Pathfinder 1E Lisa Stevens, CEO of Paizo, commenting about ENWorld

[Harlekin]

It's not slighting anyone's opinion, unless not agreeing with someone is now an insult (and from some of the threads, I do think some see it in those terms). It's a comment directed at a game system.

"MERPs is a dumbed down version of Rolemaster," is not equivalent to, "People who like MERPs are dumb."

Context matters here. If you want a one-line description of MERP in a situation where nobody has emotional investment your description may work, although saying "MERPs is a simplified version of Rolemaster" is more precise. However, when tempers are already high, and people are emotionally invested in the games, it can very easily be read as an insult. And it can also be used as a phrase to insult without explicitly saying something nasty.

If you want discussions to remain civil, it is best to consider how your writing will be received and not only how you mean it.

 

[Obryn]

Again, this comes back to my complaint about people getting bent out of shape when someone calls a spade a spade.

"I am just stating the facts as I see them in a negative and insulting tone. I don't know why everyone's getting mad!"

It's the "I'm not a jerk, my character is" defense for messageboards.

-O

 

[The Little Raven]

"MERPs is a dumbed down version of Rolemaster," is not equivalent to, "People who like MERPs are dumb."

Political content edited out - you've been here long enough to know better - Kid Charlemagne

A semantic song and dance is cute, but it doesn't hide the emperor's dangly parts.

 

[Hussar]

It's not slighting anyone's opinion, unless not agreeing with someone is now an insult (and from some of the threads, I do think some see it in those terms). It's a comment directed at a game system.

"MERPs is a dumbed down version of Rolemaster," is not equivalent to, "People who like MERPs are dumb."

This from the guy that's calling some DMs "asshats" in another thread...

And I've been paying for it ever since. Sigh.

But, really, there's a perfect textbook example. In no way did I specifically call any specific poster an asshat. I said that DM's who were entirely unwilling to compromise with their players were asshats. And people got angry and I've spent the last several pages trying to beat out fires and fighting to get my actual points across.

In retrospect, perhaps asshat was not the term I should have used.

All it takes is for someone to be reading a little too quickly and focus on the insulting word and not the entire sentence. Saying X is dumbed down is going to cause problems because of the context. Things that are dumbed down are bad. The context is entirely negative.

When you are being 100% negative, is it a surprise when people are negative back? Celtavian chose to make some very agressive statements about 4e, using some very provocative language and then tacked on a "I don't want anyone who disagrees with me to post in this thread." at the end of the first paragraph. Is it really shocking that people would get their backs up over this? I mean, if he did the exact same post about 3e, or worse 1e, he'd get absolutely trashed by posters coming out of the woodwork.

I think the basic point here is, choose your language with care. People are reading, people are a bit sensitive right now because of all the back and forth of the past year, and try to back off from using language that is heavily loaded.

((Cue the usual suspects swooping in accusing me of censorship))

 

[pemerton]

"MERPs is a dumbed down version of Rolemaster," is not equivalent to, "People who like MERPs are dumb."

I've played a bit of MERP, a lot of RM, have a shelf-full of ICE books and fanzines, and read and post on the ICE forums. I've never seen a fan of MERP (or HARP) describe it as a "dumbed-down" version of Rolemaster. They describe it as a simplified version of an overly-complex game.

There's no getting around the fact that "dumbed-down" is pejorative.

Anyway, the notion that the version of D&D which finally introduced modern RPG mechancis to D&D (via skill challenges - have a read of Lost Soul's "Emergent features" thread to see what amzaing things can be done using this mechanic) is "dubmed down" and has roleplaying elements merely "tacked on" is almost impossible to take seriously. Undoubtedly some people don't like these modern mechanics. Fair enough. But that doesn't make them dumbed down. HeroWars is not dumbed down RQ, nor is it reducing RQ to a mere combat boardgame. Mutatis mutandis for 4e and D&D.

 

[blargney the second]

If you don't play the game, DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. How hard is that?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Bbt9extsg[/ame]

 

[xechnao]

See, I don't understand this. If you don't play the game, then why post about it AT ALL?

I really don't get this compulsive need that some people have to declare to the world that a game they don't play is bad. Evangelize the games you DO play and ignore the ones you don't. I am not playing Pathfinder. I have no particular interest in it. So, I don't bother with any PF threads. End of story.

Same goes for Arcana Unearthed. Never played it. Don't talk about it. Microlite, Mutants and Masterminds, L5R. All games I don't play and don't talk about.

About the only time I do talk about games I don't play is when people start telling me that D&D has sold its soul and lacks any heart but ((Insert version of choice)) of D&D did it all so much better. That ((Insert version of choice)) had real role players and now everything is all about combat. That EXACT same conversation could be had about 3e for the past 8 years and now it's being said about 4e. I imagine if the internet had been around, it would have been said about 2e as well.

Could you imagine the rows that would have been had if the internet had been around in the days of AD&D vs B/E/C/M/I? That would have been fun. Not.

If you don't play the game, DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. How hard is that?

It's funny, I've had conversations on this board about saying what you mean. Don't use loaded language when you can use neutral language instead. I've been pushing that for years. Yet people still insist that any limitation on what they say, regardless of the reaction it will provoke, is valid.

It absolutely blows my mind.

There is so much space our attention can accept and that space was abruptly flooded with 4e, shocking the inertia of the previous balance. In this shock or rather "provocation", 3e gets to lose even more of the little space it could limit itself as it has to use it as a reaction to the shock. Eventually this reaction towards 4e ends to give even more space to 4e, since 4e now has to occupy space in 3e's realm too. Of course, reacting to this effect, 3e has to get to 4e space to balance its need for occupying space. Eventually, this chemistry creates an effect that byitself creates some extra attention. The lesson is that the abrupt "invasion" of 4e on a 3e board does more to boost 4e more than what 4e could have hopped if it were on a different board-space just for itself. I believe this is one of the reasons 4e marketing chose the confrontational way with 3e.

 

[racoffin]

((Cue the usual suspects swooping in accusing me of censorship))

THIS. This is the main problem (or at least one of the biggies) with what is going on. It has stopped being arguments about the game systems and more a framework so that "the usual suspects" can follow each other from thread to thread arguing. I've read on several threads variations on how two or more posters have argued a point on another thread and feel a need to bring the fight to new ground.

If we couple that wonderful habit with the practice of using loaded phrases and hostile debate tactics and it is no wonder there are fights. If the site had a nickle for every time someone used the term "strawman" or "Ad hominem" we could afford 10 servers. The same for variations on "Any reasonable person would understand ..", "I'm not trying to start an edition war BUT ..", and so on.

If the so-called usual suspects could refrain from slapfighting with each other, I feel that many of the fights we have here would dry up. If we stop trying to show that we studied the debate/law/philosophy word of the day calendar and use more polite, more neutral language in our discussions, if we talked about what we like and what is going on with our games instead of trying so hard to be right all the time, things would be better.

If those people who come in and pretend to have the answer to why whichever edition sucks and if only people would listen to them would take a moment and realize it is their OPINION. That's all. No one here, from the lowliest lurker to the highest publisher has the right answer. You have A answer, one that maybe works for you and a few other people. Other people don't have to agree.

Stop complaining/arguing and go have fun.

 

[Gothmog]

Hussar makes a great point here. I'll try to keep this civil, but I'm really getting irritated by the same 5 or 6 posters coming into every 4e discussion thread and throwing the same tired rabid arguements around. We get some of you don't like 4e (and may in fact loathe it), but why not spend your time promoting and discussing games you do like, rather than trash games you don't like and insult those who play them with terms like "dumbed-down", the "tee-ball game", etc. You might think you're being witty and cute, but you're honestly just showing what a jackass you are. And you're right, if you make a jackass of yourself, then you're not going to recieve a warm welcome anywhere, regardless of the demographic of people you're being a jackass to.

I understand there is some emotional investment involved- we're nerds, and we really get into our interests and hobbies. But there is no "one true path", or "true version of D&D". Thats entirely subjective and your opinion, but in no way shape or form is objective fact. I can't speak for all posters here, but I try to refrain from personal attacks or even making generalizations about a game and its players. I offer up my experiences, and why things do or don't work for me and my group. Making blanket statements, no matter what side you're on is a sign of a limited mind who cannot or will not consider the other side or point of view. Yes, some folks have been rude on both sides, like the fellow who went ape all over Celtavian in his thread for why he didn't like 4e- and that was wrong. But I'm noticing a lot more 4e haters showing up in 4e threads and threadcrapping and throwing snide comments for the hell of it, and offering NO constructive advice.

I have my favored games, and the games I don't like. I prefer to spend my time discussing and promoting the games I do like, rather than engage in pissing contests about games I don't like. I got really burned out on 3e about 4 years ago, but I didn't go into every thread mentioning 3e and threadcrap by being insulting and decrying how 3e wasn't D&D, and those whole defend 3e are 3tards and munchkins. Likewise, I didn't threadcrap when someone mentioned other games I don't like for mechanical or thematic/flavor reasons like Arcana Evolved, Ptolus, Pathfinder, Exalted, etc. I don't even think that way- its beyond my comprehension. People have different tastes, and no one game will appeal to them all. Live and let live.

4e is the big thing now, and it is D&D to many of us. Time will tell if it is successful or not, but this is the first time I've been excited about playing and running D&D in probably 5 years- and I'm a pretty entrenched simulationist DM- and I make 4e work for me with a few tweaks. I am really enjoying 4e, but no game system is perfect, including 4e- and I don't think you'll find any 4e supporter saying its an absolutely perfect game. Criticism of the game is fine, but insults and snide comments aren't. Likewise, criticism of 3e is fine too- and 3e had a boatload of problems for many of us (which some call flaws), which is why we're enjoying 4e so much- many of those concerns from 3e were addressed and "fixed".

If you don't like 4e, then you can play Pathfinder, or 3.5, or any other game you please. God only knows there is enough 3e material to last for 50 years. But why get so worked up when some folks like 4e and are enjoying it? Is it something to do with the D&D brand name and loyalty to the name? Or is that you're wishing failure on 4e so WotC will go back to 3.5 D&D and the "one true way"? I really don't get it.

 

[pemerton]

if we talked about what we like and what is going on with our games instead of trying so hard to be right all the time, things would be better.

If those people who come in and pretend to have the answer to why whichever edition sucks and if only people would listen to them would take a moment and realize it is their OPINION. That's all. No one here, from the lowliest lurker to the highest publisher has the right answer.

The problem is that some things are not simply matters of opinion. For example, it is not simply a matter of opinion that 4e is the first version of D&D to offer strong mechanical support for narrativist play (OD&D and Moldvay/Cook D&D can be played vanilla narrativist - although more often are probably played vanilla simulationist - just because they have so few mechanics). Likewise it is not simply a matter of opinion that 3E was the first version of D&D to offer strong mechanical support for purist-for-system simulationism (eg via its skill rules, grapple rules, monster build rules, etc).

Not only are these relationships between mechanics and supported playstyles not matters of opinion, but it is not mere opinion that some mechanics are better or worse as supports for their intended playstyles.

A concrete example: are minions a well-designed mechanical tool to support narrativist play? And if they are to do that work, is it more or less helpful for the GM to let the players know which creatures in an encounter are minions, and which not? These are questions I'd genuinely like to know the answer to, and the answer is not a mere matter of opinion.

But any thread which discusses this (and there is currently such a thread on the front page of General) is prone to getting bogged down in discussion as to whether or not it is desirable that the game be mechanically oriented towards narrativism at all. (This has happened to that thread.) And that issues - whether narrativism is a more or less fun way to play than purist-for-system simulationism - really is just a matter of opinion.

I'd enjoy the minion thread more if people weren't sidetracking it by expressing those opinions. But it's very easy for those expressions opinions to present themsevles as assertions as to whether or not particular mechanics are poorly or well-designed - and thus as making contributions to a debate in which the issue is not merely one of opinion. In some cases, they might even be making such contributions, while also expressing their hostility to narrativism on the side.

Unfortunately, therefore, I think that unless we are prepared to abandon all serious conversation, little will be achieved by asking people to remember that their opinions are nothing more than that.