Discussions re: RPG Theory

[Sabathius42]

@Lanefan

Do you not see a very fundamental difference between these two threads?

A: 5e needs spaceship rules.

B: Help me design rules for 5e spaceships.

A is an invitation to discuss whether or not 5e needs spaceships. B is a request for people interested in designing 5e spaceships to help someone already interested in 5e spaceships.

They are fundamentally different in focus and it's not a huge leap to expect enough basic reading comprehension (bolstered by the boilerplate verbiage discussed above) to understand the difference between the two.

This proposed system is very similar to Reddits "This poster requests serious replies only" which seems to work just fine on a platform with WAY less etiquette in general than this one.

"This poster requests collaborative replies only".

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan

Do you not see a very fundamental difference between these two threads?

A: 5e needs spaceship rules.

B: Help me design rules for 5e spaceships.

A is an invitation to discuss whether or not 5e needs spaceships. B is a request for people interested in designing 5e spaceships to help someone already interested in 5e spaceships.

B subsumes A as part of itself.

A's the high-level theoretical discussion, B also hopes to incite more nitty-gritty practical discussion side-along with the theoreticals from A. Both invite discussion of whether 5e spaceships are a good idea.

Put another way, with all the assumptions added in B actually reads "5e needs spaceship rules, if you agree help me design rules for 5e spaceships, if you disagree, discuss."

Very relevant if there's just the one (current) thread on the topic.

This proposed system is very similar to Reddits "This poster requests serious replies only" which seems to work just fine on a platform with WAY less etiquette in general than this one.

"This poster requests collaborative replies only".

A poster is, as far as I know, free to request that as it stands right now. But, given this site's consistent track record up till now of posters not owning the threads they start, a poster is neither free to demand it nor to expect to have such a request enforced.

 

[Sabathius42]

B subsumes A as part of itself.

A's the high-level theoretical discussion, B also hopes to incite more nitty-gritty practical discussion side-along with the theoreticals from A. Both invite discussion of whether 5e spaceships are a good idea.

Put another way, with all the assumptions added in B actually reads "5e needs spaceship rules, if you agree help me design rules for 5e spaceships, if you disagree, discuss."

Not true. When my coworker asks me to help put together a TPS report he most certainly is not also inviting me to complain about TPS reports instead of assisting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not true. When my coworker asks me to help put together a TPS report he most certainly is not also inviting me to complain about TPS reports instead of assisting.

Exactly this.

The “+” shouldn’t even be required. If someone doesn’t want there to be a 5e warlord, even a homebrew if it that will never even be brought up by anyone at your table, go make a thread about it. Don’t crap all over a thread about building a homebrew with the equivalent of the “Debate Me!!!” meme.

 

[Maxperson]

B subsumes A as part of itself.

A's the high-level theoretical discussion, B also hopes to incite more nitty-gritty practical discussion side-along with the theoreticals from A. Both invite discussion of whether 5e spaceships are a good idea.

Put another way, with all the assumptions added in B actually reads "5e needs spaceship rules, if you agree help me design rules for 5e spaceships, if you disagree, discuss."

No it absolutely does not subsume A as part of itself. B reads, "I would like spaceships in my personal game and would like help with coming up with those rules." A reads, "5e as a whole needs rules on spaceships."

Your opinion on whether 5e as a whole needs rules on spaceships is entirely irrelevant to his personal game and has no place in his discussion.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Not only do I not think that would happen, I also think that even if it did happen, it doesn't really matter? What matters is that somebody wanted to make a 5e price guide with the help of likeminded people.

If you are on a beach and you see four people making a sandcastle, is it really, really vitally important that they be interrupted and made aware right now in no uncertain terms that you don't think sandcastles are needed, and that it's important that they don't create a false impression that there is a greater desire for sandcastles than there really is?

We're just talking about a game. It doesn't affect anybody's life or wellbeing. And there's nothing stopping you creating your own thread "Should sandcastles exist?" if you want to.

 

[Sadras]

in nearly all contexts, most people don’t report most of what they see that should be reported. But if someone points it out as worth reporting, more people actually pay attention and either lend support, also report, or both. The habit of vocally reporting poor behavior also increases the more general habit of reporting poor behavior.

I have only just started reading this thread but wanted to reply on this early comment.
Personally I'm not a fan of reporting. Sure I have wanted to report when things became unnecesarily antagonistic, but it isn't in my nature to report for something that is harmless and happens on the net. And as for political/religious/other commentary which isn't permitted by board rules or slightly risky humour - well that too rubs me the wrong way mostly because I believe in open dialogue despite strong differing opinions. Now I can respect the board rules but I also do not want to be on a site where slight commentary ends the discussion or gets you an immediate warning.

Just a few weeks ago someone made an off hand joke as he is/feels somewhat familiar with another poster all in good cheeky fun and some dude could not but keep hammering about the joke relentlessly about how offended he was and in general just threadcrapped what otherwise was a light-hearted thread. It is people like that, I feel take the use of reporting to the next level. IMO those high-horse riders are by far the worst offenders on this site, not the ones that make jokes or throw in some political or historical commentary.

Anyways rant over.

 

[CapnZapp]

So I had a new one today.

I was just moderated for threadcrapping ... my own thread. That's ... special. I mean, I can see all sorts of moderation reasons (like not being nice) but threadcrapping the thread that I created? That's new.

Which is almost funny to me because I was trying to avoid the same thing that always happens; in any conversation about RPG theory, the same people arrive en masse to dominate the conversation and generally exclude other points of view.

Just to be clear, the same person has now posted the majority of the comments in the thread I created to avoid this issue, and I can't do anything about it because they report me for trying to return the thread to the topic I started.

And I can't PM the moderator because it's moved to "moderation staff."

You have my sympathies. EN World has a serious issue with letting threads derail.

Case in point: I started a thread years ago discussing the lack of an useful magic items economy (3E-style) in 5E.

Soon the thread was overrun by people discussing how good it is that 5E doesn't have a gold economy. No matter what I did, it was impossible to re-rail the discussion, and finally the thread was closed down - the naysayers won.

Being told "you can always start a new thread" sucks.

Not only because there's no guarantee your detractors won't simply follow you into the new thread, and derail that one too.

But simply because it creates a conversion climate actively hostile to anyone outside of what the main group considers acceptable.

Even the idea "set up two threads, first one you allow naysayers to overrun, then a second one where you actually get to have constructive discussion in", feels like a "tax".

It all boils down to the basic fact that the moderation here won't see the problem, and how they exclude people by reframing a thread derail into "you don't own the thread".

Fine, so I don't own the thread, but how am going to be able to have a constructive discussion in a thread where maybe five out of six posts are actively hostile to the topic of thread?

 

[Morrus]

It all boils down to the basic fact that the moderation here won't see the problem, and how they exclude people by reframing a thread derail into "you don't own the thread".

Fine, so I don't own the thread, but how am going to be able to have a constructive discussion in a thread where maybe five out of six posts are actively hostile to the topic of thread?

You might want to actually read this thread. There has been plenty of development on that discussion.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Um... dude? You're talking about a hobby that, for decades, was looked down upon by the rest of the world. Kids got wedgies and shoved into lockers for having D&D books. If we listened to naysayers, we'd not have RPGs at all.

We are talking about threads in which it is explicitly noted that nobody is asking for your opinion of whether it is necessary. Why do you feel such a need to insert your idea where it is not invited?

Stop trying to control what other people have or do. Let them make what they want to make, and discuss what they want to discuss. If you don't like it, you don't have to partake. And nobody should give a hoot if it isn't really wanted in the gaming world at large.

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.

Again - the boards are not here to set anyone's perceptions of demand. This is not our mission.

 

[Gradine]

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.

If you're looking to this or any forum as a guide to overall demand, then your perception is already distorted all to hell