D&D 5E [L&L] Campaigns in D&D Next

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] Well, that's one way to embrace those feeling indifferent or suspect with the next edition, indirectly ridicule their perceptions, you know, instead of talking it out like @Kamikaze Midget. We understand you are a strong proponent of 5e. More power to you. And it must be taxing to see all the reactions to it when they don't align with your own, but you're better than this Mist...

I am not indirectly ridiculing the attitude I'm highlighting here, I feel I am being pretty direct about it.

I am fine with legitimate criticism of 5e or any game. I engage in plenty of criticism of 5e myself (perhaps you missed my long rant about how I don't like the healing system much).

However sometimes people take very minor comments, or simply comments that are trying to explain what direction 5e is going or what things the creators think it does well, and then they go out of their way to take it as an insult against their preferred edition.

And I am calling out that bad behavior. And if you are defending that sort of bad behavior, I am calling out your defense as well.

Yes, I am ridiculing over the top victimhood where people pretend they're being slapped in the face because they like a different edition. I am ridiculing claims that a past edition is being slammed any time someone from WOTC mentions something they think is a feature of 5e without also mentioning that some prior edition did something similar, or if the prior edition did it differently.

It's enough already. Stop playing the victim. Nobody is slapping you in the face because of your preferences. Mearls is just talking about the new game. He's not slamming an older version of the game when he talks about the new game. Unless he mentions the prior edition, you should not read into his comments some implied slam. Criticism can be done concerning what he says, without pretending there is some hidden slam about something you like from a prior edition.

It's gotten to the point where a new article at WOTC will be posted, and someone here will re-post it and then post a running commentary slam on EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE of the article, often focusing on many individual words. They look for something nasty or snarky to say about it - and if nothing obvious comes to mind they just make up some strawman to tie it back to the snark theme. They take things out of context, imply a new context that wasn't present, pretend some implication about some past game that is obviously not being implied, and go to town in a stream of snark and nasty.

It's enough. That behavior detracts from enjoyment of the board, and from genuine discussion and criticism or praise of 5e. And I think it deserves to be called out and ridiculed when it starts happening this often.

 

[Rhenny]

I am not indirectly ridiculing the attitude I'm highlighting here, I feel I am being pretty direct about it.

I am fine with legitimate criticism of 5e or any game. I engage in plenty of criticism of 5e myself (perhaps you missed my long rant about how I don't like the healing system much).

However sometimes people take very minor comments, or simply comments that are trying to explain what direction 5e is going or what things the creators think it does well, and then they go out of their way to take it as an insult against their preferred edition.

And I am calling out that bad behavior. And if you are defending that sort of bad behavior, I am calling out your defense as well.

Yes, I am ridiculing over the top victimhood where people pretend they're being slapped in the face because they like a different edition. I am ridiculing claims that a past edition is being slammed any time someone from WOTC mentions something they think is a feature of 5e without also mentioning that some prior edition did something similar, or if the prior edition did it differently.

It's enough already. Stop playing the victim. Nobody is slapping you in the face because of your preferences. Mearls is just talking about the new game. He's not slamming an older version of the game when he talks about the new game. Unless he mentions the prior edition, you should not read into his comments some implied slam. Criticism can be done concerning what he says, without pretending there is some hidden slam about something you like from a prior edition.

It's gotten to the point where a new article at WOTC will be posted, and someone here will re-post it and then post a running commentary slam on EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE of the article, often focusing on many individual words. They look for something nasty or snarky to say about it - and if nothing obvious comes to mind they just make up some strawman to tie it back to the snark theme. They take things out of context, imply a new context that wasn't present, pretend some implication about some past game that is obviously not being implied, and go to town in a stream of snark and nasty.

It's enough. That behavior detracts from enjoyment of the board, and from genuine discussion and criticism or praise of 5e. And I think it deserves to be called out and ridiculed when it starts happening this often.

For what it's worth, Mistwell, I agree with you. There are a lot of terrific posts that present alternative ideas, but I hate when a post bashes any designer outright.

 

[Gilbetron]

I swear, if Mearls said, "And this time, D&D will feature blue on the cover," a bunch of fans would take it as a dig on their favorite past edition.

One group would go on to list all the D&D books from the past that had blue on the cover, and complain that it was a slap in the face of those fans of prior editions with blue covers to make that claim.

Then another group of fans would say what, are they trying to say red editions are bad or something? And those fans would take it as a slap in the face to claim that covers that featured the color red are being bashed by WOTC.

And then a third group would snark on Mearls for thinking that we should care what color will be featured, as everyone knows that real players just rip the covers off and replace them with their own covers anyway, or use digital copies that have no real "cover".

Mearls can literally say nothing at this point that wouldn't get heated responses and snark. And if he said nothing, he'd get heated responses and snark for that too.

And I am sure the fact that he gets that for saying anything or nothing will, itself, get blamed on Mearls, because of past bad actions or whatever the excuse of the day is for heated responses or snark over anything or nothing.

I couldn't agree with you more. There are fans of all the editions, although mostly 4E because they are the "outgoing edition", that comb through everything said by Mearls et al looking for something to be insulted by. Not all fans, but there's enough that very much turns me off reading most threads about 5E.

 

[Pour]

@Mistwell Sure, I'll defend them, largely on the point of contention what has been going on in this thread is nothing close to "bad behavior". I'm sure some other threads have thrown muck back and forth, but rereading this thread I just don't see it. It's quite valid to feel something, then to qualify why they feel it, which was done. Then a friendly, conversational approach was taken by someone else who felt differently. I found the discussion between pemerton and Kamikaze, with a dash of Balesir and Sadras, to be rather enlightening, actually. In fact it was going well until someone up and professed how much he despises overreaction...

 

[Brock Landers]

I am not indirectly ridiculing the attitude I'm highlighting here, I feel I am being pretty direct about it.

I am fine with legitimate criticism of 5e or any game. I engage in plenty of criticism of 5e myself (perhaps you missed my long rant about how I don't like the healing system much).

However sometimes people take very minor comments, or simply comments that are trying to explain what direction 5e is going or what things the creators think it does well, and then they go out of their way to take it as an insult against their preferred edition.

And I am calling out that bad behavior. And if you are defending that sort of bad behavior, I am calling out your defense as well.

Yes, I am ridiculing over the top victimhood where people pretend they're being slapped in the face because they like a different edition. I am ridiculing claims that a past edition is being slammed any time someone from WOTC mentions something they think is a feature of 5e without also mentioning that some prior edition did something similar, or if the prior edition did it differently.

It's enough already. Stop playing the victim. Nobody is slapping you in the face because of your preferences. Mearls is just talking about the new game. He's not slamming an older version of the game when he talks about the new game. Unless he mentions the prior edition, you should not read into his comments some implied slam. Criticism can be done concerning what he says, without pretending there is some hidden slam about something you like from a prior edition.

It's gotten to the point where a new article at WOTC will be posted, and someone here will re-post it and then post a running commentary slam on EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE of the article, often focusing on many individual words. They look for something nasty or snarky to say about it - and if nothing obvious comes to mind they just make up some strawman to tie it back to the snark theme. They take things out of context, imply a new context that wasn't present, pretend some implication about some past game that is obviously not being implied, and go to town in a stream of snark and nasty.

It's enough. That behavior detracts from enjoyment of the board, and from genuine discussion and criticism or praise of 5e. And I think it deserves to be called out and ridiculed when it starts happening this often.

That about sums it up.

 

[Mistwell]

@Mistwell Sure, I'll defend them, largely on the point of contention what has been going on in this thread is nothing close to "bad behavior". I'm sure some other threads have thrown muck back and forth, but rereading this thread I just don't see it.

It's not just this thread, but it happened in this thread as well. Here is an example:

Oh we're playing it like that, are we? Alright:

Whenever he slaps me in the face, there's always going to be someone trying to convince me I should be thankful for the human contact. Every time he opens his mouth (or hits "publish" on his WotC blog) the words are plain as day but apologists pop out of the woodwork to defend him.

It's quite valid to feel something, then to qualify why they feel it, which was done. Then a friendly, conversational approach was taken by someone else who felt differently. I found the discussion between pemerton and Kamikaze, with a dash of Balesir and Sadras, to be rather enlightening, actually. In fact it was going well until someone up and professed how much he despises overreaction...

It's none of them I am referring to. I think I made it pretty clear the stuff I'm referring to. When people talk about face slapping, when they pretend a description of 5e inherently has something to do with a prior edition when no prior edition is mentioned, when a strength of 5e is highlighted and someone takes that as a bash on a prior edition even when no prior edition is mentioned, that sort of stuff. When Steeldragons made that snark-laden post about a new article, when people accused Mearls and group of a conspiracy over their typo of 'monster' instead of the plural 'monsterS', when people freaked out over a claim that Tiamat hadn't been in a module or the color of her body in an image was different and took that as a slam on prior editions, those sorts of things.

 

[Sage Genesis]

It's none of them I am referring to. I think I made it pretty clear the stuff I'm referring to. When people talk about face slapping, when they pretend a description of 5e inherently has something to do with a prior edition when no prior edition is mentioned, when a strength of 5e is highlighted and someone takes that as a bash on a prior edition even when no prior edition is mentioned, that sort of stuff. When Steeldragons made that snark-laden post about a new article, when people accused Mearls and group of a conspiracy over their typo of 'monster' instead of the plural 'monsterS', when people freaked out over a claim that Tiamat hadn't been in a module or the color of her body in an image was different and took that as a slam on prior editions, those sorts of things.

As I made explicitly clear, the quote you're using from me was hyperbolic to make a point. Parody, if you will. It does not reflect my actual thoughts on what I think Mearls is doing. You have quoted that post of mine where I explained this before so I know for a fact that you were already aware of this. I don't know why you're intentionally misrepresenting my position, but please stop doing it.

 

[Mistwell]

As I made explicitly clear, the quote you're using from me was hyperbolic to make a point. Parody, if you will. It does not reflect my actual thoughts on what I think Mearls is doing. You have quoted that post of mine where I explained this before so I know for a fact that you were already aware of this. I don't know why you're intentionally misrepresenting my position, but please stop doing it.

sorry, it didn't look to me like you explained it was you being hyperbolic to make a point. it looked to me like you were saying you felt free to unleash your genuine feelings on the matter.