D&D General Rant: Sometimes I Hate the D&D Community

[Deset Gled]

That you have an opinion is trivial. We all have opinions.

What that opinion is, is also generally uninteresting in itself, because

Why you hold that opinion is what matters. Especially since we're in a discussion forum. The only thing that can really be discussed is the reasoning behind an opinion, not the opinion by itself.

I have to disagree with this.

A significant percent of the time, I come to discussions specifically to find out the "what". I want to find out what other peoples opinions are. I want to see what different ideas people have. To see what details people catch that I didn't. To see what different perspectives people have. The "what" is extremely important. And the idea that other peoples opinions are generally uninteresting is troublingly dismissive. Furthermore, judging opinions based only on the "why" that a poster gives as explanation is just layers of fallacies.

Now, a lot of the other things you said, I agree with. How things are expressed matters, and we don't have to be tolerant of bigotry and prejudice just because it's an opinion. But that's a big step away from everything else you said. If I were to make some assumptions, I think your meta-discussion here makes sense when talking about some of the 50+ page, long term (often circular) discussions that sometimes go on here. But those are a small percentage of the threads that take place on ENWorld.

 

[Reynard]

You see comments like this a lot in this sort of meta-discussion, so this post is not directed at you per se, since you're only expressing a very common idea.

This idea is very reductive and unhelpful. The point of these discussions is not that someone should not be able to express their opinion, it's about how they express that opinion. That matters. Take responsibility for the way you choose to express what you're expressing.

And moreover:

That you have an opinion is trivial. We all have opinions.

What that opinion is, is also generally uninteresting in itself, because

Why you hold that opinion is what matters. Especially since we're in a discussion forum. The only thing that can really be discussed is the reasoning behind an opinion, not the opinion by itself.

And the fact is, many people hold many opinions that are based on misunderstandings, misinterpretations, ignorance, faulty reasoning, and let's face it, prejudice and bigotry.

So if you hold an opinion for one or more of these reasons, it is entirely appropriate for others to point that out. The fact that it's an opinion does not shield it from criticism. Far too often in online discussions you see someone throw out their opinion, and then when it's challenged, retreat to "It's just my opinion! I have a right to my opinion!" Great. But if you express it in a discussion forum, expect it to be discussed. And if others point out why your opinion seems to be based on something other than facts and good reasoning, they're not violating your right to your opinion. They're just expressing theirs.

You also see, far too often, people ascribing motives to people that hold an opinion and then attacking them for that assumed motive and not criticizing the opinion itself. See: anytime someone says they prefer evil orcs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You also see, far too often, people ascribing motives to people that hold an opinion and then attacking them for that assumed motive and not criticizing the opinion itself. See: anytime someone says they prefer evil orcs.

More broadly, and I'm not entirely immune to the disease myself, you see a lot of what I call "Internet Telepathy" where people will assume a motive for many posts that is not in evidence from the post. Some of this is an understandable defense mechanism when you've encountered enough people who do a fair bit of dog-whistling, or less malign but still bad, are using a line of discussion as a tactic. But in practice it still basically creates a lot of counterproductive collateral damage to discussion.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

At the Badwrongfun Anonymous meeting;

"Hi, My name is aco175, and I like flanking."

"Hi Aco."

okay I don't know what the answer is... but I can tell you what I tried. Through most of 4e I was SUPER happy, so when people talked it down I tried to just ignore them. When NEXT was announced I got super upset that 4e wasn't going forward and through out the play test got into many fights on here. I found that I had to just stop argueing for my own mental health and it was the first time since early 3e that I walked away from enworld (and other boards)

5e is a good 'compromise' edition, and this becomes a problem when you find your group can't agree between PF, 4e, or a non D&D game BUT can all 'accept' 5e... It also hard to get new people into games not in print (as a oWoD player I can tell you when the 25th A books came out I found new players, but not for long) and even older players feel they have 'played out' some or even all options they want to try over the years (with 4e it took about 2ish years and 3 campaigns into 5e life span that people in my group hit this.

through out 5e I have gotten into fights here... I still have a 2017 warning in my inbox. but I took 2 long periods (one about a year, and one about 8ish months) deciding that I would house rule and just play the game... each time coming back to talk about something that had excited me about 5e, just to find arguments back

when teh 2024 (now called 1D&D) edition change was announced I vowed not to make the mistake of leaving. I would stay and argue for my point and I would start early by bringing up problems I and my group have and what we want to fix it. I don't know that it is doing any good

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This idea is very reductive and unhelpful. The point of these discussions is not that someone should not be able to express their opinion, it's about how they express that opinion. That matters. Take responsibility for the way you choose to express what you're expressing.

And moreover:

That you have an opinion is trivial. We all have opinions.

What that opinion is, is also generally uninteresting in itself, because

Why you hold that opinion is what matters. Especially since we're in a discussion forum. The only thing that can really be discussed is the reasoning behind an opinion, not the opinion by itself.

the trouble is that sometimes it feels like if you even bring up an issue some people (and often the same people) are drawn in to tell you that you are wrong

And the fact is, many people hold many opinions that are based on misunderstandings, misinterpretations, ignorance, faulty reasoning, and let's face it, prejudice and bigotry.

and what makes my above statement worse is we ALL think OUR opinions are based on understanding and THEY, the other is the one with misunderstandings, misinterpretations, ignorance, faulty reasoning, and let's face it, prejudice and bigotry.

Take skill checks, or if there should be social skills at all, or if there should be a warlord, or if LFQW is still an issue... all of these have two sides that will tell you that THE OTHER side is full of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, ignorance, and faulty reasoning.

When we have edition wars starting it is again because BOTH sides think THEY are understanding and the other side isn't (I'm sure there are some trolls but most of us are trying to argue in good faith)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You also see, far too often, people ascribing motives to people that hold an opinion and then attacking them for that assumed motive and not criticizing the opinion itself. See: anytime someone says they prefer evil orcs.

Admittedly not here but on FB, but in a discussion of evil orcs I saw a person say they understand where the idea comes from and maybe they would play in such a game either way... BUT in the homebrew world with 40 years of history in it, they would not change the game they run in the one and only world they run... but maybe if they ever make a second world... and this person was not only attacked in the sub thread as only being prejudice and bigoted, but in OTHER conversations I saw this person brought up as "Don't be like _____".

 

[Umbran]

I have to disagree with this.

A significant percent of the time, I come to discussions specifically to find out the "what". I want to find out what other peoples opinions are.

But what the opinion is doesn't really help you if you don't know the context.

It is like movie reviews - a reviewer saying, "I liked this movie" doesn't give you much information, unless the reviewer tells you why, or you know why from following the reviewer and have learned something of their tastes.

People liking (or disliking) some rule, setting, supplement, or what have you doesn't help you until you know how they like to play the game, what their tables and house rules are like, and so on.

 

[Fifth Element]

I have to disagree with this.

A significant percent of the time, I come to discussions specifically to find out the "what".

As with anything, don't take the words too literally. I did say that the "what" by itself is only generally uninteresting, meaning sometimes it is interesting by itself. Especially in the context of certain discussions. If the point of a particular discussion is to find out the "whats" of various people, then obviously the "what" has value by itself. But in the context of the type of discussion I'm addressing, I think my point stands in general.

 

[Fifth Element]

You also see, far too often, people ascribing motives to people that hold an opinion and then attacking them for that assumed motive and not criticizing the opinion itself. See: anytime someone says they prefer evil orcs.

This is true - but you might note that if the person saying they prefer evil orcs provides their reasoning as to why. they are less likely to have motives ascribed to them, since their motives are explicitly stated.

 

[Fifth Element]

Take skill checks, or if there should be social skills at all, or if there should be a warlord, or if LFQW is still an issue... all of these have two sides that will tell you that THE OTHER side is full of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, ignorance, and faulty reasoning.

To be clear, I was referring to demonstrable misinterpretations, etc. Cases where people claim the rules say X, but when you check the rules it does not say X, and in reality X is a common misrepresentation of the rules made by haters of a particular ruleset.

An opinion on whether or not there should be social skills is not something that can really be informed by demonstrable misunderstandings, since it's very much a matter of preference. So it's not an example of what I'm talking about.