D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Umbran]

If people would stick to “stuff I like” then there would be no argument. Not a whole lot to argue about if you like something.

Yep.

But it’s very often taken the next step. “Stuff I like is better than what you like”. “I like this because it’s better”. The qualitative judgement that very often accompanies “stuff I like”.

Pardon the sarcasm here, but... Oh noes! Someone gave a qualitative judgement I don't agree with! I must don my internet superhero suit, and defend because... someone is wrong on the internet!!1!

Okay, done with sarcasm.

It takes two to tango, right. There wouldn't be much argument if everyone else just let folks vent, either. This need to be right is what is exhausting, ultimately.

And if we cannot refute that with facts because they “like” it then there is absolutely no point in discussing anything. Simply claiming “I like this” shuts down all discussion.

Wow, no.

Dude, there are entire worlds of discussion that aren't two people trying to refute each other with facts.

 

[Bae'zel]

It takes two to tango, right. There wouldn't be much argument if everyone else just let folks vent, either. This need to be right is what is exhausting, ultimately.

Perhaps you’re right. The atmosphere in the online RPG community would be less volatile if we ignored or depersonalized rants, especially those heavily laced with politics.

Certain “conservative” pundits would cause a lot less grief we just ignored them and didn’t amplify their viewpoints.

That’s why I use the ignore function, and no longer hang out at a certain forum that shall remain nameless.

 

[TiQuinn]

Man oh man, is it now to be the case that every time someone wants to put some standards to something "gatekeeper!" is the first response?

Because standards for a system are not designed by one person, and when poorly designed, are used as a way to exclude people? Could that be the reason? Maybe?

 

[Hussar]

I was suggesting that's what the primary target market should be - college-age people who are in the phase of life where they're making loads of new friends be it through college or work or wherever, and with those new friends often trying new activities and hobbies.

Considering that in the entire history of the hobby, the primary target market has NEVER (except maybe, maybe in the very early OD&D days) been college age people but rather much younger, I have no idea why people keep banging this drum.

 

[Hussar]

Wow, no.

Dude, there are entire worlds of discussion that aren't two people trying to refute each other with facts.

Sorry, no. I don't buy this. This sounds a lot like apologia for people who are very much arguing in bad faith. If you are arguing your point, without actually having any facts to back up your opinion, your opinion isn't worth anything.

Now if you're just stating a preference? No problems. No argument from me. But that was specifically NOT what I was talking about. I was talking about having an actually discussion where you are trying to present more than just preferences.

 

[mamba]

Should the books be written to Grade 6 vocabulary and comprehension levels? Grade 8? Grade 12? To what expected level of arithmetic competence should the game design adhere?

given that newspapers are written for 7th or 8th grade, 6th grade is perfectly ok. And that is the language part, the math is basically addition and subtraction, why would you ever need more than that?

 

[mamba]

Consider, though, the difference in writing and vocabulary etc. between even 1e D&D and 2e D&D. Sure Gygax's prose was convoluted, but it read at a much higher level than did 2e; and I posit the game should shoot for that higher level rather than dumb itself down.

no, Gygaxian was a convoluted mess, no one should aim for that. 2e over 1e any day

 

[Umbran]

Sorry, no. I don't buy this. This sounds a lot like apologia for people who are very much arguing in bad faith. If you are arguing your point, without actually having any facts to back up your opinion, your opinion isn't worth anything.

Your notion of what is valuable, or of worth, seems to me to be... narrow.

So, you seem to be structuring your thoughts such that all discussion is "arguing points". As if all discussion is only ever about determining an objective truth value of people's thoughts. I don't know if that's what you really mean, but that's what it seems.

This is, to me, akin to saying that all GMs are antagonistic - everything is a test, right/wrong, win/lose, as if that was the only way to play the game, it is also the only way to talk to another human being about any topic.

Again, that seem to me to be extremely narrow. I have loads of interesting, enlightening, valuable discussions, in which nobody ever has to prove anything.

 

[Bae'zel]

Should the books be written to Grade 6 vocabulary and comprehension levels? Grade 8? Grade 12? To what expected level of arithmetic competence should the game design adhere? And so on.

Put another way, should the game be designed for and marketed to educated adults* in full knowledge that kids are almost certainly going to (try to) play it anyway? To this my own answer is a full-on "yes"; IMO it should target the college crowd, and younger kids who play will benefit from gaining some added vocabulary and arithmetical competence.

I'll try and find the studies to back this up, but apparently even the most highly educated appreciate plain language, especially for instructional content (eg tax forms, operation manuals, websites etc...).

There's a time and place for more technical language, of course, depending on the context and audience. But if you're writing a game book with the intention of making a profit, you may want to consider using plainer language where possible.

Some folks want Stop signs in College campuses to be written in Ancient Greek, I guess.

 

[Bae'zel]

Again, that seem to me to be extremely narrow. I have loads of interesting, enlightening, valuable discussions, in which nobody ever has to prove anything.

You're forgetting that not all internet rants are written in a "this is just MY personal opinion, man, live and let live". Some are written as expressions of fact, laced with insults to those who disagree.

In fact, I'd wager that MOST internet rants are written in a "if you don't agree with me, you're a moron".