D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

Quick summary of the acronyms you mentioned.

OGL = open game license. A free license allowing anyone to make and sell D&D third party products using specified content.

SRD = system reference document. Includes D&D core rules you can use under the OGL to make D&D products. Classes and races and spells and monsters and such. Does not include stuff like Settings or specific WotC characters so no Forgotten Realms or Elminster.

OSR = old school rules or old school renaissance. New third party products for older edition TSR rules or the feel of TSR era games but not using TSR game rule systems.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The cancelled user account suggests that this is wasted effort, but here goes.
Used to be I decided what I was supposed to know or didn't. Forgive me if I wasn't 'hip' whenever it was that I was expected to be; I didn't get that particular heads-up. In simpler terms, I feel like I shouldn't have to know these terms at all just to have a conversation about TTRPG or anything else for that matter. People toss around terminology these days as if everyone is supposed to know it right off the bat, but the hard truth is that people invent needless terms to bloat their own importance in the discussion, with the purpose of wielding them as weapons when others either don't know them or use them out of an undisclosed context (see above for an example).
There are undoubtedly and inarguably people who use jargon to exclude or to feel important. Everyone was young once (and some people never grow into well-adjusted social skills), and both TTRPGs and internet discussions are common gateways for people still on that journey. However, that is not the major reason for the existence of hobby-wide fandom-terminology.

It's clear that something has gotten you incredibly riled up. You've come into this discussion hotter than a two-dollar pistol, casting aspersions towards nameless others who have apparently done you some great wrong and generalized it to the community as a whole. It is the equivalent to getting mugged, and then walking into the nearest shop to get the police called and instead throwing a fit and reaming out all the patrons there and badmouthing the entire city in your anger and frustration -- we have no idea what the problem is or what to do to help, and the only abusive behavior we are seeing is coming from you.
Hey, it's certainly easier than actually trying to meet people halfway in a common goal of understanding.
That isn't remotely what you have been doing, or the side you have been taking. You have been team 'hostile, angry, self-declared victim' from the get-go. There has been nothing of accommodation or attempting to find understanding about anything you have presented.
I expect the alphabet soup deluge from governmental institutions, not from a casual discussion about a hobby. In short, I don't give a frog's green ass if you have a secret handshake or an entirely new sign language; the point is, the only thing anyone in any hobby should be expected to know is how to communicate ideas clearly without referring to a specialized glossary. Hope I cleared that up.
We play "D&D," (or "DnD"), which is an "RPG." The game has had acronyms and jargon and unofficial must-be-part-of-the-wider-community-to-have-learned shorthands since the very beginning. I'm not sure why you think a hobby shouldn't have such things. Jargon exists so that people who deal with the subject in depth, regardless of the reason, can have an fruitful discussion. Surgeons, artists, and piercing specialists all need to have terms for the various parts of the external ear you or I will never need to know because they will need to communicate amongst themselves if the point they are making is in regards to the tragus or the scapha* -- and that has nothing to do with whether their interest is professional, government, hobby, or anything else.
*terms I didn't know until two minutes ago when I dreamed up this example.
Lest we forget, the topic of the thread was inviting anyone who felt like they didn't fit in to speak up. I spoke truth on this forum as I would speak to anyone in a spirited discussion, with the bark on. It's replies like yours ("You should know this", etc.) that turn these kinds of discussions into contests.
Again, you are the hero of this discussion in your mind and your mind only. Everyone else sees and abusive individual throwing a fit.
The whole point behind the topic was to chime in with our feelings in response to the question as to whether we felt like we didn't fit in or not. You pretty much took every one of my points out of context so you could throw them back in my face. Bravo. It's replies like yours that exactly illustrate my point. None of what I said was intended as a direct attack or an attack of any kind, and thus your words are not well-taken. They weren't attacks, they were how I felt inside. WTF is wrong with you people, anyway?
If people are taking your comments out of context, it is unclear to everyone else. You have the opportunity to explain how it is the case. Otherwise, no, it does not seem like your point is being illustrated. What is wrong with the rest of the people here (if anything) is only that they are not telepathic and thus aren't privy to whatever has gotten you so preemptively angry.
So what gives? Was this just planting your flag out there and saying "I'm a grognard and proud of it?"
For the benefit of the person to whom you are responding, I want to chime in that this is exactly what it looks like, with a side order of gnashing their teeth at the perceived slights of a wider community that has wronged them by making them feel excluded.
 

There are undoubtedly and inarguably people who use jargon to exclude or to feel important. Everyone was young once (and some people never grow into well-adjusted social skills), and both TTRPGs and internet discussions are common gateways for people still on that journey. However, that is not the major reason for the existence of hobby-wide fandom-terminology.

It's clear that something has gotten you incredibly riled up. [...]
While that poster certainly seemed to have an axe to grind, there is I think a valid point in there somewhere; namely that sometimes our (including myself, here) jargon and acronym use gets seriously carried away and that we don't always (or often, or even ever?) consider how the bleep someone brand new to the hobby* wandering in to these forums for the first time can possibly make sense of some of these posts.

* - or, as it seemed with that poster, returning to it after a very long time away.
 

While that poster certainly seemed to have an axe to grind, there is I think a valid point in there somewhere; namely that sometimes our (including myself, here) jargon and acronym use gets seriously carried away and that we don't always (or often, or even ever?) consider how the bleep someone brand new to the hobby* wandering in to these forums for the first time can possibly make sense of some of these posts.

* - or, as it seemed with that poster, returning to it after a very long time away.
Oh, absolutely. This is a worthwhile subject of discussion.
 

In AD&D, a 10-foot square could hold three characters abreast. Hence, Gygax's love of polearms. A second rank of henchmen with long spears could deliver an attack during the same activation. Monsters with spears did it all the time. It felt like a war game to us. The thief's job was to go around and backstab the enemy's Magic-User or Shaman.
To be clear, I was not responding to a claim that “we used formations with magic users in the back” (because obviously), I was responding to this specific description of gameplay. That does not sound like any AD&D I ever played, saw, or read described in Dragon magazine, TSR modules, etc. it sounds like grognards running AD&D like wargame.

Which is fine! My only claim was that I don’t think what is being described above was the norm. I don’t think most folks exploring Castle Strahd or White Plume Mountain were doing it like that, but apparently some were.
 

To be clear, I was not responding to a claim that “we used formations with magic users in the back” (because obviously), I was responding to this specific description of gameplay. That does not sound like any AD&D I ever played, saw, or read described in Dragon magazine, TSR modules, etc. it sounds like grognards running AD&D like wargame.

Which is fine! My only claim was that I don’t think what is being described above was the norm. I don’t think most folks exploring Castle Strahd or White Plume Mountain were doing it like that, but apparently some were.
Without the internet D&D groups where little bubbles all doing things differently whilst thinking everyone else was doing it the same.

I’ve occasionally used ranks of pikemen against PCs in 5e though.
 

To be clear, I was not responding to a claim that “we used formations with magic users in the back” (because obviously), I was responding to this specific description of gameplay. That does not sound like any AD&D I ever played, saw, or read described in Dragon magazine, TSR modules, etc. it sounds like grognards running AD&D like wargame.

Which is fine! My only claim was that I don’t think what is being described above was the norm. I don’t think most folks exploring Castle Strahd or White Plume Mountain were doing it like that, but apparently some were.
Are you lonely? That was 8 days ago. :p

It's all there in the AD&D rules. Some connected the dots others didn't. We know that Gary did that in his games. It depends on your gaming background. Early adopters of D&D were often wargamers.

Our experiences are anecdotal. No one can claim to know how the majority of people played. We have no scientific data.
 


While that poster certainly seemed to have an axe to grind, there is I think a valid point in there somewhere; namely that sometimes our (including myself, here) jargon and acronym use gets seriously carried away and that we don't always (or often, or even ever?) consider how the bleep someone brand new to the hobby* wandering in to these forums for the first time can possibly make sense of some of these posts.

* - or, as it seemed with that poster, returning to it after a very long time away.
This is very true... but at the same time we live in an age where you can search and find this information so freaking easily that you have to willingly choose to remain ignorant if you can't determine or search out what most of this jargon is. I mean even if they didn't want to google it... at the barest minimum if someone new posted here and just asked... "Hey, I'm actually new to Dungeons & Dragons, does someone mind telling me what OGL and SRD mean please, I'm not understanding the conversation?"... there would be plenty of people absolutely willing to write a post in the thread explaining it.

If a person has really gotten into this D&D hobby and has been curious enough and able to somehow find their way to a message board such as this... suggesting that they use that same wherewithall to occasionally look up or ask about questions they have regarding the hobby without being obnoxious about it is not asking too much.
 

Every thing cannot be everything to everyone. The game, as much as it can become a point of identity in various ways to people, is still just a game. Courtesy goes both ways. New members to a community can be courteous by learning practices and tacit knowledge. Older members of a community can be by demonstrating patience and imparting that tacit knowledge. Gatekeeping is not having specialized knowledge for insiders and veterans, it is refusing to allow those that lack the knowledge (or possess some other undesirable trait) into the community to acquire it.

For a lot of the community, their entire D&D related 'responsibility' is voluntary, only to the social contracts they interact with, from their play group, online communities, etc. Yet that can and often does intersect with those who do have legal and commercial responsibilities regarding the game. James Jacobs, Mike Mearls and Monte Cook will never be able to post as 'just a DM' or 'just another player' Heck, even Morus can't. But "as a DM", also known as voluntarily running a game in my spare time, I don't actually have any responsibility beyond what I adopt for myself. If I run my games like a petty tyrant or a shock jock, that's my choice, but I also am not entitled to have people continue to show up to be belittled or forced into ill conceived confrontations of their phobias. (And whether or not they do, it still makes me a prick.) I am not responsible for growing the hobby, or catering to religious/political group concerns or purchasing third party material, but I am in a position to do all of those things. That has nothing to do with whether those things are good or bad. If I get on here and spout off about not letting girls play, I'll probably be kicked off the boards, or at the very least added to a few dozen 'ignore' lists. But if a producer of game material does the same, it could easily cause a boycott of their company, they could be fired; if the response to their actions is great enough, their actions may well lose other people's jobs too.

I think it wouldn't hurt the community (of DnD players, not enworld specifically) for people to act like opinions other than their own, or even deeply held values other than their own, might still be given in good faith. As someone who came from the Army 97-06, not everyone is fighting your war, and some of them don't even know it exists. It doesn't make them the enemy.
 

Remove ads

Top