Flamebait allowed?

[Psion]

However, your counter response makes it seem like you're trying to pick a fight.

That's a baffling stance. If Diaglo is the one (and from what I have seen, he is) to continually rub his disdain in people's face, it seems to me that by definition, Diaglo is the one picking a fight.

And I don't see any compelling reason why this board should be 3.x D&D/d20 only. A large majority of poster on this board have been playing for 20+ years, so in my mind, it's really only natural that they would discuss the more classic elements of the game as well as more recent ones.

Discussing classic elements is one thing. Starting psuedo-religious gaming holy wars is another. In the realm of gaming "your game isn't D&D" is just as inflamatory as "your religion isn't really Christian." You can beleive that all you wan't. Rubbing it people's face every third post is simply not polite and does not lead to discussion, but gaming holy war.

 

[James Heard]

Sorry, not seeing it. Too few people are gathering their torches and storming the castles I think.

 

[Quasqueton]

A large majority of poster on this board have been playing for 20+ years, so in my mind, it's really only natural that they would discuss the more classic elements of the game as well as more recent ones.

For the record: I have been playing this game for 25 years-- B/ED&D, AD&D1, AD&D2, and current D&D.

I'll also point out my series on this board: Classic adventure module discussions.

Quasqueton

 

[pogre]

Q,

I think you have it handled correctly - if Diaglo's schtick is getting to you - put him on ignore. The truth is he's been doing it for so long and so consistently he does get a pass on it. Don't worry about whether he should - it's not worth it

 

[Quasqueton]

Psion:

Discussing classic elements is one thing. Starting psuedo-religious gaming holy wars is another. In the realm of gaming "your game isn't D&D" is just as inflamatory as "your religion isn't really Christian." You can beleive that all you wan't. Rubbing it people's face every third post is simply not polite and does not lead to discussion, but gaming holy war.

"Quoted for truth."

Soluzar (a Dragonsfoot regular):

My initial impression was that this forumed seems to be more 3e/3.5e centric

This is just what I've seen this morning in the General forum, without looking specifically for them:

diaglo:

and i play 3.11ed for Workgroups when the DM comes to town.

Gentlegamer:

It isn't D&D anymore, its d20 Fantasy.

diaglo:

d02 ain't D&D.

ARandomGod:

As opposed to the forum we're in now, which is about the "3.x" D20 games. That's not D&D at all, but a knockoff.

ARandomGod:

Oh, and please don't think that I'm NOT flaming d20. I like the system well enough. I play it regularly, I even write in forums about it! But 3.X is no more D&D than Star Wars is. It's just a completely different game.

Do these posts serve any purpose other than to purposefully stir up stinky stuff? Do they forward discussion? Do they bring a new perspective? Or are they specifically to drop flamebait in the forum water?

Should each of these posts be reported? Most people here just let such posts slide, without responding or reporting. And that is more a sign of the maturity of most people here, than of the negligable number of such posts. But I've noticed the number of such posts increasing. And after a while, a critical mass will be reached.

I'm just pointing out a noticable trend. Say I'm overreacting. Say I'm too sensitive. Deflect the issue onto me. Just note that I pointed it out first.

Quasqueton

 

[Belen]

Do these posts serve any purpose other than to purposefully stir up stinky stuff? Do they forward discussion? Do they bring a new perspective? Or are they specifically to drop flamebait in the forum water?

Should each of these posts be reported? Most people here just let such posts slide, without responding or reporting. And that is more a sign of the maturity of most people here, than of the negligable number of such posts. But I've noticed the number of such posts increasing. And after a while, a critical mass will be reached.

I'm just pointing out a noticable trend. Say I'm overreacting. Say I'm too sensitive. Deflect the issue onto me. Just note that I pointed it out first.

Quasqueton

I think you're taking those comments too personally. To me, they represent a difference of opinion. The rules of 3e really make a difference in how the game plays and feels. I can see why people do not get the same feeling from the game that they had in the past. In most cases, these people are not flaming anyone for playing 3e, they are stating an opinion. If they feel that way, then arguing with them or making poor comments about the rules from past editions will only cause the situation to warm up.

3e is the current version of D&D and it retains enough sacred cows to still identify with D&D, but it is a different game. It is a stronger game and the rules are more open and intuitive, but the feel and flavor can be at odds from people who enjoyed past editions.

One thing I have noticed on ENWorld is a large number of people start to get rude when someone posts problems with 3e or if someone dares to think that a previous edition handled things better.

I can say that I have been personally attacked for views like this on a large number of occasions by rabid 3e fanboys who never admit that 3e CAN have faults. So, for as many comments as you can find decrying 3e, I'll bet I can find an equal or greater number attacking the opposite viewpoint. In many cases, the fanboys of 3e get personal whereas people commenting about how 3e is not really D&D are stating a opinion which people take personally. There is a difference.

 

[Belen]

Again, please give an example of this. BelenUmeria, I like you, so please don't take this personal or harsh: but don't make accusations without offering evidence.

I like you too, so I managed to finally do some searching. Ok, here are some comments that I found to be over the line and this was in just one thread.

D&D3 forced you to be a better DM? That bastard!

Yeah, I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to go back to earlier editions of the game so you don't have to make memorable encounters, and you could run all combats as "I attack, he attacks".

Quasqueton

Yeah, what he said.

"Oh man, the new cars suck. They're so complicated. I mean, how can you enjoy driving when you've got to push in the cigerette lighter, open the sun roof, set the AC, adjust the seat angle, change the radio stations, etc. Driving used to be so much simpler when you just had to push the gas peddle and steer."

Quasqueton

I guess it is 'relevant' in the rather academic sense that D&D3 is fundamentally identical to earlier versions of D&D, but some people are so irritated by that fact they feel the need to argue an irrational point.

Quasqueton

What does Akrasia know? He doesn't even play D&D, so he has no ground to stand on. Why is he even arguing?

Quasqueton

By your own definition, you don't play D&D. The earlier games were prototypes, tests, and practice systems. Heck, they weren't even *named* "Dungeons & Dragons".

Dungeons & Dragons [current edition] is the only true game. All previous editions were just attempts to reach this level of excellence.

[Ain't it funny how someone claims D&D3 is not D&D, yet that someone includes D&D3 in his list of proof that he plays D&D? Troll at work.]

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

I remember that thread. Can you give a link, please? (Not to question you, but to better remember the context.) If I remember correctly, most of the above statements were rephrasings of someone else's statements.

[I really need to renew my subscription.]

Quasqueton

 

[Belen]

I remember that thread. Can you give a link, please? (Not to question you, but to better remember the context.) If I remember correctly, most of the above statements were rephrasings of someone else's statements.

[I really need to renew my subscription.]

Quasqueton

Here is the link: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=126642

I posted from that thread, because I thought they were over the top, despite the context. I think you have started making these types of comments, in general, over the last fews months. They have been enough that I have become hyper aware of them.

 

[Quasqueton]

Ah, yes. That thread was an intentional troll for April Fool's Day. Note the date; note all the buzzwords; note the declaration "This is the truth. Accept it." I also stand by my responses in that thread as "in kind" with what I was responding *to*.

Quasqueton