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

[Art Waring]

That's really a prime application of (+) threads. If you have a specific game idea you want to discuss, start a thread with "(+)" in the title and explain your goals in the OP. If you feel the need, just warn folks off topics you find distracting or unproductive.

Some posters regard (+) threads as unhelpful echo chambers, and they could be right for some topics. But personally, I look at them mainly as a request to stay on topic and avoid overtly negative or irate chatter that doesn't directly further your goals for the thread, especially when those goals relate to game mechanics, fleshing out adventure ideas, etc.

Most posters do seem to be pretty respectful of (+) threads, even the ones who don't necessarily agree with the concept, which I think is much appreciated all around.

Thank you, I haven't made a [+] thread yet but if I aim to solve a mechanical problem that might be controversial I might consider using it.

I tend to avoid it because I do like to hear varied perspectives. Even if someone disagrees with me, I at least hope that we can have a conversation about the reason why we disagree without resorting to the usual passive-aggressive tactics.

Overall though I think these forums are great compared to some other groups I have frequented on social media, take street art for example...

 

[James Gasik]

As I said in another thread, I wish the last Psionics thread I posted in had been a "+" thread so we didn't waste 30 pages on "psionics have no place in D&D".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, this a poisonous attitude in the real world and the fact that it's poisoning online communities isn't a surprise.

The most credible explanation for that I saw was from a poster on another forum, who suggested that a lot of people are used to certain topics evoking people who disagree with it, and in those cases those disagreements are kind of fundamentally malign. So they go in ready to Fight the Good Fight, and when no one shows up among the genuine opposition, they just kind of find opposition because its what they're so used to. It explains why you get really out of proportion responses to sometimes subtle or nuanced disagreement sometimes pretty well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The most credible explanation for that I saw was from a poster on another forum, who suggested that a lot of people are used to certain topics evoking people who disagree with it, and in those cases those disagreements are kind of fundamentally malign. So they go in ready to Fight the Good Fight, and when no one shows up among the genuine opposition, they just kind of find opposition because its what they're so used to. It explains why you get really out of proportion responses to sometimes subtle or nuanced disagreement sometimes pretty well.

I think it's probably seeped in from American political discourse over the last ~6-7 years.

 

[Mad_Jack]

I think it's probably seeped in from American political discourse over the last ~6-7 years.

Actually, it's the other way around - politics is just one of the more visible and current areas in which the ever-stronger trend of believing that one must "Pick a side" on an issue and defend it to the death has largely strangled any possibility of constructive discourse.
Although the advent of the internet helped people to come together with others who shared their views and interests for mutual benefit, it also made it much easier for people with an inclination to attack those views/interests to do so. So, for several generations now, both online and in real life, people have become more and more conditioned to expect to be attacked for their views or interests and, incidentally and however unwittingly, trained themselves to react in a certain fashion. They've become ever more defensive, and ever more conditioned to lash out at those they perceive as attacking them. Sooner or later, that learned behavior just becomes an instinctual response, regardless of whether or not it's the appropriate one, because they've become so deeply entrenched in their views/beliefs that they can't separate those views/beliefs from who they see themselves as as an individual. Lashing out at those actually attacking them turns into lashing out at everyone who disagrees or has a different opinion from them because they also perceive that as an attack.
Now we have entire generations of people* who believe that anyone who holds a different point of view or in any way tries to question theirs (sometimes even if it's just to better understand it) is somehow "attacking" them simply by stating their own views, because they're grown up not knowing anything else...
To further conflate the issue, the perfectly legitimate discussion in recent years of the issue of respecting peoples' civil/human rights has bled over into some people honestly believing that people with other points of view are somehow violating their "rights" simply by existing...

As Thomas Shey mentioned, it often explains why people who essentially agree with one another are often coming to violent blows over what are sometimes just minor quibbles. Particularly here on a forum dedicated to something where One-True-Way-ism has been rampant since the very inception of the game itself...


*This is obviously a generalization... Now get off my lawn, you damn Millennials!

 

[Malmuria]

I . . . I don't understand certain people in the D&D community, and it's quite frustrating. We constantly fight over nothing, write thousands of words in huge posts about why someone else's style of play is badwrongfun, and whine about minor changes in the game as if they're the end of the hobby.

edit: I'll take this to the spelljammer thread

 

[Ixal]

I think it's probably seeped in from American political discourse over the last ~6-7 years.

Another thing. Online forums are international, but most posters, at least here, and also WotC are Americans and the USA has some, lets say unique perspective on some issues not shared with the rest of the world.
Which can lead to a culture clash where Americans are up in arms about an issue while posters from the rest of the world have no idea why. And when confronted with that apathy its assumed that it equals endorsement and people go into attack mode.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Actually, it's the other way around - politics is just one of the more visible and current areas in which the ever-stronger trend of believing that one must "Pick a side" on an issue and defend it to the death has largely strangled any possibility of constructive discourse.
Although the advent of the internet helped people to come together with others who shared their views and interests for mutual benefit, it also made it much easier for people with an inclination to attack those views/interests to do so. So, for several generations now, both online and in real life, people have become more and more conditioned to expect to be attacked for their views or interests and, incidentally and however unwittingly, trained themselves to react in a certain fashion. They've become ever more defensive, and ever more conditioned to lash out at those they perceive as attacking them. Sooner or later, that learned behavior just becomes an instinctual response, regardless of whether or not it's the appropriate one, because they've become so deeply entrenched in their views/beliefs that they can't separate those views/beliefs from who they see themselves as as an individual. Lashing out at those actually attacking them turns into lashing out at everyone who disagrees or has a different opinion from them because they also perceive that as an attack.
Now we have entire generations of people* who believe that anyone who holds a different point of view or in any way tries to question theirs (sometimes even if it's just to better understand it) is somehow "attacking" them simply by stating their own views, because they're grown up not knowing anything else...
To further conflate the issue, the perfectly legitimate discussion in recent years of the issue of respecting peoples' civil/human rights has bled over into some people honestly believing that people with other points of view are somehow violating their "rights" simply by existing...

As Thomas Shey mentioned, it often explains why people who essentially agree with one another are often coming to violent blows over what are sometimes just minor quibbles. Particularly here on a forum dedicated to something where One-True-Way-ism has been rampant since the very inception of the game itself...


*This is obviously a generalization... Now get off my lawn, you damn Millennials!

you are mistaking the terminally online of say Twitter for a generation of people it is more that everyone is stressed, depressed and has been utterly divided with very few in positions to do anything about it even trying to bridge the gap anymore, the modern world is a powder keg.

Another thing. Online forums are international, but most posters, at least here, and also WotC are Americans and the USA has some, lets say unique perspective on some issues not shared with the rest of the world.
Which can lead to a culture clash where Americans are up in arms about an issue while posters from the rest of the world have no idea why. And when confronted with that apathy its assumed that it equals endorsement and people go into attack mode.

it is complex and America relative hegemony and isolation has done little to help but these problems often have shades in other nations as few places do not have human problems.

 

[CubicsRube]

One thing I sometime do, just out of curiosity, is peek in near the end of any thread here that's gone for 20+ pages. Almost without exception, it will be 2-3 chronically online posters who have had their horns locked for days, and are well into Oh-My-God-Nobody-Cares levels of pedantry and points-scoring, finding new ways to say "I'm not saying you're having badwrongfun, but here's why your fun is wrong, and also possibly bad.

Yep. That's the point I give up on a thread and don't read the rest.

 

[CubicsRube]

And while I'm on my soapbox, just one more thing....

Instead of engaging with someone you disagree with, some people use passive-aggressive attacks as a way to "get back" at someone. It's a clever tactic, because it usually passes under the radar of the mods, and if you respond to it, the mods will often slap your wrist while ignoring the "attacker".

And then the most pathetic passive-aggressive tactic of all is to comment on another persons post without using the quote feature. This allows someone to make an counter argument without directly confronting/notifying the other poster about the counter-argument - effectively making the counter argument one-sided unless the other poster happens to come across it.

And yes, I'm aware of the irony of this post, but it needed to be said.

I am a big fan of thw ignore function. I have built up quite a list over the years.

I wish I could have the same function in real life...