D&D 5E Are DMs the Swing Vote?

[dd.stevenson]

Is telling folks they aren't edition warriors likely to drive them away?

I did notice that a lot of the usual angry edition warriors across the internets singled out this statement for their attacks. Which seems strange, until you realize that Mearls just straight up told these people they weren't wanted. So I'd say: yeah, telling people that they aren't edition warriors is likely to drive the edition warriors away. (Or at least make them really mad.)

 

[billd91]

D&D tribalism is the same as sports fanatics is the same as diametrically opposed politicos/activists/competing hypothesis factions. The idea that the greater D&D culture isn't composed of a generous proportion of edition warriors, and that Mearls et al don't have to deal with/win over those competing interests is wishful thinking on his part...or abhorrent reading of the tea leaves.

Another possibility is that people are responding via the surveys and other feedback channels in ways that imply they aren't edition warriors. Let's not simply assume that Mearls is self-deluded or incompetent.

 

[billd91]

I did notice that a lot of the usual angry edition warriors across the internets singled out this statement for their attacks. Which seems strange, until you realize that Mearls just straight up told these people they weren't wanted. So I'd say: yeah, telling people that they aren't edition warriors is likely to drive the edition warriors away. (Or at least make them really mad.)

I find that kind of weird. What proportion of "edition warriors" see themselves as edition warriors rather than truth-tellers, blunt critics, or otherwise telling it like it is? Wouldn't people see the statement that they aren't edition warriors as validation of their self-image?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you're reasonably self-aware, you'll be cognizant of whether your position has had any labels applied to it, and may even use the harshest ones as a badge of honor if you're hardcore enough.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Another possibility is that people are responding via the surveys and other feedback channels in ways that imply they aren't edition warriors. Let's not simply assume that Mearls is self-deluded or incompetent.

It may also be the case that the feedback channels may not accurately provide that kind of info to WotC.

Or that the edition warriors aren't being as feisty in order to weigh in on the playtest politely enough so that their concerns are taken seriously.

Or that they are genuinely finding enough in 5Ed to mollify them..or keep their rage dampened.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

until you realize that Mearls just straight up told these people they weren't wanted.

Not trying to be rude, but really?? That's a lot of extrapolation.

 

[billd91]

If you're reasonably self-aware, you'll be cognizant of whether your position has had any labels applied to it, and may even use the harshest ones as a badge of honor if you're hardcore enough.

You also may resent the term, particularly if you think it is applied erroneously or in an attempt to stifle discussion. I've seen the label bandied about here in what I would describe as attempts to paint the "other side" in a negative light and draw moderator attention regardless of whether or not anything I'd consider an edition war was in the offing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not trying to be rude, but really?? That's a lot of extrapolation.

What was said:

You aren't edition warriors. You want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works.

He's reading it as "You aren't edition warriors. Unlike those guys, you want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. Unlike those guys, you're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works."

...and that isn't an unfair reading.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

What was said:


He's reading it as "You aren't edition warriors. Unlike those guys, you want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. Unlike those guys, you're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works."

...and that isn't an unfair reading.

But those bold words, they weren't said. That's your reading of it. For that to be correct, we have to interpret Mike's use of the word "you", which is what you are doing, and I don't know what that is based on other than extrapolation. I think its just as fair to assume that it is inclusive and an opinion he has interpreted from their research and playtesting.

 

[Iosue]

I find that kind of weird. What proportion of "edition warriors" see themselves as edition warriors rather than truth-tellers, blunt critics, or otherwise telling it like it is? Wouldn't people see the statement that they aren't edition warriors as validation of their self-image?

I suspect it's more like, Angry Edition Warrior sees himself as tell-it-like-it-is, blunt truth-telling critic. But he's on the front lines of the Edition War, so he sees all the other people as Angry Edition Warriors. (They, of course, see themselves as tell-it-like-it-is, blunt truth-telling critics.) So when Mearls says "You aren't edition warriors," the AEW says, "No, I'm not, but look at all these OTHER guys!"

Basically, I think Mearls just found the same thing Howard Moskowitz did: people don't really know what they want and like. A person may like a certain edition, and argue for that edition and against others on the interwebs. But IMO a lot of times edition wars are less about editions and more about that particular discussion. Nuance, subtlety, and shades of gray get thrown out as the discussion becomes less about finding common ground and more about proving that other guy wrong. So the "enemy editions" become represented by their worst aspects turned up to eleven. In reality, though, people aren't so hardline.