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

[Oofta]

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.

The corollary to this is the "Why don't you ..." any time people disagree. DMs and players make decisions all the time. But if we're talking about some option X that I could implement there's always someone that says "But you could have option X". Yes. I know. I could, I don't. I explained why I don't and I'm not trying to convince anyone else that my option is any better. We're just having a conversation and discussing pros and cons. I'm not even really trying to convince the handful of people that are posting opposing alternatives, I'm just letting all those lurkers out there know what I do and if they feel like it will work for them that it's okay. There's a lot of flexibility with the game and it's not going to break if one group is different than others. I think it's a feature, not a bug.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I think we all agree and are just finding conflict where there is none.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don’t think we should just go with the first preferred definition though. Because then discussion just becomes about who responds the quickest.

Oftentimes the start of the argument is when person A uses the word in a different way than person B does and person B uses person A’s comment as a jump off point to say well Word X isn’t really Y it’s Z.

I’m all far accepting both definitions as valid. We are mostly all smart people here, so we can work our way through that difference. But when person B implicitly declares there definiton is the only one… that’s where problems begin.

Yeah, at the very least automatically accepting the first definition used privileges the discussion around their views. It might sort-of make sense for a thread starter (though even then you can end up with situations where the construction of the first post and the definition used makes the presented question/position largely a tautology), but otherwise it only makes sense if you're trying to avoid semantic discussions at all cost.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would tend to agree but comments aren’t always islands either. If person A was making a point of which the meaning behind their use of a word was integral and person B undermines that point to establish their own point by simply saying the word doesn’t mean but instead means something else - then what should person A do?

Is it a fair response for him to make the case that his definition was valid?

Probably the best thing to do in that case is to abandon the original term and use another one to restate your point. Unfortunately, this sometimes runs into issues where all the other terms have semantic loading you don't want.

 

[DarkMantle]

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.

I'm not sure, but that might at least sometimes be correlation, not causation.

Which is to say, that the threads that fall in arguing also happen to be the kind of topics you find interesting?

(Edit: hmm, that kind of describes me, I think!)

I think it is possible to have discussions about topics that could escalate into arguing, but don't due to sheer mindfulness of those involved.

(not presuming though, just a thought)

 

[Thomas Shey]

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 suspect in many cases, this is (as my wife puts it) a sign of "scar tissue"; they've had bad experiences regarding the subject either in person or via online abuse, and the topic has accumulated significance beyond its obvious topical function.

(Some times it may not be about the subject but the presentation.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

For a long time the gaming community was. Old habits die hard.

Depending on how you define it, I'm not sure the past tense here is warranted.

 

[Aldarc]

That only works until people take you to task for ignoring parts of their post that they consider was necessary for the context of the rest of it.

Like I said, I honestly a no-win.

IMHO, "winning" is about avoiding the wall of quotes war in the first place and not letting yourself be sucked into it. If someone tasks you for ignoring parts of their post, then a little humility goes a long way IME to disarm any tasking: e.g., "I apologize if you felt that I ignored the rest of your post where you discuss X, but I wanted to focus on Y."

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think we all agree and are just finding conflict where there is none.

Its always possible to focus on fine differences that are not, in the end, super-relevant, but I sincerely do think Umbran's point here is not one I really agree with. Its also possible I'm misunderstanding it.

 

[Umbran]

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 don't see why that would be. Argument is merely one mode of interaction. There are others folks could use.