Civility

[Aldarc]

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.

I would like to think that we are making progress in our discussions.

 

[Rechan]

Saying that 4E is not DnD and is in fact a video game is an opinion not a fact.

Just because it's an opinion though doesn't mean it's not hurtful.

I mean ok, I realize that you shouldn't let words on the internet hurt your feelings/anger you. But it's the difference between saying: "I don't like x" and "I don't like X BECAUSE IT SUCKS".

The "It's not D&D" upsets me because it implies that what I like, and what I play, isn't on the same playing field as someone else just because of personal taste. That "Well I play D&D, what you play isn't". It feels like a slap in the face.

 

[Elf Witch]

Just because it's an opinion though doesn't mean it's not hurtful.

I mean ok, I realize that you shouldn't let words on the internet hurt your feelings/anger you. But it's the difference between saying: "I don't like x" and "I don't like X BECAUSE IT SUCKS".

The "It's not D&D" upsets me because it implies that what I like, and what I play, isn't on the same playing field as someone else just because of personal taste. That "Well I play D&D, what you play isn't". It feels like a slap in the face.

Saying the 4e plays like a video/board game is not the same as saying it sucks. I think a lot of people including myself have said that because we are trying to explain why we don't like the rule set . For me it is because it makes me feel as if I am playing a strategy board game not a role playing game. But I do understand why 4E fans may not like it phrased that way I am not sure how else to describe things.

I know it is hard not to take things personally and I think it is natural to have some kind of reaction when someone else cuts down something you really love. Regardless of what it is.

Also there are things that make my teeth grind for example I read a comment where someone said 3E is wizards and muggles I rolled my eyes over the comment and muttered under by breath. I was miffed but I told myself its his opinion and for me it's not true. I do understand the point he was trying to make.

I have found one to keep things civil is if something makes me really angry not to post right away because I am likely to post something I wish I hadn't .

One of the issue I am seeing is that certain words have now become instant make angry words. Words like dissociative mechanics , video/boardgame, verisimilitude have all become words that gets people backs up and they take it as an insult.

 

[Rechan]

@Elf Witch the only one that gets to me is "it's not D&D". Or any assumptions made about people based on what they like to play (for instance I've seen the claim "If 4e makes it easier for you to DM, then you just weren't a good DM in the first place").

There are reasons I disliked 3e, but I'm just not interested (or see the point) in dwelling on why. It's not my thing and I moved on to an option that I enjoy.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Saying the 4e plays like a video/board game is not the same as saying it sucks. I think a lot of people including myself have said that because we are trying to explain why we don't like the rule set . For me it is because it makes me feel as if I am playing a strategy board game not a role playing game. But I do understand why 4E fans may not like it phrased that way I am not sure how else to describe things.

Though it is worth noting that in the early days of 4e it was often the fans of the system that made the board game comparison. I consider that comparison a lot more valid than saying that it is like a video game. (Except maybe Final Fantasy Tactics - which played like a board game too... and was a lot of fun.)

I know it is hard not to take things personally and I think it is natural to have some kind of reaction when someone else cuts down something you really love. Regardless of what it is.

Or take umbrage against something that wasn't meant to cut anything down, merely describe that thing.

Also there are things that make my teeth grind for example I read a comment where someone said 3E is wizards and muggles I rolled my eyes over the comment and muttered under by breath. I was miffed but I told myself its his opinion and for me it's not true. I do understand the point he was trying to make.

Good for you! Being willing to understand the other view is the best way to avoid argument.

I have found one to keep things civil is if something makes me really angry not to post right away because I am likely to post something I wish I hadn't.

Be warned though, sometimes it can just simmer instead. (Yeah, I know that one from experience.)

One of the issue I am seeing is that certain words have now become instant make angry words. Words like dissociative mechanics , video/boardgame, verisimilitude have all become words that gets people backs up and they take it as an insult.

And yet they are often the right words to describe the perceived problems. Well, except for 'video game' - I really do not think of 4e as video gamey, though I do think of it as a tactical combat board game. Heck, if it had been marketed as such then it would not have annoyed me.

I honestly think that 4e did not need to compete with 3.5, and could have been marketed as a related property instead.

The Auld Grump, minded of some verses from Jesus Christ Superstar - 'But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?'

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Saying the 4e plays like a video/board game is not the same as saying it sucks. I think a lot of people including myself have said that because we are trying to explain why we don't like the rule set . For me it is because it makes me feel as if I am playing a strategy board game not a role playing game. But I do understand why 4E fans may not like it phrased that way I am not sure how else to describe things.

Well, a big part of that is that by the time you were back posting, there was a lot of baggage on that term, too. And some of that baggage caused some hair trigger responses on both sides. I saw it nail a few innocent new posters on other forums, and hard. "Hey, let me wander out into this open mine field with nothing currently happening and shine a spotlight on myself that makes me superficially look a bit like a troll to two groups that had to take a pause to go get more ammo. What could possibly go wrong?"

So I tend to hold my fire on new folks, and let the mods sort out the occasional troll in their midst trying to look like one. (They always out themselves eventually.) But if I'm coming down too hard on any regulars, just tell me. I wouldn't be coming on that strong if I didn't respect their position enough to engage with it. (And no, that doesn't mean I don't respect a position if I don't engage. It might, but more likely it means I didn't see it or simply am not that interested.)

And the same goes the other way, of course. As long as you want to engage my points, feel free to say it as forceful as you need to get your point across.

 

[MoxieFu]

Though it is worth noting that in the early days of 4e it was often the fans of the system that made the board game comparison. I consider that comparison a lot more valid than saying that it is like a video game. (Except maybe Final Fantasy Tactics - which played like a board game too... and was a lot of fun.)

Or take umbrage against something that wasn't meant to cut anything down, merely describe that thing.

Good for you! Being willing to understand the other view is the best way to avoid argument.

Be warned though, sometimes it can just simmer instead. (Yeah, I know that one from experience.)

And yet they are often the right words to describe the perceived problems. Well, except for 'video game' - I really do not think of 4e as video gamey, though I do think of it as a tactical combat board game. Heck, if it had been marketed as such then it would not have annoyed me.

I honestly think that 4e did not need to compete with 3.5, and could have been marketed as a related property instead.

The Auld Grump, minded of some verses from Jesus Christ Superstar - 'But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?'

I really, REALLY wish they had replaced the D&D Miniatures game with it instead of D&D. If it then outsold 3E it could have replaced 3E after proving itself.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I really, REALLY wish they had replaced the D&D Miniatures game with it instead of D&D. If it then outsold 3E it could have replaced 3E after proving itself.

Yeah, that I can agree with.

As I have mentioned before I never repeat myself calling it Dungeons & Dragons Tactics would have worked fine. (As I also mentioned, it reminds me a bit of Final Fantasy Tactics - which I thought was a fun game.)

I think that they might still have needed to cut down on the time taken for combat, but that is more fine tuning than anything else.

The Auld Grump

 

[pemerton]

I really, REALLY wish they had replaced the D&D Miniatures game with it instead of D&D.

Yeah, that I can agree with.

As I have mentioned before I never repeat myself calling it Dungeons & Dragons Tactics would have worked fine.

I don't mean to be uncivil, but . . . if those who don't play 4e can't see how it works as a roleplaying game rather than a tactical board or skirmish game, how is this discussion about a unity edition meant to progess?

 

[MoxieFu]

I don't mean to be uncivil, but . . . if those who don't play 4e can't see how it works as a roleplaying game rather than a tactical board or skirmish game, how is this discussion about a unity edition meant to progess?

4e for many players came too soon and stripped away too many elements of the game that many consider essential to D&D. If this were not true they wouldn't be announcing the next iteration right now. I am not unable to see how 4e can be played as a role-playing game. It is my opinion that it works better as a miniatures based game.

Simply publishing a 4.75e isn't going to bring back those who left the game. Many have said that it is impossible to please all the players of all the previous editions. I honestly don't see how the elements of 4e that are different from all other editions of the game can be brought into a "unified" game. 4e was designed from the ground up to be a new game. WotC didn't release guidelines for converting previous editions to 4e.

Trying to beat a square peg into a round hole will be a very inefficient use of talent and resources. It will also produce inferior results.

This is my opinion. I have seen many other opinions in this discussion, but this one is mine.