Discussions re: RPG Theory

[doctorbadwolf]

I think you are fighting against basic human nature here. There are tons and tons of people here who can have a nice conversation and even a well thought out debate and not take things personally. Then there are some posters who, it seems to me, clearly have no idea the difference between an opinion and a fact and are incredibly difficult to even have a basic interaction with because it becomes so difficult to communicate. People you want to punch are just part of being on the internet (and the reason I literally NEVER touch the multiplayer content in any videogames).

Oftentimes threads will morph and change into a different topic than that which was originally stated. I think this mirrors exactly how a normal IRL conversation goes. It twists and turns and ends up in a different place than it started. If you allow OPs to close threads (because they are bored, or mad, or for whatever reason) you allow them to shut down a conversation between two or more others that may just be getting started.

But I do also see, in @lowkey13's defense that it would be nice to have a space to link to where you can work on a project (Building a Warlord for 5e for example) and not have to put up with 35 posts saying "But why?" and "Warlords are stupid." and "Just use a bard" every single time you try to start one.

Some good points, but OTOH, again, forum threads aren’t IRL in person conversations.

However, about in person conversations. At a gathering, if someone won’t drop something, you absolutely can tell them to drop it or leave the conversation, and all it takes to enforce it (unless they are a very awkward maladjusted jerk), is for a couple other people in the discussion to agree.

That isn’t possible on a forum, thus moderation. But, moderation doesn’t always work.

at the very least, we should have the capability to put threads on Ignore, so they don’t show up on our feed, and easily delete all of our posts in a thread.

 

[Umbran]

You’ve misunderstood.

Ah. Misunderstanding on both sides, then - I was referring to it as it is typically perceived by those who are reported*. I was using that language to be demonstrative of the dynamic that results. Sorry if that wasn't clear.





* I mean that from experience - as in, I have had numerous private conversations about such incidents with those involved, this is the typical outlook. Yes, it is childish. I can't help that, it is the way people get.

 

[Morrus]

But I do also see, in @lowkey13's defense that it would be nice to have a space to link to where you can work on a project (Building a Warlord for 5e for example) and not have to put up with 35 posts saying "But why?" and "Warlords are stupid." and "Just use a bard" every single time you try to start one.

Of the things mentioned in this thread, this is the one I do think is an issue. I'd love to see more collaborative work on things like that on the forums, and I agree that threadcrapping is annoying as hell. I'll talk to Umbran and Danny and see what they think we can do about it. My main worry is that people would use it to prevent others from simply disagreeing with them about topic, which would be stifling to discussion (or would require an extra moderator overhead which we'd frankly rather not have to deal with - moderating isn't much fun).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

FWIW, I tried to resurrect the "+" tag (as mentioned previously) and I don't think it works that well. If people are going to crash the thread, they are going to regardless of the tag and how gently you point it out.

We are having a bit of a conversation about how we can make this a thing we can support. It will probably mean having to define the [+] topic clearly, and we will have to note what should, and should not, be considered disagreement. More on that as it develops.

This one didn't have an explanation, and I don't understand it (in terms of the reason).

Discussion incoming.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Same thing happened to me, with regards to the speeding analogy, in the thread about Judges Guild. It was very confusing, and felt totally arbitrary.

 

[Morrus]

This whole thread is a bit gish-gallopy, with about 40 different topics now, so I'm just focused on the threadcrapping/[+]thread topic for now. I can't follow all the rest!

 

[Sabathius42]

Do I attribute "gish-gallopy" to you or is that a thing but not in my area?

 

[Morrus]

Do I attribute "gish-gallopy" to you or is that a thing but not in my area?

Gish-gallop is a debating tactic in which one is overwhelmed with multiple arguments and can’t address them all simultaneously. It’s very loosely used here.

 

[Sabathius42]

I have never heard that phrase in my 46 years but I have now added it to my arsenal for the future.

Did you have a time in your life you were a "formal debater" where you picked it up?

Sadly after perusing the Wikipedia entry on it I WAS familiar with *The Chewbacca Defense" which is related.

 

[Morrus]

I have never heard that phrase in my 46 years but I have now added it to my arsenal for the future.

Did you have a time in your life you were a "formal debater" where you picked it up?

Sadly after perusing the Wikipedia entry on it I WAS familiar with *The Chewbacca Defense" which is related.

I don’t recall where I picked it up. It doesn’t really apply here, other than that the initial topic has been a bit buried by multiple other topics, and I’m a poor multitasker.

 

[Umbran]

As "gish-gallup" is added to the list of topics of the thread...

How about we focus, folks? For poor Morrus' sake?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Morrus]

Right, so as Umbran alluded to above, we are going to be making [+] threads a thing on a trial basis. We’re hammering out the wording, but for those rules lawyers out there, we’ll be looking out for folks who abuse it as much as for those who ignore it. We’ll see how it goes and likely amend our approach organically.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay, that's what I've got so far. I might add that one more thing to put in is that if it's a plus thread, you shouldn't question the premise of the thread (for example, if you have a thread:

(+) Help Build a Magic Item Shop and Price System for 5e

... then comments about, "We don't need those in 5e" would be considered threadcrapping and subject to moderation.

Colour me thoroughly opposed to any such idea.

Why?

Two reasons.

One: echo chambers are generally a bad thing.

Two: threads like these might (as in, will) give the impression to a casual reader or visitor that there's a more or less greater desire for that thing than there really is. Using the 5e price guide example*, someone reading the thread and seeing no opposition would gain a false impression that a 5e price guide is universally in demand, when the reality is that there is in fact in some (and in some cases, a lot of) dispute as to its usefulness, desirability, or whether it should exist at all in any form beyond by-table houserule.

* - an idea which I support and would houserule in were I running 5e.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Eltab]

One: echo chambers are generally a bad thing.

OTOH, a dedicated workshop where everybody is working to accomplish a goal, without noisy distractions, is generally a good thing. "We want to design the mechanics / rules to run an X" does not mean there is Only One Way to achieve that goal.

 

[Umbran]

Colour me thoroughly opposed to any such idea.

Then we'd strongly suggest you stay away from the threads.

One: echo chambers are generally a bad thing.

So, this is a vast overstatement of the concept. One thread does not an "echo chamber" make. That concept is relevant when considering one's overall exposure to topics, not individual discussions. Folks will still have exposure to differing ideas in the myriad of other threads they have access to on the site.

If folks are trying to actually accomplish or talk about a thing - like, say, trying to build a new subclass for D&D - having the constant static of naysayers trying to tell them they shouldn't do it, or insisting they justify their personal reasons for wanting the thing is generally, and specifically, a bad thing.

But, apparently, you're okay with that bad thing. The dichotomy is not persuasive.

Two: threads like these might (as in, will) give the impression to a casual reader or visitor that there's a more or less greater desire for that thing than there really is.

Oh, for pity's sake! The discussions on EN World are not, and were never intended or claimed to be, an accurate representation of gaming as a whole. We are a self-selected population, not a representative sample. Being so is not part of our mission. Reading EN World at all gives an inaccurate impression of what gamers desire. So, this argument is moot.


Edit: I did not like how the prior end of this post came out. I have retracted it.

 

[Lanefan]

OTOH, a dedicated workshop where everybody is working to accomplish a goal, without noisy distractions, is generally a good thing. "We want to design the mechanics / rules to run an X" does not mean there is Only One Way to achieve that goal.

No, but it does presume a desire - that not everyone might share - to end up with mechanics / rules to run an X, in whatever form said mechanics / rules might end up taking.

I mean, if I started a thread based on "Hey, let's riff off Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and design rules for spaceships and space travel in 1e D&D" I'd fully expect assorted people to chime in with variants on "What a dumb / useless / genre-inappropriate idea"; and if enough of 'em did I'd maybe have to concede they have a point and abandon the attempt.

But if they weren't allowed to, thus all I ever saw was versions of "Great idea, here's x-y-z thoughts on how to make it happen", my perception of the demand for such a thing would get distorted all to hell.

 

[Lanefan]

So, this is a vast overstatement of the concept. One thread does not an "echo chamber" make. That concept is relevant when considering one's overall exposure to topics, not individual discussions. Folks will still have exposure to differing ideas in the myriad of other threads they have access to on the site.

If folks are trying to actually accomplish or talk about a thing - like, say, trying to build a new subclass for D&D - having the constant static of naysayers trying to tell them they shouldn't do it, or insisting they justify their personal reasons for wanting the thing is generally, and specifically, a bad thing.

But, apparently, you're okay with that bad thing.

I guess I don't see it as such a bad thing, and I'm by and large OK with it.

Put another way [and keeping in mind that in the end it's just a game we're talking about here], if your intent is to publicly discuss something that might be controversial or generate mixed opinions then asking (or expecting, or mandating) people not to express views that disagree with yours and-or your premise is a bit much.

Edit: I did not like how the prior end of this post came out. I have retracted it.

FWIW I never saw the unedited version - maybe I should be thankful?