D&D 3.x A message to the 3.5ers

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think this is a problem.

Look, online manners tend to involve what can loosely be termed a presumption of good faith, but also includes a certain degree of a presumption of intelligence as well.

Look at how that plays out in normal conversation. If someone tells me that they've basically eliminated character death in their game, I have two ways I can respond. I could say, "Oh, really? How do you motivate your players, and what do you do for drama?" and then we could have a discussion. Or I could say, "WHAT?? I'm glad I don't play in YOUR pathetic excuse for a game! That's like the worst of rpgs and video games combined! You just sit there and knock down enemies that can't even threaten you? What a bunch of wusses."

Do you see the problem with the second post? It presumes an awful lot, all of the presumptions are uncharitable, its insulting, and it leads nowhere.

I try not to do this to other people. But remember, the charitable presumptions of good faith and intelligence are just presumptions. Once someone writes a post like that, I know that they're either not speaking in good faith, or they're idiots. Either way, I could do with less of them on the forum.

Sadly, a lot of people who probably wouldn't consider acting this way towards other forum members happily do so towards WOTC. Posts like, "Fireball has a critical chance now? THE GAME IS BROKEN!" are worthless. Posts like, "Fireball has a critical chance? That could cause some problems. I wonder if they've done anything about them? Here are some ideas I've got," are awesome.

We need more of the latter, and less of the former. And as the former have squandered my presumption of good faith and intelligence, I am free to hope they get eaten by a gru.

Excellent post.

Someone else added a comment that there is still some merit in asking people about the reasons for their feelings when they post things like "Fireball has a critical chance now? THE GAME IS BROKEN!". This is true, _if_ the peoples posting these questions react to such questions in a meaningful manner. But too often, it seems as if they do not reach that point, and that is strenous, and it makes the discussions less enjoyable.

And I thin, since many of us are grown-ups or on their best way there, we should learn how to channel our emotions - how negative or positive they are - into constructive ideas. I am not saying we can't forgive people their emotions, but we shouldn't make them feel as if their behaviour is good behaviour.

I don't like Ignore functions or limiting access to the D&D 4 subforum only to people who definitely want to pick it up (or more limited, think it's the best thing since sliced break). I don't want to miss some good input just because there seems to be too much bad.

Maybe we just have to get a bit smarter in how we react to post - ignore those that are just hyperbole and offer no interesting insights. If a discussion begins to be circular (the smae arguments are rehashed ever and ever again), we should just stop it, until we really have to add something new. And finally, we (from fanboy to hater) should accept that we can't always (in fact: rarely) convert others to our camp. We can only hope that we make others understand what our preferences are, and maybe help undecided people to form a decision.

 

[Minicol]

Well, you can also talk about other game systems, or if you have specific rules question, there are the D&D rules-sub-board, the house-rules-forum, the D20/OGL-boards, and so on. This sub-board was created to concentrate things about the upcoming 4th edition, so that it wouldn't clutter the other message boards, after all.

And once again, where exactly are we (or I?) ranting about "new fantasy"? Which new fantasy authors are compared to the ones of the "grandfathers"? I don't think that Robert E. Howard's work is younger than Tolkien.

Please be specific.

Yes, But I don't care even remotely about other game systems.

And D&D rules okay, well for now, it can be the next best thing I would agree. But since there is a vocal 3.5 minority out there, and you guys are clearly implying that we do not belong here, and since we probably would not want to be like you anyways, why can't we have our own subboard ? Why should you have all the fun of being an exclusive closed club ?

After all, the OD&D/1e, 2e have a subforum all of their own, so why can't we ?

As for the fantasy authors, it is an open question, not coming from your own posts, but a general open question which sprang to mind after reading the 4e forums. And no, not you.
Unless you mean that I answered your posts, but after all when someone answers you, it is generally considered courteous to reply. Well, oh right, I forgot that on the Internet everything you say, is a personal attack,right ?

But no, it has nothing to do with your personal posts.

However, it is very fun to respond to the 4e posts : you are sure to get an angry reaction, whatever you say.

 

[Psion]

Wow -- looks like I hit a nerve.

"I hit a nerve" strikes me as a simple way to disclaim responsibility for offensive behavior.

I think that if you make incredible claims, you should be ready to take responsibility for it.

Remember, I'm only saying "don't post unless you're going to add something to the discussion."

You say that's "what you are saying". If you wish to tone down or backpedal on your stance, that's well enough. But what irked people is your initial statement. To wit

if you plan on sticking with 3.5 and have made that decision, please stop posting in the 4e forum

Which comes across at the very least as extremely arrogant and demanding. You presume that only your goals are a valid purpose for discussion in this forum.

They aren't.

I don't kibitz much in threads here since I don't really see the point. I think that rejecting every new aspect of 4e out of hand is just unrealistic.

However, that has little to do with my purpose in being here. I am pessimistic about the course of 4e, but nonetheless interested. Noonan has already basically proclaimed that the R&D team is not interested in feedback from the general public and Mearls has stated that the manuscript for the PHB has already been submitted. I know that nothing I say here will result in 4e being a more tolerable game for me.

My main reason for my limited involvement is solidarity with fellow would-be 3.5 holdouts. If the perception takes hold that "everyone is converting to 4e" or "nobody else sees problems in 4e", some players that I might otherwise play with will throw in the towel... and give me less people to play with. I feel obligated to make my presence known, so that we can continue to exist as a body.

If that doesn't coincide with your reasons for post, well, that's just too bad. This is a public forum, and so long as I abide by the rules, I can and will post here.

Edit: 16kposts! Go me!

 

[Stormtower]

I think that's a very good point. Those of us who are currently feeling positive about the new edition may yet be horrified when it is released next year.

Complaints about "firing the customer" sound shrill and petulant right now, but it may well turn out that WotC has decided that many of us - no matter how loyal - aren't in their target market anymore.

Regarding "firing the customer" - I just picked up the Rules Compendium and happened to flip right to Bill Slaviseck's essay about the Living Game. It was well written and it seemed framed with the intention of salving the emotions of the pro-3.5 crowd (which definitely includes me). As I concluded the essay, I had to admit he had several valid points about why games grow and change, and how the interaction of the RAW with tens of thousands of gaming groups around the world is a naturally evolutionary process. I truly felt less "fired" as a customer after reading the essay.

The more designer commentary and 4e preview stuff I read, the more I like where they are taking the game rules. I'm a staunch 3.5 supporter but I recognize the need for WotC to grow its business in the way it best sees fit. It's not the edition change or the rules changes that will keep me from adopting 4e... it's the business model of D&DI monthly subscriptions (with no permanent print product to show for my $ unless I absorb the printing and binding costs myself) plus "everything's core now." I prefer the 3-core plus a toolbox of options approach.

I understand WotC's desire to create a constant stream of revenue, and it's a smart decision on their part (assuming their IT department can hold things together and help subscribers keep up with what will be a truly staggering amount of data once D&DI starts to chug).

There's a part of me that would like to jump back on the buy-buy-buy treadmill and subscribe to D&DI and be just as completist about 4e as I've been about 3.5e. It's really much more of a timing issue... I've got time to play and run one game system, and I can't justify leaving my swaths of unused 3.5 material to rot.

So, here's some hopefully constructive advice for Wizards if they want to win disillusioned customers like me back:

1. Make Gleemax and the D&DI subscriptions the most organized, user-friendly and easy to reference gaming site on the web. If I decide to pay for D&DI, I want fast searchable archives, the ability to sort my articles and PDFs by title, author and subject, and I want the interface for browsing my eBook enhancements (the "cuppa coffee cost" volumes) to be intuitive and functional.

2. Realize that some of us 3.5'ers will come around eventually if 4e is as good as advertised. Keep your print products, and most importantly your digital archives, available in circulation for those who might be late adopters but still eventually want the "complete game."

3. Keep talking to us in frank and clear language about WHY the changes are being made, as the designer commentaries in the Rules Compendium have done. This is a wonderful, intimate and respectful approach to customer service (such as it is in the RPG world) and it had the intended effect on myself, at least.

4. Don't design the new edition in a way that invalidates longtime DDM collectors' efforts to acquire complete sets. I understand the need to re-imagine certain monsters' abilities and even their looks (I dig the new yuan-ti, especially) but please let most of the old minis retain their functionality as "correct" (meaning accurately depicted, the "right figure") in the new edition.

I'll continue to watch the 4e boards and post constructively when the fancy strikes me. I'll closely monitor 4e developments and I hope to see some of this advice heeded; the more it is, the more likely I will be to switch when I feel the time is right for me as a customer.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Maybe we just have to get a bit smarter in how we react to post - ignore those that are just hyperbole and offer no interesting insights. If a discussion begins to be circular (the smae arguments are rehashed ever and ever again), we should just stop it, until we really have to add something new. And finally, we (from fanboy to hater) should accept that we can't always (in fact: rarely) convert others to our camp. We can only hope that we make others understand what our preferences are, and maybe help undecided people to form a decision.

This here should be stickied.

 

[Doug McCrae]

However, it is very fun to respond to the 4e posts : you are sure to get an angry reaction, whatever you say.

That's practically the definition of trolling. Trolls take pleasure in provoking an angry response, that's their raison d'être.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My main reason for my limited involvement is solidarity with fellow would-be 3.5 holdouts. If the perception takes hold that "everyone is converting to 4e" or "nobody else sees problems in 4e", some players that I might otherwise play with will throw in the towel... and give me less people to play with. I feel obligated to make my presence known, so that we can continue to exist as a body.

Your purpose for posting in the 4e forums is to support 3.5? Wouldn't you be better off doing that in general or elsewhere?

Threads about why 3.5 rocks in the general forum > Threads about why 4e sucks in the 4e forum.

 

[Umbran]

If that doesn't coincide with your reasons for post, well, that's just too bad. This is a public forum, and so long as I abide by the rules, I can and will post here.

Yes, about that. Under current conditions, I can read your post to be rather borderline in several ways: Passive-aggressiveness in the first two sentences, addressing the poster instead of the content, claiming to know what others think - all stuff we ask you not to do.

Which is not to say that I'm moderating it. But there's a point here - if you are looking for offense, you will find it.

Doubly so when you take things out of context - that bold sentence that everyone's been quoting has a sentence before it, and it gives a lot of meaning to the post. Oddly, though, few seem to be taking it into account. The author never did say that he meant the 4e forum should be free of all negative statements about 4e. But somehow, that's all some folks are choosing to get out of it.

So, I'm adding to my list of things that you can do to help:

4) Give your fellow posters the benefit of the doubt. When there is an opportunity to read a post as less offensive - take that opportunity. This is a very simple thing we would to when talking face-to-face, but I see a marked lack of it here.

 

[Psion]

Your purpose for posting in the 4e forums is to support 3.5? Wouldn't you be better off doing that in general or elsewhere?

No. Because, again, if there was no criticism of the missteps of 4e (and there are missteps), it would appear that 4e is being accepted wholesale by the D&D playing audience. If there are those who see problems in 4e, I think it it important that others who see the same problem know that they are not alone.

Again, what you are saying is about equivalent to sentiment of the OP I object to: that only posts that are uncritical of 4e are acceptable.

Somebody else talked about this before, but I'll repeat it in my own words. What I am commenting on is not 3.5, but the reception of 4e. This is the forum for talking about 4e. This is not merely the "forum for saying nice things about 4e."

 

[Shade]

My main reason for my limited involvement is solidarity with fellow would-be 3.5 holdouts. If the perception takes hold that "everyone is converting to 4e" or "nobody else sees problems in 4e", some players that I might otherwise play with will throw in the towel... and give me less people to play with. I feel obligated to make my presence known, so that we can continue to exist as a body.

Plus, it's not too early to begin laying the foundation for 5e!