Did the internet change your mind?

[jadrax]

I am not really sure that designiong a game for people who will love it up until they actually talk to anyone about it is a good idea.

 

[BobTheNob]

I have had my mind changed by the Internet, but I don't consider that a sign of Internet bullying. Fact is that part of the job I do one essential skill is to know how to listen to others, even when I don't agree, and to know when to take their position seriously, even to the point of changing my own position if the position of the other is string enough.

I don't consider this point an Internet consideration, it's just a subset of life skills. The Internet is just a medium.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Meh.

I form my opinions by reading, playing, and assessing the rules. I find the discussion useful to test and evaluate my opinions, because I may not have considered all of the factors involved, and other people may have. That occasionally changes my opinions.

For this sort of thing I do find discussion on the internet is more useful than face-to-face discussion. In face-to-face discussion, personality often overwhelms argument, and the loudest or most belligerent may cow others. On the internet, the loudest and most belligerent is just a wall of text to skip over to get to the next well-reasoned argument.

 

[Kurtomatic]

I think what Monte is talking about here makes a lot of sense in a controlled, limited playtest. I can see how contamination could skew the results.

However, I also think you can counter this in an open playtest by going big. Get the largest sample sizes you can muster, and the larger population trends should swamp the noise.

If a meme has enough legs to impact a really large sample, then it's likely something you'll want to address, regardless of how it started.

 

[JeffB]

As usual the internet banter quickly managed to kill my enthusiasm for the new edition. Just like.3rd and 4 th. I find all the arguing masquerading as game theory tiresome at best.


This time arounnd Im reading the WOTC articles, and then avoiding the vast majority of 5e threads on purpose. Spending most of my time reading the other forums here, or non 5e forums elsewhere.

 

[Steely_Dan]

As usual the internet banter quickly managed to kill my enthusiasm for the new edition. Just like.3rd and 4 th. I find all the arguing masquerading as game theory tiresome at best.

Totally, the internet can turn me off D&D. I try to look for interesting threads to help the game, but most of it is posturing rubbish.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree with Monte.

In fact my guess is that most of the strongest comments against something in the playtest rules come from people who want to give feedback but haven't actually playtested such rules at all, or they have playtested houseruling out what they didn't like.

It's ok to discuss such stuff openly (we do it all the time), but at least I hope they're responsible enough not to write direct feedback to WotC if they haven't actually played.

 

[Mattachine]

There are times that the Internet didn't change my mind, but I gave up in an argument and my voice just went away.

 

[Lwaxy]

The internet helps form my opinion, it does not change it. And I'm the last person on the world to be swayed by someone else's opinion - except when it makes sense

Means I can see where other people have issues with the playtest that I do not, but just because so many people think the fighter is underpowered, for example, won't make me think that's true.

 

[PinkRose]

What's the difference between talking about things on the internet and talking with your group? It's just s different size.
Doesn't the way my DM attacks me with 25 kobolds or doesn't RP the chieftain also influence my playtest experience?
What the internet does for me is that it validates my opinion becasue I know others out there agree.
If only 25% of my group agrees, that's just me.
If 25% of the internet agrees, that 45 people or so. So at least I hear some other voices that I know I'm not completely off base.