Is ENWorld getting less friendly?

[Drifter Bob]

Aye, and here's where we get into unfriendliness - resentment.

The thing folks tend to encounter is not just resentment of real attempts to change the game, but resentment even of discussing the idea. And that's a little much. There's something so holy about the thing that we should resent folks even talking about changing it? Is it healthy to become so dogmatic about gaming that one resents discussion of different possibilities?

Talk is just that - talk. It isn't something to get dander up about. Discussions of topics you don't like still broaden the mind and keep the mental processes rolling smoothly. Discussion of alternatives (even distasteful ones) can keep you evaluating what you do, so that you don't fall into a rut.

Thank you.

DB

 

[Camarath]

Well, like I said...

This kind of attitude has discouraged me from ever trying to discuss that particular issue again, in any forum.

Well I think you would get a better reaction in the House Rule forum if you want to talk about really changing the game in some tangible way. If you just want to gripe about non-specific issues then there is probaly no place to post that kind of thread and not garner some negative responses.

Having said that, In a probably fruitless effort to discuss the discussion, if you will, I feel I should point out that you are making some incorrect assumptions.

1) You asssume that it is as easy to add internally consitent and comprehensive rules and systems as it is to remove them, this is not so. It is much harder to add than to ignore.

2) I do not want the game to take the same direction I believe you wish it to take. In other words I like the rules to be consistent and expansive and would like to see them become more so. I view attempts to reduce the scope or level of integration of the rules (i.e. make the game more free-form) as undesireable.

3) I do not agree with you about what will become a problem in the future for D&D.

It is my view that you have a hazy picture on your laptop which you claim shows a hurricane but which looks just like another patch of clouds to me. And you are suggesting that we change course into an area in which I believe are shallow rocks. In such a situation I would try as best I could to argue against your recomended course change.

4) Reactionary attitudes are pervasive in all areas of life. I am not sure I would call the current attitude hyperconservative since I have seen a great deal of willingness to actept new rules and systems both from published sources and in the form of House Rules.

Talk is just that - talk. It isn't something to get dander up about. Discussions of topics you don't like still broaden the mind and keep the mental processes rolling smoothly. Discussion of alternatives (even distasteful ones) can keep you evaluating what you do, so that you don't fall into a rut.

I don't take these things personally. And I do not mind entertaining alternet points of view. But to do so I have to understand why the other side views the issue as they do and what real changes they would like to see. Stating that the game is flawed because it occational has inconvenient rules is not enough for me to understand what should be changed and why.

Also the negative reaction in that thread to other people's suggestions for possible rule based fixes for the problem in question made it hard to tell what the real issue in that thread was was. Also the higher standard to which many people hold published works IMO added harder edge to many peoples comments then I believe would have been there if it had just been a personal game.

If Drifter Bob wants to make a system that makes it easier to make NPCs I think that would be a good thing which I would support. But if Drifter Bob just wants to remove existing rules systems solely because they make it hard to make NPCs that I would not support that.

Edit: I fear I am coming off as confrontational and unfreindly again. I do not mean to be either. I just wanted to put forth a contrasting view point and perhaps direct Drifter Bob to a part of the forum that could help him if he wants to do something about the system. I am not trying to be unreasonable or offensive.

 

[Drifter Bob]

For one thing, I was not speaking only of the one thread to which you are referring here.

For another, you are making a bunch of assumptions about my percieved agenda, which I could speculate is motivated by some hysterical fear of losing d&D somehow, but I really don't know. I find it extremely unpleasant to read this. All I did was raise some questions, I did not suggest all these specific plans you are attributing to me.

Also the negative reaction in that thread to other people's suggestions for possible rule based fixes for the problem in question made

You may not intend to be rude, but this is a mischaracterisation. Since you feel compelled to comment upon it, I would like to politely ask you to read through that thread again, particularly the last page or two. You should notice that I was happy to hear all the concrete suggestions which were made and thanked everyone who did so. It seems like your passion for the cause, whatever it is, is clouding your judgement.

DB

 

[Camarath]

You may not intend to be rude, but this is a mischaracterisation. Since you feel compelled to comment upon it, I would like to politely ask you to read through that thread again, particularly the last page or two. You should notice that I was happy to hear all the concrete suggestions which were made and thanked everyone who did so. It seems like your passion for the cause, whatever it is, is clouding your judgement.

You asked people to "tell me technically if I can give this thing a few bluff skill ranks" and people gave suggestions and you ignored them (except for an short off-hand coment in post 68 on page 4). That seems like a very negative reaction to me.

Also in that thread which you titled "D20 'philosophy' cramping my style" you ask people to "explain to me why I am stupid and this is NOT an example of anything being wrong anywhere except in my head (since I know nobody will agree with me)". This sounds confrontational and inflammatory to me. I find it odd that you should take exception to people responding in kind.

For another, you are making a bunch of assumptions about my percieved agenda, which I could speculate is motivated by some hysterical fear of losing d&D somehow, but I really don't know.

I am not assuming anything about your agenda. I am reacting to your stated opinions and intentions. Maybe you could explain your postion in a specific way rather than just as a general misgiving about people wanting encounters and situations to fit into the rules and the fear that this is bad for the game?

Also I think you are reading too much emotion into my posts I am not afraid or angry. And I do not know why you think I am. I disagree with you but that does not mean I am afraid of you or your ablity to change that game or that I am angry with you for trying.

I find it extremely unpleasant to read this. All I did was raise some questions, I did not suggest all these specific plans you are attributing to me.

You did state in the D20 'philosophy' cramping my style thread that:

I took the time to write this, and to try to make this point clear, in the hope that it would get through to some of the influential peole in the d20 community and they would recognize the problem and help do whatever can be done, if anything, to help reverse the trend.

Was this not your intention and your plan? I assumed that you actually meant to do this because you stated that it was your reason for posting.

In any case my point is that it I think you can have a resonable discussion about actual changes you wish to make to the game and its rules but I don't think you can make much headway in a disscusion about changing peoples attitudes toward the game. I do not think my attitude or the way I play the game needs changing and I am not fond of people telling me those thing need to be changed.

 

[Camarath]

I should just learn to leave well enough alone. I only seem to muddle things when I respond to people in Meta about their posts. Sorrry about that Drifter Bob I am just going to be quite now because I don't think I am doing anything other that getting you upset.

 

[Drifter Bob]

I should just learn to leave well enough alone. I only seem to muddle things when I respond to people in Meta about their posts. Sorrry about that Drifter Bob I am just going to be quite now because I don't think I am doing anything other that getting you upset.

I don't know what your problem is, I specifically thanked 5 or 6 people who answered technical questions in that thread, (even though that was not the main point of the thread) and you claim I didn't. I get the impresssion that you mean well, but you seem to be blinded by your feelings on the subject. Also, you take a general statement I make about a percieved trend in d20 rules vis a vis publishing in the industry, and translate that into some kind of attack on how you play the game. Frankly, I'm sure we could go back and forth on it forever without seeing eye to eye or even probably having a coherent argument. And this process is going ot make me really, really angry because your attempts to be diplomatic, while no doubt sincere, fall short of the mark.

I think it's enough to say that it isn't possible to discuss reforming the game in a general sense. If you find some loophole in 'da rools' people are very responsive to that, they will argue the details gleefully and if it's an actual loophole then they go along with it. That is not the kind of issue I was trying to raise, in fact I'm disturbed by the fact that it seems like the only things which are aknowleged are micro level nerfing changes of that sort, to the explicit excusion of any discussion of larger trends.

Then again, maybe it's just me.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

Was this not your intention and your plan? I assumed that you actually meant to do this because you stated that it was your reason for posting.

Yeah, my plan was to raise an issue. I don't think you have a clue what the actual issue was. Assuming that it would effect your own campaign means that you definately do not. Suggesting direction for change in D&D, or for example in the way D&D rules are starting encourage competitive attitudes between DMs and players, does not mean that somebody is teling you how to play the game. As I keep saying over and over, the game is going to change, it is changing every day. 4E will come out. In the past, say under 2E for example, this change led D&D in a direction which caused the game to become a lot less popular. If I'm suggesting a possible problem in the ongoing development trends in the game, it is not a personal attack on you, and it's not an excuse to make a personal attack on me, or lie about what I said.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

From the thread in question:

I really appreciate all the friendly comments though, and for what it's worth the ideas on how to fix the little problem I had.

Thanks a lot for your comments.

I probably will do that, thanks.

I really appreciate all the technical advice on the bluff problem.

DB

 

[Camarath]

If I'm suggesting a possible problem in the ongoing development trends in the game, it is not a personal attack on you, and it's not an excuse to make a personal attack on me, or lie about what I said.

I missed your post #145 on page 8 where you thanked people. I am sorry about that. It was a good bit after the thread ceased to deal with the rule question in any tangible sense. I do think your first post was a bit provocative but I did not mean that as a personal attack. Have I personally attacked you in any other way?

I don't think you have a clue what the actual issue was.

Could you please tell me what the real issue was? As far as I can tell you do not like the direction the game is going is this not so? Was there another issue I missed? Am I not allowed to disagree with you on this issue?

I think it's enough to say that it isn't possible to discuss reforming the game in a general sense.

How do you want to reform the game? I still do not understand what you want to change. It sounds like you want to change the attitudes of other people towards that game is this not so?

I get the impresssion that you mean well, but you seem to be blinded by your feelings on the subject.

Does dismissing my view as a blind emotional reaction make you feel better about your own position? I have not tried to dismiss or demean your views. I would like to understand them but for that to happen you might have to explain them to me.

And this process is going ot make me really, really angry because your attempts to be diplomatic, while no doubt sincere, fall short of the mark.

I trying to be diplomatic and to understand your position. Why does this make you so angry?

 

[mythusmage]

...I fear I am coming off as confrontational and unfreindly again...

Nah, you're just being unfriendly and confrontational. Big difference. The one'll get you a warning, the other'll get you a week-long suspension.