OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[HeinorNY]

If you want discuss what I'm talking about I'll try to reply if they haven't got me

They are coming!!!!

 

[malladin]

I don't think anyone who hates subject matter X should ever be posting on a thread/forum/messageboard or whatever devoted to X. Whether X is 4e, 3.5, 1e or model trains. For example, I can't stand Planescape. If I behaved like some people on the 4e forum do that would mean I post in every Planescape thread saying something like, "Just thought I'd let you know that I still really hate Planescape". On what planet would that be a good thing? Or even acceptable?

I agree but as Ainatan points out fanatical support is no more productive

 

[malladin]

They are coming!!!!

Where Can I Hide

 

[HeinorNY]

If I behaved like some people on the 4e forum do that would mean I post in every Planescape thread saying something like, "Just thought I'd let you know that I still really hate Planescape". On what planet would that be a good thing? Or even acceptable?

I agree and that happens a lot in the 4E forums. That can be pretty annoying sometimes and it is unproductive.
But comments like "You can change the name if you want to" or "you can just house rule it" or "so 4E is not for you" aren't very productive either, and can also be very annoying for the person that is making the complain and IS honestly trying to build a common agreement about that issue so maybe the designers hear it and think: "hmmmm, guys, maybe Tome is not a very cool idea for a wizard focus, let's think about it one more time, shall we?".

 

[ThirdWizard]

I agree but as Ainatan points out fanatical support is no more productive

If I go to a Dark Sun message board and list all the reasons I hate Dark Sun and I go to a Planescape D&D board and list all the reasons I love Planescape (note: I do not hate Dark Sun!), which is most likely to create a more productive thread? This 4e forum is made up of more pro-4e people than anti-4e people, and it will probably remain that way unless something goes terribly terribly wrong in design. I'm not trying to make any judgment calls, just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Yes, critique is fine. When someone sees something that they specifically have reasons to be doubtful of its final form in the PHB, they have a right to speak up. However, for people who are overwhelmingly anti-4e, this is probably not going to be the best place to express these views, especially after the books are released next year. I don't really like 1e D&D. I do not point this out on these forums! And, for good reason, I like to think.

Right now, 4e hasn't been released yet. I think the general lack of information is why its okay to harp against it right now. I don't like it, personally, but it makes sense being that none of us should be personally attached to 4e yet, logically, since we haven't seen it. It doesn't work like that in real life, but it really should. Oh well, nobody ever said people were logical. Certainly nobody says that about the internet. Well, with a straight face anyway.

We don't know if its going to be good. We don't know if its going to be bad. One person speculates it'll be great, another that it'll tank, and nobody can say for certain yet. So, we're free to randomly speculate as we see fit. But, doing so comes with a price, and that price is flaming, passive-aggressive posting, and trolling. And, as far as I can see, that's just the way it is. I'd love it if it weren't, and I try my best not to involve myself in any of it, but I'm not going to pretend to be surprised that that's what happening.

 

[thorian]

It doesn't work like that. Internet posts will not pay for product development; people need to buy 3.5 material if they want more of it.

[snip]

In short: stop posting, start buying. Or 3.5 will disappear forever.

If there are publishers that continue to support 3.5, then I will certainly buy. I bought EVERY 3E/3.5E product from WotC until they canceled Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine. I have subscribed to the aforementioned magazines, and own every issue that has come out since 3E. I have paid for a community supporter account on ENWorld for several years. I have bought many, many third-party d20 publications. I subscribed to Kobold Quarterly when Wolfgang announced it. I own complete sets of every miniature WotC put out. I could go on ad nauseum, but don't find it necessary.

I buy plenty of 3.5 material, and I will continue to do so as long as someone puts it out. I'd still like to post the occasional opinion, however. Furthermore, I'd like to see ENWorld continue to have 3.5 forum support, even if the publishing arm of the company doesn't find it profitable to put out anything 3.5.

Thanks.

 

[pemerton]

as to "opinions on the way we would like 4e to go", 4e is going in a direction, with or without you. Sure, the complaints over Dragon Tail Cut go heard, but I really don't think that WotC is going to turn the direction they've been going for the last - what, two years? - based on some posts on the message boards. Tieflings are in, Gnomes are Out. Warlocks are in, Bards aren't. Those are decisions that are probably set in stone, and no amount of criticism is going to save it.

<snip>

4e is coming, with you or without you.

This is true. Therefore, for me the most interesting posts and threads are those which try to understand the game-design assumptions behind the 4e changes, and try to predict and analyse the implications for play of those changes. I'm less interested in whether or not any particular poster wants to play that sort of game. I assume that WoTC has good enough market research that they've already answered that question to their own satisfaction.

Debates over names, and whether any particular game element (monster, classs, race, whatever) should be in the first set of published books, I really see as very secondary issues in comparison to the mechanics. The 4e mechanics will determine the way the game is played, and therefore (given D&D's gateway role) the way most people are introduced to RPGs as a whole, for many years to come. I think this is a lot more important for a great many more people (really, the whole of the RPGing community) than whether or not their are official racial feats for Gnomes.

 

[HeinorNY]

This is true. Therefore, for me the most interesting posts and threads are those which try to understand the game-design assumptions behind the 4e changes, and try to predict and analyse the implications for play of those changes. I'm less interested in whether or not any particular poster wants to play that sort of game. I assume that WoTC has good enough market research that they've already answered that question to their own satisfaction.

Debates over names, and whether any particular game element (monster, classs, race, whatever) should be in the first set of published books, I really see as very secondary issues in comparison to the mechanics. The 4e mechanics will determine the way the game is played, and therefore (given D&D's gateway role) the way most people are introduced to RPGs as a whole, for many years to come. I think this is a lot more important for a great many more people (really, the whole of the RPGing community) than whether or not their are official racial feats for Gnomes.

/thread

 

[Set]

One thing I find helpful when I post a concern about some announced feature of 4E and am beset by people calling me names like 'hater' and 'grognard' and whatever other tedious things they can get away with without getting banned is to request that they point out a *specific* thing they like about 4E, rather than just mindlessly naysay anyone who points out a thing that they don't like.

It encourages the 'attack posters' to contribute to a meaningful dialogue, and weeds out the approximately 50% that don't actually seem to have any positive contributions to make, and live only to concern troll other viewpoints and attempt to goad posters they don't agree with into posting something that they consider report-worthy.

Those that do reply often have some good insights. There's a lot of stuff about 4E that I read and think, 'About time, I've been doing that since 1st edition, when it was the basic assumption.' (Elves being wild, fey, unpredictable and very much not human in their views, for instance.)

Getting people to contribute useful dialogue, rather than 'nuh-huh' and 'uh-huh' and throwing around denigratory slang like 'fanboy' or 'hater' is the way to go, IMO.

 

[Yttermayn]

Hand selected volunteer moderators + banning/suspension abilities = gradual increase in civility. Coding in new changes to the forums and making more rules and laws will just increase the workload and detract from the value of the forums. Of course, if folks would just observe the Golden Rule, we wouldn't be here. But I expect that's too much to ask.