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

[JConstantine]

This is also fairly localized to this particular site. Other online spaces where roleplaying games are discussed seem to be a lot more welcoming to the diversity of play.

I'd note that this is clearly a D&D focussed board - look at how much more traffic and interaction the D&D sub-forum gets compared to RPG General. While the reverse is true of the purple site, for example.
Other online spaces I've frequented tend to be actively hostile to D&D, while I don't think the reverse is true for ENWorld. That's not to say it strictly embraces diverse playstyles, but it certainly lacks the sort of antagonism towards them that I've seen directed at D&D elsewhere.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair, it seems that the purpose of BW and @pemerton’s other games of choice is to do tests like that, and characters are built with that in mind.

So it would be like saying that, when playing Monopoly, the wise thing would be for the players to pool their resources and turn the city into a co-op where everyone does well rather than be at each others throats in a zero-sum game where only one player truly prospers. But you can’t do that in Monopoly because that’s not what the game is about.

While that's a sound argument, I do feel that RPGs generally operate under fewer restrictions on player (including the GM) action than boardgames like Monopoly.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Other online spaces I've frequented tend to be actively hostile to D&D

What on earth spaces are you talking about? Even the purple site, which is hostile to most things at this point (including most games and most people), isn't hostile to D&D. Or like, no more hostile than it is to like, every game that isn't some random FotM (which will soon join the list of frown-inducing games).

The RPG subreddit on Reddit isn't hostile to D&D, and it would be a laughable persecution-complex to claim it was. The 5E subreddit obviously isn't (the thing it's most hostile to, last I checked, was rolling stats!). I'm struggling to think where else you could mean, because many other RPG-related messageboards are dominated by D&D so could hardly be said to be hostile to it.

Maybe you mean a Discord or something?

 

[JConstantine]

Personally, I think Perception (and perhaps more controversially, Knowledge) clearly should be defenses. Hidden creatures or things (or unknown relevant details) should be rolling against PCs, and offered up immediately if they fail.

That is precisely what Passive Perception is for in 5e, though it certainly doesn't seem to get used as much as I think it should. I actually also use "passive" knowledge as well. And decouple skills from attributes (how I wish that was made default)

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hope it's okay if I weigh in on tone here. But does this phrasing seem to imply something about a belief?

Here is an alternative phrasing, without a key word, "really."

"Do you disagree that constraints are necessary?"

Maybe it's me but this question is neutral in tone. It's just a question. It's asking for clarification. But that sneaky word "really" that you have in your version. It really changes something.

“Do you really disagree that constraints are necessary?”

This isn't the same tone as the prior example. This is a challenging or skeptical tone to me. That word "really" implies disbelief or surprise or even incredulity towards the disagreement. It, to me, implies that you find the position to be surprising or hard to take seriously.

For fairness, we can attribute the same to Micah's statement.


This is confrontational from the "The person whose rhetoric you are defending…" to "Are you willing to disagree with that statement?"

Sticking with the latter example here, because it's so similar to the first quote. "Are you willing to disagree with that statement?" Frames the conversation as about willingness rather than logic or reasoning. This is easy to take as a challenge to someone's intellectual consistency or courage. You can read it differently, of course, but as an observer it reads in a certain way. To me, this promotes a defensive reply - which Micah got.

Both sides are being confrontational. Both sides are using language that can, easily, be read as hostile, dismissive, or worse. And it's not just you two. It goes back dozens of pages. This all makes for great reading, but probably contributes to the friction some folks have started to point out.

First, I’m not claiming to be non-confrontational.

I don’t mind if the discussion gets a bit heated at times. It’s part of what to expect when people talk about this stuff.

I’m responding directly to an indirect criticism. I am confronting the person who made the criticism.

Second, my use of “really” was more out of surprise than anything else. I don’t think anyone would actually argue for a GM to be totally unconstrained. If they did, I would consider that view sorely mistaken.

 

[robertsconley]

The key difference is that virtually every time a narrativist viewpoint (or game that has one) comes up, a bunch of people rush to say how much they disagree with it, even if that's totally irrelevant and adds nothing at all to the conversation.

That doesn't typically occur with gamist or even simulationist viewpoints, and even when people do point out issues with those, they tend to be dismissed out of hand, sometimes with the claim that "that's how it has to be" or the like.

Ever try discussing design issues in an OSR or classic edition context? Or explaining how you run a campaign using a lesser-known playstyle? You’ll often find the same kind of pushback, or worse, total confusion and dismissal.

We’re all in the same boat, unless we’re talking about the current edition of the leading brand and whatever specific nuance it has in that moment.

I will note that gamist games did used to get the same treatment, albeit not quite as aggressive, but that faded out entirely over the last 15-odd years.

True, but everyone’s getting their moment in the sun now.

Just look at this:

Shadowdark RPG
$1,365,923 | 13,249 backers

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/shadowdarkrpg/shadowdark-rpg-old-school-gaming-modernized/description

And then:

Fate Core
$433,365 | 10,103 backers

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/evilhat/fate-core/description

Commercial success isn’t the only measure, but it’s a visible indicator, just the tip of the iceberg, that alternatives are thriving in today’s hobby.

Speaking from experience: the OSR often has strong pushback against skill-based systems and detailed character backstories. Yet I’ve found some modest success, critically and commercially, by focusing on this principle: what I do is a way, not the way.

Why did Shadowdark pull over 10,000 backers? In large part because Kelsey and her team embraced that same idea, and delivered it better than I ever could.

That’s the throughline I see in nearly everyone who finds lasting success in this hobby: they focus on building their corner, not gatekeeping someone else’s.

So if you're participating in a discussion like this one, just keep that in mind. And if a person is a jerk, well, they’re being a jerk, not a sign of a deeper problem with the hobby.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd also note that is clearly a D&D focussed board - look at how much more traffic and interaction the D&D sub-forum gets compared to RPG General. While the reverse is true of the purple site, for example.
Other online spaces I've frequented tend to be actively hostile to D&D, while I don't think the reverse is true for ENWorld. That's not to say it's strictly embraces diverse playstyles, but it certainly lacks the sort of antagonism towards them that I've seen directed at D&D elsewhere.

In my experience, the few times I've visited an overtly Narrativist-friendly site, there were a lot of perfectly accepted jabs at various parts of traditional play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What on earth spaces are you talking about? Even the purple site, which is hostile to most things at this point (including most games and most people), isn't hostile to D&D. Or like, no more hostile than it is to like, every game that isn't some random FotM (which will soon join the list of frown-inducing games).

The RPG subreddit on Reddit isn't hostile to D&D, and it would be a laughable persecution-complex to claim it was. The 5E subreddit obviously isn't (the thing it's most hostile to, last I checked, was rolling stats!). I'm struggling to think where else you could mean, because many other RPG-related messageboards are dominated by D&D so could hardly be said to be hostile to it.

Maybe you mean a Discord or something?

The purple site is the one I was thinking of. It sure seems hostile to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is precisely what Passive Perception is for in 5e, though it certainly doesn't seem to get used as much as I think it should. I actually also use "passive" knowledge as well. And decouple skills from attributes (how I wish that was made default)

One of the great things about Level Up is that they don't make that assumption.

 

[JConstantine]

What on earth spaces are you talking about? Even the purple site, which is hostile to most things at this point (including most games and most people), isn't hostile to D&D. Or like, no more hostile than it is to like, every game that isn't some random FotM (which will soon join the list of frown-inducing games).

I wasn't suggesting RPGnet was hostile to D&D, it's pretty apathetic towards it. Though the fotm thing is comical.

The RPG subreddit on Reddit isn't hostile to D&D, and it would be a laughable persecution-complex to claim it was.

The /rpg subreddit absolutely has a sizeable subsect that is anti-D&D. They're cool with PF, but 5e is beyond the pale.

I'm struggling to think where else you could mean
Maybe you mean a Discord or something?

Discord and certain subreddits, mostly.