D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

Verisimilitude and feeling real are not what exploration-oriented play does better. Puzzle solving and digging into details are what it does better. Focusing more on the fun of exploration that sandboxes offer and less on claims of comparative realism would do a much better job of explaining what makes something like Worlds Without Number so fun to play and run (and would elicit far less ire).

I just want to briefly explain my response to @hawkeyefan earlier.

I’ve noticed a recurring pattern where posts—maybe unintentionally—come across as dismissive of other play styles, at least to me. I’ve even called out Micah Sweet earlier in this very thread for the same kind of thing.

This week, a member with over ten thousand posts left the forums, citing a “cantankerous” and “hostile” environment. That happened here, in this very discussion. And honestly, it’s left me reflecting. Reflecting on how I post and just in general.

Almost every interaction I’ve had on these forums has been overwhelmingly positive. The few exceptions have mostly been my own missteps. So maybe this is just my inexperience talking. Maybe I’m idealizing how things should be. Or maybe I still don’t fully understand the tone and rhythm of how this community communicates.

But I came here because many said this was the best place to have high-level, thoughtful discussion about the hobby. And most of the time, that’s exactly what I find. But when I read posts that sound like one group saying “I do what you do, but better,” it breaks that childish idealism a little.

That’s why I spoke up. Not to pick a fight, but because I care about this space, and I don’t want to see more people turned away from it. Especially, not people who's posts I've become accustom to reading day in and day out, like Hawkeye and Micah.

One member once said that sometimes they kick too many balls. Maybe this time, I kicked one I shouldn’t have.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Maybe, but @Micah Sweet did say: "...makes no sense to me..." They are clearly framing it from their perspective not a universal statement. At what is or is not verisimilitudinous is subject of course. I don't think we need to defend our personal perspectives on this subject.
And yet even if you emphasize this, several people have responded as though such comments aren't there.

Consider that I wrote the following (bolding added, all other emphasis in original):
When I roleplay, I am investing part of my self into the character. That's why, for example, I genuinely find it impossible to play a truly unrepentant evil character for anything but a very brief time (maybe a single session at most). I can get away with it with NPCs, because even the most vile NPC isn't going to be getting spotlight time for most of a given session, let alone session after session after session. I can keep my distance. But anything I'm actually playing most of the time, long-term? Yeah, I'm putting some of what I am into that character.

If I don't do that, I can't meaningfully roleplay them
. That level of investment, of "immersion" (knowing that word is often over-used), for me, requires that I remove some of the barrier between "myself" and "the character". Running an utterly divorced mental model of the character would be cold, sterile, mechanical. Like trying to pilot one of those "made to look like a real human" robots that sets off all sorts of uncanny-valley stuff--it just wouldn't work, not for me. Or if that analogy doesn't work for you, it would be like asking an author to craft a novel about a concept they feel nothing about and have no knowledge of nor connection to, other than academic journal articles on the subject--sure, they might be able to produce a string of words that follows English grammar and is printed on bound pages of paper, but it wouldn't be "a novel" in any of the ways that actually matter.

(Incidentally, the same goes for all of my creative work. I can't make things I don't feel at least a little inspired about, and if I'm inspired, I'm putting some of myself into them. I cannot not invest when I am creating, not if the created product is to have any quality whatsoever. This primarily applies to prose and poetry, but it affects anything I create.)

I certainly understand that not everyone will approach things that way. I don't understand how, but my understanding is irrelevant to whether it works for others. But telling me to divest is...like telling an artist to stop caring about the work they make. That you could make anything at all if you just stopped caring about what you create. I can't do that; it's not an unwillingness to make the choice, it is that that simply isn't a choice I am capable of making.
As you can see, multiple times in every paragraph, I specifically reiterated that I was talking about what I do or don't do (or can't do), what I feel, what I think. The final paragraph, I explicitly said that my lack of understanding has no bearing whatsoever on whether it works for other people or not. As far as I'm concerned, I had bent over backwards to reiterate as much as humanly possible, without doing an every-other-sentence disclaimer, that this was about my thoughts/feelings/actions/capacities, in the hope that that would give an understandable reason why some feel the way I feel, even if many (most?) others don't.

The relevant response I received from Mr. Sweet (cutting out the final line, which is not relevant here) was:
Ok, I understand where you're coming from even if I don't work that way myself. I'm a little ruffled by the idea that you apparently believe creative work is impossible unless you are so emotionally invested that you can't separate yourself from the work...kinda flies in the face of the entire entertainment industry IMO.
To which I apologized, an apology I meant fully sincerely:
I tried pretty hard to reiterate that this is a me thing, but okay. I'm sorry I said anything that made you think I was disparaging the work of others. That isn't and never was what I wanted to communicate. I was talking, only and specifically, about myself, and to a very limited extent about other people I have personally known.

So, if what I wrote failed to be sufficient attention given to explicitly isolating my own thoughts/feelings/actions/capacities, and instead came across as a blanket statement...what could possibly NOT come across so?

Perhaps the issue is that we, and I say "we" very intentionally to include myself, are prone to seeing sweeping generalizations in others' comments, when they only mean narrow slices. Perhaps we are overlooking statements, subtle or overt, that should be understood as limiting scope to personal interest, or at absolute most, only generalizing to others who feel similarly to the speaker, not generalizing to all possible situations.

It's quite frustrating for me, to have what feels like going way above and beyond, being immediately met with "jeez, painting with a broad brush aren't we???"--only for those who call out such behavior to then do the very same thing themselves. It feels like a double standard. Whether it is a double standard, or is simply personal bias, I don't know. But that's certainly how I'm feeling right now, reading this particular exchange.
 
Last edited:

I just want to briefly explain my response to @hawkeyefan earlier.

I’ve noticed a recurring pattern where posts—maybe unintentionally—come across as dismissive of other play styles, at least to me. I’ve even called out Micah Sweet earlier in this very thread for the same kind of thing.

This week, a member with over ten thousand posts left the forums, citing a “cantankerous” and “hostile” environment. That happened here, in this very discussion. And honestly, it’s left me reflecting. Reflecting on how I post and just in general.

Almost every interaction I’ve had on these forums has been overwhelmingly positive. The few exceptions have mostly been my own missteps. So maybe this is just my inexperience talking. Maybe I’m idealizing how things should be. Or maybe I still don’t fully understand the tone and rhythm of how this community communicates.

But I came here because many said this was the best place to have high-level, thoughtful discussion about the hobby. And most of the time, that’s exactly what I find. But when I read posts that sound like one group saying “I do what you do, but better,” it breaks that childish idealism a little.

That’s why I spoke up. Not to pick a fight, but because I care about this space, and I don’t want to see more people turned away from it. Especially, not people who's posts I've become accustom to reading day in and day out, like Hawkeye and Micah.

One member once said that sometimes they kick too many balls. Maybe this time, I kicked one I shouldn’t have.
I'm glad I stopped to read this, rather than focusing on the original reply, as it almost certainly would have resulted in me kicking a ball I probably shouldn't.

I appreciate your explanation, but I think this reflects...well, a little bit of "he who fights monsters". That is, in your desire to defend high-level, thoughtful discussion, at least from where I'm sitting, you spoke in a way I very much considered "cantankerous" and "hostile". (I had, in fact, specifically used the word "hostile" in my initial response to that post, which I've deleted because it wouldn't be productive, now that I've seen this post which shows clear contrition and self-reflection.)

If it helps, I likewise apologize for my contributions to that user choosing to depart the forums. I regret that, plain and simple. I do think that referring to my posts as having "childish rage" toward anyone here was...well, another example of someone wanting to protect good discourse but engaging in bad discourse in order to do so...but that doesn't mean I'm now free of culpability here. I'm not. I contributed, and for that, I am sorry.

But, if I may try to pursue some of that high-level, thoughtful discussion, from where I'm sitting, what Micah's argument boiled down to is that, because for him certain kinds of mechanics, procedures, and principles are insufficiently verisimilitudinous, that means:
(1) all possible games, no matter how one conducts them, will be inherently un-verisimilitudinous if they use those things;
(2) any game to which any of these things is added will, in relatively short order, lose whatever verisimilitude it had;
and (3) consequently, it is not possible to improve nor add verisimilitude to a game that uses these things, they must be abandoned for verisimilitude to exist (note: not the same as saying only Micah's way can produce it, just that this way cannot do so).

In other words, again from where I'm sitting, the cantankerous argument had already been made, that a particular set of tools is inherently incompatible with any meaningful degree of verisimilitude (or "realism" or "world consistency" or whatever term you prefer). By those lights, responding, "Well...I actually do produce a world which others recognize as being high in verisimilitude, while still using these techniques", does not in any way appear--again, to me--like any kind of accusation. It is a defense against the accusation that these tools are somehow antagonistic to the very possibility of verisimilitude/etc. in the first place.

As a result, I feel very frustrated, because to me this feels like turning self-defense into aggression, and thus denying someone the right to defend their position and preferences because that defense has been characterized as an attack on someone else's preferences.
 

It's quite frustrating for me, to have what feels like going way above and beyond, being immediately met with "jeez, painting with a broad brush aren't we???"--only for those who call out such behavior to then do the very same thing themselves. It feels like a double standard. Whether it is a double standard, or is simply personal bias, I don't know. But that's certainly how I'm feeling right now, reading this particular exchange.
It is frustrating. I know it was a problem I have had before and worked to change. Now I generally try to take the attitude that, in most cases, people are only talking about their opinion even if they do not state that.
 

I just want to briefly explain my response to @hawkeyefan earlier.

I’ve noticed a recurring pattern where posts—maybe unintentionally—come across as dismissive of other play styles, at least to me. I’ve even called out Micah Sweet earlier in this very thread for the same kind of thing.

This week, a member with over ten thousand posts left the forums, citing a “cantankerous” and “hostile” environment. That happened here, in this very discussion. And honestly, it’s left me reflecting. Reflecting on how I post and just in general.

Almost every interaction I’ve had on these forums has been overwhelmingly positive. The few exceptions have mostly been my own missteps. So maybe this is just my inexperience talking. Maybe I’m idealizing how things should be. Or maybe I still don’t fully understand the tone and rhythm of how this community communicates.

But I came here because many said this was the best place to have high-level, thoughtful discussion about the hobby. And most of the time, that’s exactly what I find. But when I read posts that sound like one group saying “I do what you do, but better,” it breaks that childish idealism a little.

That’s why I spoke up. Not to pick a fight, but because I care about this space, and I don’t want to see more people turned away from it. Especially, not people who's posts I've become accustom to reading day in and day out, like Hawkeye and Micah.

One member once said that sometimes they kick too many balls. Maybe this time, I kicked one I shouldn’t have.
I am always sad to see someone leave as well (and sometimes try to convince them to stay). I do not know who you are talking about, but I hope they find there way back. Once we realize we don't have to engage, I think the discussion becomes a lot easier.
 


I don’t think that’s a very accurate interpretation of the exchange.

It started with this:


That doesn’t sound to you like @Micah Sweet saying that what I’ve just described as my game makes no sense as a verisimilitudinous setting?

My comment was me defending what I described against his criticism.
What it reads like (to me, who wrote it), is that to me a game that's all highlights would not feel verisimilitudinous.
 

In hindsight, I think you are right. In an effort to protect good discourse, I engaged in bad discourse. And I apologize to you, and anyone else who my post negatively affected.
I want to apologize as well. As much as I try to make sure my opinions are sufficiently labeled as such, sometimes an opinion is going to come off as an attack anyway. I am sorry my statement set this off. It was not my intent, but it was my fault.
 

Remove ads

Top