D&D General Rant: Sometimes I Hate the D&D Community

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not. Many people believe these mechanics are inherently racist, and that their presence in a rules set is problematic. This means discussions about them shifts from just "what you like in a game" to "what is non-inclusive in a game". Many arguments take a very different tone once that line is crossed.

That's a huge point. If you like something in your game that others think of as anti-inclusive, it suddenly doesn't matter if its just what you like. To some, you're having badwrongfun and they're not afraid to castigate you for it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

That's a huge point. If you like something in your game that others think of as anti-inclusive, it suddenly doesn't matter if its just what you like. To some, you're having badwrongfun and they're not afraid to castigate you for it.

Is this true on ENworld? I see folks criticizing / debating each other's play styles, but I don't think I've seen "castigation." That would go against the site rules of treating each other with respect, right?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's a huge point. If you like something in your game that others think of as anti-inclusive, it suddenly doesn't matter if its just what you like. To some, you're having badwrongfun and they're not afraid to castigate you for it.

here is the problem with the whole 'nothing is bad wrong run' argument... we all have things that we think is a bridge too far (maybe you need to get to FATAL for it...maybe not) but think of what you are asking. You want someone to put aside what they see as a major problem and something stopping themselves or people they care for from being able to play... and say "Well it's just different opinions"

I like floating ASI (I actually prefer no ASI for race but hey) but I don't think them raciest to have them... I however could not imagine having an argument civilly where someone was saying things I DO find ist. That is the bridge too far for some.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I agree with everything both payn and Charlaquin have said on this, but as an addendum I do also think there's something specific to D&Ders and quarreling. Let's face this: we're nerds, and when nerds fall to debating something nerdy (especially something nerdy that has no great ramifications outside its own nerdy domain), we, um...we can "get a little too into it."

Are you suggesting we are highly intelligent and more than a little obsessive? That sounds like a great idea for a D&D race!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

That's a huge point. If you like something in your game that others think of as anti-inclusive, it suddenly doesn't matter if its just what you like. To some, you're having badwrongfun and they're not afraid to castigate you for it.

I have noticed that when it comes to these real world adjascent issues there is frequently a few individuals that subscribe to the "stronger emotions means my opinion is MORE valid" technique of discourse. This type of poster usually lands on my soft ignore list for that thread as I have an ingrained belief that important issues are best solved with careful deliberation.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I try to be really cognizant of my phrasing, but yeah, sometimes I slip up. Because as you said, people have been talking like that for generations.

I think that's kind of central to the OP's rant, and something we've all experienced (and probably are guilty of, at times).

But that's just kind of how people talk. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but it isn't going to stop here and now. Just as a few people saying artificers don't belong in D&D isn't going to stop artificers from being in D&D, or other people from liking them.

You make a good point - the converse of it is is hearing someone say "I don't like aarakocra in my campaigns" and hearing "Aarakocra suck" instead.

Edition warring is something I try to stay out of these days. I'd much rather talk about the things I like than the things I don't. Not that I don't fall into that trap sometimes, despite my best efforts.

IME, edition wars almost always come down to two things. The first is what you said. The second? The second thing is when someone says something critical about an edition (even if it's totally legit), and fans of that edition take it personally and start going off about how you're just edition warring.

1e's rules were not easy to follow. Legit. 1e was a giant unplayable mess. Not legit.
3e's system mastery causes balance issues, like casters vs martials. Legit. 3e sucked unless you were a char-opper. Not legit
It seems to take a long time compared to other editions to get through an encounter in 4e. Legit. 4e is just an MMO boardgame. Not legit.
5e doesn't have a true Warlord class nor is it very modular. Legit. 5e is easy mode and the designers all lied to us. Not legit.

Hopefully we can all see how the statements on the right are all meant to create conflict based on an opinion and not fact.

People like to put things into these tight categories, when reality doesn't always conform to that. But I can be just as guilty at that as the next person sometimes. Don't ask me my opinion on White Claw, for example.

yeah that is what bugs me... not "I don't like 4e" but "4e failed" or "4e wasn't real D&D" or even when stating you want more complex martial classes alot of the time you get "But that isn't D&D play something else"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Don't ask me my opinion on White Claw, for example.

i have 2 good friends that are no longer willing to even discuss jose cuervo so I get that

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

i have 2 good friends that are no longer willing to even discuss jose cuervo so I get that

White Claw?
Jose Cuervo?

Where am I? Did I just stumble on some sort of underground "Fraternities and Sororities Solo Cup" discussion thread?

Have some self respect! Get likkered up on the good stuff!

 

[Remathilis]

To express as much has had many a debate kicked off. The irony is thick.

I think the issue usually comes down to the fact that the game books assume a certain play style and thus get canonized by fans as the "true style" of play, so people often want "their" style to be the one that is in the books and thus defended by appeal to authority. People don't get hot about how you and your table do things, they get hot when it is suggested that the default method presented in the book is a certain way. It's not unique to D&D, religious schisms have formed over the inclusion of a single word or thought.

 

[Oofta]

[SARCASM]
I do sometimes think that in addition to "[+]" threads, we need "[-]" threads. If all you want to do is complain about some aspect of the game, just let people know! Whether that's fighters, alignment, HP or any number of other aspect of the game that I wouldn't know were an issue if not for the forum, just let people know that you don't want any posts about how whatever the topic of the thread is works just fine for other people. Let everyone know up front that all you want to hear is how people agree with you that it's terrible.

I think it could solve a lot of problem.
[/SARCASM]