D&D 5E Arguing, ideating and solution-seeking on the D&D Enworld forum

[Mind of tempest]

One thing I've noticed is that people seem to get angry very quickly. Something as simple as stating, "I [don't] prefer ASI." and providing an explanation behind why will make some people angry. You don't even have to say "Those who don't agree with me about ASI are wrong!" for people to be angry that you have the temerity to give voice to your different preference. It sometimes feels as though we're locked in some sort of culture war.

I believe we are still in one and will be for a very long time.

 

[FrogReaver]

"It's not my fault that my argument didn't win! This word has multiple definitions, so it's the word's fault!"

The trouble isn't the definition of select words; I think the problem is the idea of winning an argument on the Internet.

Personally I’m less concerned with winning an argument and more concerned when others dismiss points for bad reasons. They don’t even have to respond so why respond with outright dismissals for bad reasons?

who in that situation is the one that’s really interested in winning an argument?

 

[payn]

Personally I’m less concerned with winning an argument and more concerned when others dismiss points for bad reasons. They don’t even have to respond so why respond with outright dismissals for bad reasons?

who in that situation is the one that’s really interested in winning an argument?

If someone is flippant, I just ignore those posts. Thing to remember is a thread isnt person A and person B, its persons A-Z.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. The problem being that everyone wants the definition that best supports their own position to be dominant. It makes arguing their point easier.

Out of curiosity, how do you differentiate when someone is arguing their definition is simply one of many valid ones and when someone is arguing there definition is the only one?

IMO those 2 arguments can sound pretty similar especially if done so in response to someone claiming their definition is the only one.

 

[FrogReaver]

If someone is flippant, I just ignore those posts. Thing to remember is a thread isnt person A and person B, its persons A-Z.

That seems fair.

 

[Umbran]

Out of curiosity, how do you differentiate when someone is arguing their definition is simply one of many valid ones and when someone is arguing there definition is the only one?

When someone says something like, "I recognize your definition, but there are others, like...," then they are clearly arguing their definition is one of many.

However, as others, I question whether bringing up definitions is a particularly productive approach most of the time. There will be places where it works out, of course, but that doesn't mean it should be a go-to rhetorical tactic.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Out of curiosity, how do you differentiate when someone is arguing their definition is simply one of many valid ones and when someone is arguing there definition is the only one?

IMO those 2 arguments can sound pretty similar especially if done so in response to someone claiming their definition is the only one.

"In my experience..."

Vs

"You're wrong."

I get pretty frustrated reading posts where folks are just telling each other they're wrong about things. First off, everyone on here has vastly different experiences, of which we get barely a glimpse of a glimpse represented in text only. And secondly, this whole forum is about a game that takes place mostly in the imagination and with friends... Telling someone else the way they are playing an imagined, story-based game is wrong seems presumptuous to an incredible degree.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with saying you have different experiences, opinions, or even definitions. But trying to force someone else to agree with them is futile and leads to a lot of frustrating threads.

Sometimes when I read someone's post describing a method of play or thought that I have a visceral reaction to, I either ask questions or ignore it. Nobody is forcing me to reply to things I disagree with!

 

[BookTenTiger]

Everything is an argument.

I, personally, do not come to this forum or any forum to have 'conversation'. None of you are my friends and I don't particularly care about any of your opinions/tastes/preferences.

I come here, specifically, for TTRPG news and to argue, analyze, and debate concepts and occasionally to get feedback on ideas or to find the answer to a question. Anytime someone puts forth a statement that does not express a matter of taste, they are making an argument - usually they're saying that something is true.

Maybe some people just want to have a space where they can say "I believe that X is true" but don't want to have to justify or explain their position. Fine, whatever; I don't really understand the point of just shouting words into the void, but some people seem to like to do it. I'm actually doing that right now, but this thread explicitly was asking for people's opinions/tastes/preferences, so I don't feel too bad about it.

Interesting! I have a very different motive, I come on here to talk and brainstorm with folks about a hobby I love. I see this as a very collaborative space, rather than a forum for debate.

 

[FrogReaver]

When someone says something like, "I recognize your definition, but there are others, like...," then they are clearly arguing their definition is one of many.

IMO that’s precisely what I did when I quoted the 3 primary definitions (one of which is the definition you were using). Or at least that was my intention. Perhaps it wasn’t as obvious as I thought it to be.

However, as others, I question whether bringing up definitions is a particularly productive approach most of the time. There will be places where it works out, of course, but that doesn't mean it should be a go-to rhetorical tactic.

I can agree with that. I think it’s a very valid point. But it’s something you also did - at least IMO and that’s not to call you out or put you in the defensive but to highlight that sometimes our words convey more than we intend (i know im often guilty of this). Sitting back, I don’t believe you really think your definition was the only one or that mine is not valid, you are more reasonable than that. But it did initially come across to me that way and I hope you can understand why from you initial comments below.

Arguments, in general, aren't terribly constructive. I don't see a lot of difference between arguing definitions, or ideas - they are still arguments.

Discussion is not the same as argument. It tends to generate more useful material, but folks have to walk into them without the need to have the "winning idea".

The bolded is a definition (at least a partial one) and it seemed to outright exclude the definition I use.

Edit: also apologies for taking 5+ pages to get to this point. And also for not acknowledging the initial point you were intending to make - that heated discussions whether over semantics or ideas are rarely productive. Because that is a point I agree with.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, but I am also a proponent for conversation that avoids argument. Bad faith argument isn't a big deal if nobody's arguing.

Well, that's as it is, though I think a position that strongly avoids argument is, in the end, also strongly avoiding anything to talk about in many cases. I'd suggest that any number of threads if argument was removed as a valid exchange would not actually have anything to say.