D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[pemerton]

\In most cases where I have seen it is used, no gauntlet is thrown - all someone is saying is that whatever "it" is doesn't jive with what that person wants out of "D&D" - you are still perfectly welcome to discuss "it" and even suggest how "it" might enhance the "D&D" experience.

I think there's more to it than that. I mean, no version of D&D gives me what I want out of D&D except for 4e - but it would never even occur to me to try and communicate that by saying that Moldvay Basic, or 2nd ed AD&D, or 3E, is not D&D.

And if I did say "3E is not D&D", I don't think I would be taken as communicating that 3E doesn't jive with what I want out of D&D. I think I'd be treated as either (i) bonkers, or (ii) very deliberately and pointlessly combative.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It appears to me that the reactions to this and a few other common statements on these forums are from people looking for ways to be offended - I could be wrong, but if we try to sanitize the forums of all such statements (if everyone could decide on which ones are trouble) there wouldn't be much discussion going on.

There's enough discussion being stiffled as it is, I agree. But, I think "that's not D&D!" is the kind of thing that can only escalate. You may not see it as the gauntlet being thrown down or as dismissive or rude, but I've seen it used that way a lot in the dreaded 'edition war,' so I don't know, maybe I'm still shell-shocked. See pemerton's note, above, about turning it around for yet another reason it's problematic.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I just hope that castles for Fighters and towers for Wizards do count as D&D and will be part of D&D Next core rules. Because that sounds like a great way to make higher level substantially different from lower levels.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I find the "That's not D&D" response perfectly acceptable - especially when you can directly see what mechanics the respondent was referring to. It tells you exactly what the other person doesn't want in his/her D&D experience. I don't have to agree with it, but I would never take offense to it.

No it doesn't. There is quite literally no reason to say that something is not D&D unless you want to fan an edition war. You can say that you don't like something and it isn't what you want to play. But calling it "not D&D" is explicitely "Othering" anyone who likes that thing and telling them they should not get a seat at the table. And Othering is a textbook method for shutting down discussions and excluding people.

As such it is exclusionary, non-productive, and undermines any attempt at civilised discourse because it is claiming that some people should not speak at all about D&D because what they like isn't really D&D. And for a nebulous and ill-defined reason at that.

This counts double when D&D started with "We made up some we thought would be cool" (Mike Mornard's summary).

I don't doubt people would also take offense to those statements - I choose not to be offended, especially when it is clear no offense was meant. YMMVAOD

Well good for you! There are many things that don't offend me personally. But there are also patterns used to marginalise groups - and it's this marginalisation rather than the direct offence that is the problem. It's the explicit statement that what they like doesn't matter because it isn't D&D.

We also disagree on this - In most cases where I have seen it is used, no gauntlet is thrown

Of course not. If you are throwing a gauntlet, you are acknowledging someone as your equal. By describing something as not D&D you are saying it doesn't belong in D&D and therefore that the viewpoint that likes it is invalid. It's not throwing down a gauntlet - it's turning your back on someone.

you are still perfectly welcome to discuss "it" and even suggest how "it" might enhance the "D&D" experience.

How? The claim is that it isn't D&D (even when it by any formal definition is) and doesn't belong there. So any discussion of it in the context of D&D is irrelevant.

Othering is a rhetorical technique that is used either intentionally or unintentionally to shut down and invaildate the viewpoints of people you disagree with without having to come up with a coherent argument. Now this isn't a particularly bad example of Othering; it's only pretend elfgames we're dealing with here. But it's still an example of Othering in a way that undermines any attempt at reasonable and rational conversation.

 

[Abraxas]

I think there's more to it than that. I mean, no version of D&D gives me what I want out of D&D except for 4e - but it would never even occur to me to try and communicate that by saying that Moldvay Basic, or 2nd ed AD&D, or 3E, is not D&D.

And that's fine and dandy.

And if I did say "3E is not D&D", I don't think I would be taken as communicating that 3E doesn't jive with what I want out of D&D. I think I'd be treated as either (i) bonkers, or (ii) very deliberately and pointlessly combative.

Or (iii) someone who prefers OD&D, Basic D&D, 1E, 2E or 4E.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think there's more to it than that. I mean, no version of D&D gives me what I want out of D&D except for 4e - but it would never even occur to me to try and communicate that by saying that Moldvay Basic, or 2nd ed AD&D, or 3E, is not D&D.

And if I did say "3E is not D&D", I don't think I would be taken as communicating that 3E doesn't jive with what I want out of D&D. I think I'd be treated as either (i) bonkers, or (ii) very deliberately and pointlessly combative.

That may be true, but the same opinion might result from the vague statements in the first paragraph. I don't think the words used to say it are really the issue.

Othering is a rhetorical technique that is used either intentionally or unintentionally to shut down and invaildate the viewpoints of people you disagree with without having to come up with a coherent argument. Now this isn't a particularly bad example of Othering; it's only pretend elfgames we're dealing with here. But it's still an example of Othering in a way that undermines any attempt at reasonable and rational conversation.

Political correctness is also a technique that is used either intentionally or unintentionally to shut down and invaildate the viewpoints of people you disagree with without having to come up with a coherent argument. Even if something seems inappropriate/combative/etc., sometimes it's better to let it pass than to look for an excuse to be offended by it. The broader context being that this is one example of how it's become very difficult to render any substantive criticism of D&D without getting dragged into these ridiculous sidebars.

 

[TwoSix]

Political correctness is also a technique that is used either intentionally or unintentionally to shut down and invaildate the viewpoints of people you disagree with without having to come up with a coherent argument. Even if something seems inappropriate/combative/etc., sometimes it's better to let it pass than to look for an excuse to be offended by it. The broader context being that this is one example of how it's become very difficult to render any substantive criticism of D&D without getting dragged into these ridiculous sidebars.

I don't see it as being politically correct to say "Hey, the way you're phrasing your point is really nasty, maybe you could say it this way instead." as long as the rephrasing doesn't lose any meaningful content. The only content that can be lost from "That's not D&D" is the actual desire to marginalize.

You may not see it that way, but that's not going to stop anyone from trying to get the phrase recognized as edition warring. It eventually worked with "4e is WoW/a video game", after all.

 

[pemerton]

That may be true, but the same opinion might result from the vague statements in the first paragraph.

Huh? So now saying that 4e is the only edition I care to play is combative? Yet saying 4e isn't D&D is just a helpful signal that 4e doesn't give a poster the D&D experience s/he craves?

I've lost track of the rhetorical standards in play here.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Political correctness is also a technique that is used either intentionally or unintentionally to shut down and invaildate the viewpoints of people you disagree with without having to come up with a coherent argument. Even if something seems inappropriate/combative/etc., sometimes it's better to let it pass than to look for an excuse to be offended by it. The broader context being that this is one example of how it's become very difficult to render any substantive criticism of D&D without getting dragged into these ridiculous sidebars.

OK. Let's analyse what you are saying here.

Your first paragraph is a complaint about political correctness. Political correctness is merely another name for politeness. And yes, politeness can be used to shut discussions down - but not half as often as it opens them up.

And you've slid in a second rhetorical disguise here. "Not D&D" isn't a substantive criticism unless we have a clear definition as to what D&D is, making your entire last sentence irrelevant. As was made obvious when [MENTION=40398]Tequila Sunrise[/MENTION] tried to produce some ridiculous examples they thought weren't D&D and it was pointed out that even such extreme examples were parts of D&D in some fairly well known books.

Your second sentence isn't that impressive either. Sometimes it is better to ignore coded insults. And sometimes that happens. But there is a difference between ignoring someone being brash, and ignoring a systematic insult that appears time and time again. Respond to the brash politely, and it often takes the heat out of the discussion. On the other hand let a systematic insult go by time and time again and it becomes seen as acceptable. Which doesn't prevent it being a slur. But when it's seen as acceptable is precisely when it needs fighting the most.

So, yes there are times to be impolite. Yes, there are times to let impoliteness pass. But allowing someone to get away with conversation-spoiling slurs with very little substance is not one of them, especially if someone thinks they are substantive. At least if you have the energy to spend on elfgames at all.

You have the choice not to be dragged into sidebars like this. You can do it easily - all you have to do is stick to substantive points and not say anything along the lines of "Not D&D" or "Not an RPG".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And if I did say "3E is not D&D", I don't think I would be taken as communicating that 3E doesn't jive with what I want out of D&D. I think I'd be treated as either (i) bonkers, or (ii) very deliberately and pointlessly combative.

No moreso than the post that started this tangent.

There is quite literally no reason to say that something is not D&D unless you want to fan an edition war.

Wrong. When- as the post that started this tangent did- there is a call for a complete divorce from everything the game has been before, saying that the request goes beyond the identity of the game, e.g. "is not D&D", is perfectly valid.