do not really see a trend in the art (except maybe that other colors are used) I do see an overall trend of trying to be more kids friendly in core books (by removing excessive brutality etc.), I do not really see an overall trend in the art specifically. I got the feeling that those trends were mixed up in this discussion (at least in the background and so maybe the discussion got overheated).