Is the D&D fanbase too divided?

[LordofIllusions]

How are splatbooks ruining the social fabric of the game, by giving people choices? If it is social issues you have a problem with, it needs to be dealt with in a social manner. Publishing a book about how to conduct oneself during a game will probably not do any good, because the people who need it most won't probably be the ones to buy it. If you were to buy it for somebody else in your group, I would contend that you would be the one to need some work on social skills. Talk to the player, rather than give them something to read.

D&D is at its heart a social game. The rules and such are simply the framework so a book or five on how to conduct social gatherings both in-game and out of game as opposed to splat after splat full of classes is not out of the question.

I think the DMG II did a very good job of this, perhaps you haven't read it? How many more books like that do you think people would buy? I'm happy with the one, and would be unlikely to spend more on another.

I love the DMG2! Excellent book! Also, just because you don't like something does not mean it will not work. One has only to take a quick look at certain threads or how long splats stay on the book shelf at the local bookstore to see how they are not selling.

No real roleplayer wants rehashed rules and PrCs in book after book.

~~~

 

[Mort]

Really? So it is the internet? So explain why arguments usually occur first in gaming groups and then get so nasty that people start posting their sides of the argument online. The problem comes from the social air of the game not the internet. The internet is simply another medium for those arguments to be expressed on. Moreover, I have attended numerous conventions and none are so divided than those of the 3E era.

~~~

I see a lot more "theoretical rules arguments" than "My DM hates me" arguments here. And frankly, there was a lot more bickering in my old group in college than there is in my laid back group now.

But as to your argument - what about books like the DMG II? Expressly put out by WOTC as a flavorful role playing aid to the DM?

Also, if you think WoTC treats its fans worse than mid-late TSR those aren't rose colored glasses they're blinders.

 

[EricNoah]

You know, though, I think that a large part of the EN World community, and maybe 3E players at large, feel like they are kind of hovering around the spectre of 4E. Doing what they can to get a lay of that landscape in order to determine if they will be "this kind" or "that kind" of D&D player. That schism can't be avoided, and I don't think it will be particularly pleasant to be around when it finally hits.

 

[Maggan]

Denying reality doesn't make it go away.

~~~

True that. But then again it boils down to what reality you subscribe to.

Are gamers arguing more than ever before? I don't know, I don't have any hard data to make such a claim. The Internet seems to have sped up the arguments, but I have read heated debates in Dragon for decades, and been privy to horrendous private feuds in fandom way before WotC entered the scene.

You make a big thing out of one player talking about leaving, and a "ton" of gamers you know who feel the same.

But people have been leaving the game for as long as it has existed. And I know another ton of gamers that aren't talking about leaving. And EN World just hit 50 000 members. Presumably people are signing up all the time to discuss the game.

A while ago I also thought that the only thing going on at EN World was arguing and flaming. But then I realised that I got that impression because I only read those threads! There are hundred, if not thousands, of civil and polite and constructive and community building posts about the game each day.

But it was the flame wars that drew me like a moth. And I felt angry and upset after reading them. And then it hit me ... I don't have to chose to take part of that small part of this community, I can chose to go post something constructive, something new, or I can read the story hours, or a thousand other posts not dedicated to quitting the game, or blaming WotC for whatever it is they've done or will do, or all the other threads that make me angry.

I'm not saying these threads shouldn't exist. But it is my choice whether I want to spend the majority of my online energy on a minority of posts that gives a skewed picture of what's going on in this hobby.

At least that's how I feel about it.

/M

 

[molonel]

I think the alleged dividedness of D&D players is more evident on certain forums than it is in the real world.

 

[LordofIllusions]

Actually, most arguments first happen on line between posters. Sure we get a few threads a month of people posting about arguments they had around the gaming table but that is nothing compared to the dozens of the other kind we get. I've been on line and involved heavily with 3e since it began. I've gaming for three decades. The biggest chance is that people look back with rose colored glasses. Conventions are not more divided now then they were 20 years ago.

Ok, I am going to let my first retort ride...

So the internet is the criminal? Are these posters arguing over the latest version of Windows or over the ruleset and social elements of the D&D game? Also, are these arguments over the weather or over what the players think the GM should allow in his/her game?

~~~

 

[LordofIllusions]

True that. But then again it boils down to what reality you subscribe to.

Are gamers arguing more than ever before? I don't know, I don't have any hard data to make such a claim. The Internet seems to have sped up the arguments, but I have read heated debates in Dragon for decades, and been privy to horrendous private feuds in fandom way before WotC entered the scene.

You make a big thing out of one player talking about leaving, and a "ton" of gamers you know who feel the same.

But people have been leaving the game for as long as it has existed. And I know another ton of gamers that aren't talking about leaving. And EN World just hit 50 000 members. Presumably people are signing up all the time to discuss the game.

A while ago I also thought that the only thing going on at EN World was arguing and flaming. But then I realised that I got that impression because I only read those threads! There are hundred, if not thousands, of civil and polite and constructive and community building posts about the game each day.

But it was the flame wars that drew me like a moth. And I felt angry and upset after reading them. And then it hit me ... I don't have to chose to take part of that small part of this community, I can chose to go post something constructive, something new, or I can read the story hours, or a thousand other posts not dedicated to quitting the game, or blaming WotC for whatever it is they've done or will do, or all the other threads that make me angry.

I'm not saying these threads shouldn't exist. But it is my choice whether I want to spend the majority of my online energy on a minority of posts that gives a skewed picture of what's going on in this hobby.

At least that's how I feel about it.

/M

I'm not talking about En World; I am talking about D&D.

~~~

 

[Raven Crowking]

Really? So it is the internet? So explain why arguments usually occur first in gaming groups and then get so nasty that people start posting their sides of the argument online. The problem comes from the social air of the game not the internet. The internet is simply another medium for those arguments to be expressed on. Moreover, I have attended numerous conventions and none are so divided than those of the 3E era.

If your thesis was that society in general has become far less polite, I would agree with you. It seems that the average person has less free time, less real income, and more responsibilities than a decade ago. And, I think, the stresses can affect our behavior.

However, while I don't think that the game particularly promotes a social gathering, neither does it particularly promote bickering....with one exception. Previous editions did attempt to include an explicit "baseline" social contract far more emphatically than the current edition does.

Certainly, someone "empowered" to be an ass as a player in 3.X doesn't face the same rulebook proscriptions that he did in 1e or 2e, but OTOH, one could claim that someone empowered to be an ass as a DM in earlier editions had a similar free reign. I used to think people simply quit those games, or removed those players, when they encountered them, but the anecdotal evidence available on this (and other) boards shows that it isn't true.

I am nowhere near as certain as I was on this issue a year ago. There have been too many anecdotes that demonstrate to me that my experiences (generally good players, generally good DMs) have been extraordinary.

Does character building increase "me first" playing? I don't think so -- my house rules increase character building options.

 

[Crothian]

Ok, I am going to let my first retort ride...

So the internet is the criminal? Are these posters arguing over the latest version of Windows or over the ruleset and social elements of the D&D game? Also, are these arguments over the weather or over what the players think the GM should allow in his/her game?

~~~

Criminal is the wrong word. Yes, to all of those. Now on these boards we have the gaming arguments but if you surf the web on different subjects and find message boards you will find people arguing about everything. And arguing is not a bad thing. It is just good discussion and people presenting their own opinions and some of these people actual try to back that up with facts.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not talking about En World; I am talking about D&D.

~~~

Care to offer up a latest possible date for the collapse?
6 months?
2 years?
25 years?