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

[FrogReaver]

The most common variant: they are talking about their game, but they use the term the game - and don't mention the houserules in play, so all of the advice they get doesn't apply to them.

Yea, though i'd say that goes beyond houserules and into different RAW playstyles. It's difficult to preempt every conceivable playstyle difference consideration ahead of time and probably would result in an opening post so long and dry no one would want to read.

There's certainly some that should be obvious to mention ahead of time and arne't though.

 

[DarkMantle]

I suppose it is okay to continue doing so, if you give it an explicit frame, making clear that you are trying to give a picture of the problem. Like, "So part of the problem is stuff like this.... <example>."

I will try. But I do want to note that due to the subjective nature of the request (it's not specified what criteria or judge that determines what an excellent example of the problem is) my efforts may be 100% on point in my eyes while failing to be in yours.

Just an idea, but a Problem Statement could be helpful here. Here could be an example:

Ideal: Everyone is coordinating to identify one problem at a time and trying to solve the same problem at once

Reality: It is very common for people to be talking past each other, because they're solving for different problems

Consequences: Nobody gets their problem solved, and often there are negative feelings all around

Proposal: Utilize better communication (mindful language, active listening, etc.) and problem statements to clarify what problem you're trying to solve, what the end goal looks like, and is the other party on board with helping you solve it or not

That's just something I whipped up on the fly, but hopefully it's more or less clear how this sort of approach might get an argument "unstuck" from an unproductive place

 

[Hussar]

IME, there are a couple of pretty red flags that go up and generally mean that the productive portion of the thread is over:

1. Trotting out dictionary definitions. I'm sorry, but I totally agree with @Umbran here. Every single time someone trots out dueling dictionaries, that line of discussion is pretty much over.

2. Diving down into examples instead of engaging the idea. This is something I'm more than guilty of. Poster says X, poster gives an example of X, and then spends the next five pages trying to show why that example is a good example of X instead of actually discussing the idea.

 

[Bill Zebub]

2. Diving down into examples instead of engaging the idea. This is something I'm more than guilty of. Poster says X, poster gives an example of X, and then spends the next five pages trying to show why that example is a good example of X instead of actually discussing the idea.

Same for analogies. That always goes down the drain. (No matter how many times I try it, hoping otherwise.)

"This debate topic is like the sun; it rises every day."
"No it's not. This topic isn't a thermonuclear explosion."
"And it doesn't take light 8 minutes to reach us from the argument."
"Spectroscopic signature is all off, too."
"Yeah, terrible analogy. I'll bet you beat puppies, too."

 

[DarkMantle]

Same for analogies. That always goes down the drain.

No they don't. Analogies go through one ear and out the other.




(sorry, couldn't resist)
(also, I think "goes down the drain" is a metaphor, not an analogy, so doubly my bad)

 

[FrogReaver]

Same for analogies. That always goes down the drain. (No matter how many times I try it, hoping otherwise.)

"This debate topic is like the sun; it rises every day."
"No it's not. This topic isn't a thermonuclear explosion."
"And it doesn't take light 8 minutes to reach us from the argument."
"Spectroscopic signature is all off, too."
"Yeah, terrible analogy. I'll bet you beat puppies, too."

IMO, that's because analogies are best used as a teaching tool to introduce a concept to someone. If they already understand the concept and simply disagree with it then an analogy will never be useful.

 

[Greg K]

For what it's worth, when I started this poll, that's along the lines of what I was thinking behind "Too much arguing" etc.

Edit: And I agree that "discussion" is not the same as "argument" due to the "winning" part.

My old communication instructor would disagree. Argument == discussion/debate of differing opinions, but most people mistake fighting (a desireto be right and hurt/anger the other person) as argument.

 

[Greg K]

If that's what you are looking for, everything sounds like a semantic argument. You get out of it what you put into it, after all.

Agreed. Semantics is an important part of communication. If two sides cannot agree on the meaning and interpretation of words, you get a type of "noise" in the communication model known as the semantic barrier that hinders commuication.

 

[Bill Zebub]

IMO, that's because analogies are best used as a teaching tool to introduce a concept to someone. If they already understand the concept and simply disagree with it then an analogy will never be useful.

Yeah, that's true. I think the trap I fall into is thinking, "They JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!" so I'm hoping an analogy will provide enlightenment.

The greater fool am I.

 

[MGibster]

Too many bards. They’re like termites. Once they get into a forum, you’re going to need to tent the whole thing and fumigate it.

Someone really hurt you in the past. A bard I'm guessing.