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

[DarkMantle]

There were a lot of people who didn't know what the issue was, and learned via forum posts. Maybe here, maybe elsewhere.

There are probably a couple people who actually changed their mind. Not more than several, I would guess, but not likely zero either.

And there were a few people who were really vocal about telling everyone else racism isn't a thing, and they have largely been ostracized, which I would say is to the benefit of the community.

Don't people care if awareness of the issue doesn't translate to actual changes in their game?

It sounded to me like there is/was a strong sense of urgency in adopting changes to evil humanoid races. "Just stop doing it" kind of thing.

 

[Lanefan]

Every definition given is fine, and it would be way more productive to just accept someone's definitions and go from there. Part of what makes the threads turn into to arguments rather than discussions is that people won't accept a proffered definition and roll with it. "Yes, and..." should apply.

Except if poster A is using a word to mean one thing and poster B is using it to mean another, meanwhile neither of those meanings agree with how you-the-reader use the term in day-to-day life, the whole thing becomes rather pointless.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Ya so between all those different positions, I was thinking along the lines of inefficiency, or cost-benefit analysis. The cost seems high (all that arguing, time and energy). The benefits seems negligible.

Can't arguing be the benefit? People enjoy discussing, sometimes heatedly, a topic, for discussing's sake, without that much interest in the answer? In a debate on story xp or milestone xp, are the side really hoping to convince the other to renouce their xp-awarding methodology or just discussing the pros and cons?

 

[Lanefan]

Don't people care if awareness of the issue doesn't translate to actual changes in their game?

It sounded to me like there is/was a strong sense of urgency in adopting changes to evil humanoid races. "Just stop doing it" kind of thing.

From the WotC business/marketing end there may have been some urgency. At each individual table probably not so much; in that those changes would in many cases either a) have already been made (be it formally or informally) at the homebrew level or b) are unlikely ever to be made to any great extent.

 

[DarkMantle]

Can't arguing be the benefit? People enjoy discussing, sometimes heatedly, a topic, for discussing's sake, without that much interest in the answer? In a debate on story xp or milestone xp, are the side really hoping to convince the other to renouce their xp-awarding methodology or just discussing the pros and cons?

Surely, it can be for people who enjoy that, I'm not knocking that.

For me, it's downright depressing. But I'm a results-oriented person. If I don't see results, I don't see the point. So that's just me, but obviously others see value in the process itself!

 

[DarkMantle]

Also, I'd add that racism and inequality in real life, it's serious. It affects people's lives. Some of our ancestors must have been killed fighting or facing inequality.

But if here we are today, trying to navigate the potential for racist stuff in fantasy, and it turns out we were just arguing about hypothetical games or it doesn't influence anybody one way or another (if you believe the poll results), so we just did it for fun.... isn't that kind of like almost trivializing racism? Considering people have died for it, isn't maybe, at least at some level, I don't know, wrong?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Except if poster A is using a word to mean one thing and poster B is using it to mean another, meanwhile neither of those meanings agree with how you-the-reader use the term in day-to-day life, the whole thing becomes rather pointless.

If the meaning is unclear, ask for clarity. If you disagree with the definition, debating/arguing that is derailing the conversation. Just go with the context-established definition for the sake of argument.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This feels like a bit of an edge case, though. How often do we actually have to come to an agreement or consensus?

There's a big gap between "have to", "want to", and "if it fails, find out why". I've found the latter two quite useful over the years; among other things its made it much clearer to me when I'm an outlier, which can be a useful thing to know when going into discussions on that topic.

Maybe more tellingly, given the amount of argument we have - how often does argument generate consensus? Is argument really a good way to bring folks into general consensus? Or wouldn't some other approach be more persuasive?

As I said, in many of these cases, its not clear to me what those "other approaches" would be. It seems to me if many of them were viable, that you'd get less arguments in the first place (I may be cynical sometimes, but not so much that I'm going to assume all arguments are just because people like to argue).

 

[FrogReaver]

It's nearly impossible to actually change someone's mind online. I think that's why I try to stay away from "arguing" as much as possible.

IMO, this is very untrue. But it really depends on the kind of people you discuss and argue with and how open you are to having your own mind changed. IMO your own openess to having your mind changed is a great predictor of whether you can change someone elses mind.

I will say this though, changing someones mind isn't instantaneous or easy. It's a process. First you have to present some strong points - and not the grandstanding kind. Then you have to be patient as they evaluate those strong points in comparison to their overall philosphical frameworks and beliefs - potentially requiring their framework or beliefs to be updated in response to the new ideas. This often requires additional conversations either with you or others about tangentially related issues before the new idea is fully accepted. And oftentimes it's a process we don't get to see the end result of.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

But if here we are today, trying to navigate the potential for racist stuff in fantasy, and it turns out we were just arguing about hypothetical games or it doesn't influence anybody one way or another (if you believe the poll results),

The method and medium are important, in my opinion. The results are obvious : globally, there is less racism than in the 19th century, so it's mostly working. But there is probably no instance of a person talking to a slave owner who was 100% thinking people are legitimate property and that slave-owne rsuddenly becoming a staunch advocate of slave freedom and equality. It is an evolving process to make people change, and the way you do it is key to convincing people. What I have seen on Internet discussion board is that the arguments on this kind of topic are often trying to put a moral fault on the other side, or starting with "I am better than you since I do X" which is probably the worst approach to convince anyone effectively or even getting them to listen to you.

As an analogy with a Emacs vs vim debate:

Working approach: "look, with vim, I can do X very easily, it's really better, have you tried it? If you want other tips, I can point you to this ressource..."
Non-working approach: "Emacs users are stooo-pid, they can't even do X without hitting three keys, vim is obviously superior".