Civility

[Izumi]

We are not enemies of 4th. We just saw the envelope of ingenuity pushed to the brink of madness, I'm afraid. It's all good though, because we're all getting a sparkly super D&D soon so we can all be united under the brand, if not mechanics.

 

[ferratus]

Actually, I was rather impressed at how civil it has remained.

But maybe that's because my ignore list is screening out certain people. Or maybe I'm one of the people that's being the problem.

 

[billd91]

Good sir, with respect I must disagree. No matter the mistakes designers may have made in the past, it simply has no connection with the civility of posters on a 3rd party site such this, excellent EN World. We posters are responsible for our own behavior. The current designers may call 4e "rubbish and trash of the worst sort, played only by moral reprobates and sexual degenerates", and while as a humble player I may strongly disagree, it does not follow that I am then given carte blanche to be uncivil on Master Morrissey's fine fora.

You're right on the money about the incivility part there. I think, however, that hanez wasn't getting at the worst elements of our reactions of which we are entirely in our own (lack of-)control. I think he's trying to point out the cause of the width of the rift that WotC is now trying to bridge.

For what it's worth, I think there were already plenty of rifts in the D&D community. We've seen them here at ENWorld over arguments about spellcasters being a win button, 15 minute adventuring days, optimizers vs non-optimizers, combat simulators vs story builders, railroaders vs sandboxers, and so on. And in another thread, Dragonblade pointed out that the rift between 4e fans and 3.5/PF fans was already there.

The difference now is that both sides of that particular rift have territory to defend. That may not have been the case if the 4e designers had taken a more evolutionary approach to D&D. From the standpoint of gaming as a passtime, it may not matter that there are these rifts. After all 4e and PF, as well as the OSR and out of print materials to say nothing of all of the other RPGs out there, allow players of all sorts of stripes to get their fix with the style of game of their choice. But from the perspective of WotC and probably the D&D brand, this is not a good thing, and as a result, it may not be a particularly good thing for the industry (that's up to a lot of conjecture).

In the end, if WotC does want something unifying, it'll have to be highly modular or will have to retreat from a lot of the changes in 4e. I think we already saw a lot of defensiveness from 4e fans when 3e fans started assaulting the new D&D paradigm (who, in their turn, had been pretty defensive about what they perceived to be an assault on their D&D paradigm). I think we'll see a lot more of it on both sides before we're through.

 

[hanez]

Good sir, with respect I must disagree. No matter the mistakes designers may have made in the past, it simply has no connection with the civility of posters on a 3rd party site such this, excellent EN World. We posters are responsible for our own behavior. The current designers may call 4e "rubbish and trash of the worst sort, played only by moral reprobates and sexual degenerates", and while as a humble player I may strongly disagree, it does not follow that I am then given carte blanche to be uncivil on Master Morrissey's fine fora.

For myself, I expect the designers of 5e to say nothing but negative things about 4e for the next three to four years. At worst, they will do so for purposes of marketing, to differentiate the new edition from the current, and to appeal to the untapped markets. At best, they will do so in good faith as they explain what changes they are making -- it will follow naturally that in the course of improving on 4e they must lay bare its faults. (Of which there are a few, I say as an ardent admirer and player of the game.) I have thus resolved that no matter what they may say of the game, I will, primarily, not read into statements about the game implications about its players, and, secondarily, I will not take criticism of my preferred edition personally.

In some of my opinions, I am as constant as the North Star, and I have found that at times these opinions find themselves in opposition to those of good master JamesonCourage. In our (too few) interactions, I have failed to move him from his positions, and I must confess he has been no more successful in displacing me from mine. And yet, I feel our exchanges to have been ultimately profitable, and it has been my pleasure to receive Experience Points from the good man, even in the midst of disagreement. I humbly suggest we all follow his fine example, and that even in the heat of spirited debate, we give Experience Points not only to those with whom we agree, but also the well-written and civil arguments of the opposition.

Well said, completely agree.

 

[Rechan]

For what it's worth, I think there were already plenty of rifts in the D&D community. We've seen them here at ENWorld over arguments about spellcasters being a win button, 15 minute adventuring days, optimizers vs non-optimizers, combat simulators vs story builders, railroaders vs sandboxers, and so on.

Huh. That makes me think that the editions just sat on top divides; that people who felt x over issue y went to edition z because z emphasized x more. So arguments of "Spellcaster Win Button" was swallowed up into 'Balanced 4e classes vs. characters are all the same/fighters are spellcasters'.

 

[Izumi]

I think everything is going to turn out well in the end. Let them fight it out?

 

[Ahnehnois]

There's a fine line between being critical and impassioned and being uncivil.

It will take a substantial effort to keep the discourse on the right side of that line, from the mods and more importantly the rest of us.

Hopefully, ENW can sustain a lively and impassioned intellectual discourse without any of the other stuff, as one is sorely needed.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I dont mean to be uncivil.... but....

I think that this is the fault of the designers of 4e. Honestly.

I disagree. The preferences that created 4e were present long before that game was a twinkle in its designers' eyes. There was plenty of dissent over the 2e to 3e changeover, and I recall debates during 3e's gold age where 4e-like concepts were argued at length.

This is the fault of those who play the game, when we take our personal vision to the extreme. It's wrong to lay that at the feet of the designers. As far as I'm aware, none of the current designers even post here anymore, so how exactly are they to be blamed for our lack of civility!?

I'm responsible for my own civility, you're responsible for your's, and that guy over there is responsible for his. No one else.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Four possible outcomes, roughly, with any given one-on-one discussion.

• No serious disagreements about facts or methods. Both are easily civil.
• No serious disagreements about facts or methods. One or both are not civil--due to any number of things--probably having nothing to do with the discussion topc (e.g. past history, bad day, etc.).
• Serious disgreements about facts or methods. Both are nonetheless civil but forceful.
• Serious disagreements about facts or methods. One or both are not civil--and misundertanding and passion is even more likely to cloud why.

Of course, you can also have people be civil by not engaging with a forceful point, for whatever reason. But that just ends up being "no serious disagreement" in the way it plays out. And certainly misunderstanding and other communication failures, on top of it is seldom one-on-one, complicates things.

However, you can't engage in serious, forceful discussion about things for which two or more sides honestly disagree--without at least running the risk of some of the participants seeing loss of civility. And in fairness, you'll probably get some such loss. No one is perfect.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yeah, but I'd prefer everyone strive for perfection. I think it's achievable for the large majority in terms of civility on these boards.