Realism! Versamilitude! Other Words!

[I'm A Banana]

Which poster? What post? "I think a lot of the time when people..." is not specific to the motives of a poster or the content of a post. It was a general impression I get sometimes.

Take it in context with my next sentence. I wasn't refering to a specific example, I was refering to the argument itself. When you claim that someone has an opinion because they are (for example) unwilling to change, you're speculating on someone's motives.

For specifically the verisimilitude claim, I am claiming that often (but not always) when you see that claim AND you see that person making other non-rules complaints of the nature I detailed, I feel like they are sometimes doing it out of those motives.

Right. So you agree. You are speculating on someone's motives.

Now, I say that when you do that, it isn't very useful to the discussion of 4e, and it is furthermore insulting to those with the claims. It's dismissive of those claims.

Here's an example. Someone posts saying "I don't like 1-1-1 Diagonals! It ruins believability for me! 3e's 1-2-1 Diagonals were better!" If you were to make a post saying something like "3e wasn't very realistic, so the issue isn't 4e's diagonals. You're just being reactionary." It sounds insulting, dismissive, and really does nothing to address the actual content of their post, which is "I don't like 1-1-1 Diagonals, and I prefer 3e's 1-2-1 Diagonals."

Instead, something like "I like 4e's 1-1-1 diagonals because they make it easier and I don't really have a problem with the abstraction" keeps the discussion basically on-track, doesn't insult them or tell them what they are thinking.

Heck, I don't even think it was directed at you. However, if you are speaking for other people and them being insulted by it - are you not doing the very thing you find insulting?

You're right, it wasn't about me. None of this is really personal. Truth be told, a lot of my position in this thread belongs in Meta. I'm just saying that when you speculate on someone's motives, it's usually insulting to them, and it usually doesn't address the actual point the person is trying to make.

So it's not really conducive to actual discussion about 4e.

In the context of this particular "realism" issue, when the claim is made about an issue where realism does not appear to logically be a material part of the issue (I gave the example of the teleporting cat and color trail, and a fictional poster feeling the color trail was the objectional part that defeats realism while ignoring the whole teleporting cat part) I do not see how the conversation can be more constructive while ignoring the elephant in the room.

Well, if 4e added a color trail and 3e didn't have a color trail and the poster is upset about the chage in 4e, and likes where it is in 3e, the most useful conversation would be about what that color trail gives you and what that color trail takes away.

The elephant in the room is "you just made an outrageous observation about the rules which has no logical basis - while simultaneously making non-outrageous observations about things not about the rules". If we cannot ask "why" a person is behaving rationally about one thing and irrationally about another and speculate that perhaps one has an influence on the other, then all you get is a repeat over and over of the obvious without ever addressing the real issue.

I guess I don't really think anyone on an internet message board is really in a place to tell people why they are behaving rationally about one thing and irrationally about another.

People do that, sometimes.

That's generally when you agree to disagree and move on.

The repeat is going to be caused by multiple people having the same problem.

We should be free to speculate if rational non-rules outrage is having an undue influence on irrational rules outrage, without feeling like merely presenting the issue is going to be perceived as a dire insult.

If you tell people they're behaving irrationally, they're going to probably be insulted. It's generally not seen as a positive trait. Furthermore, it dismisses their point: I don't have to listen to you because you're irrational.

If you think someone's being irrational, ignore the post. If they're ALWAYS being irrational, slap 'em on the Ignore list. If it's disruptively irrational, report the post. If you call them on it, people get defensive and threads get shut down, or at least WILDLY diverted from talking about actual 4e rules. Call them on the rules. Disagree with them about the rules. But if you speculate on their motives, it's going to kind of threadcrap.

This does go both ways, with the haters dismissing 4e enthusiasm for overzealous rabid fanboy idiocy. That's the same thing, and it's similarly useless.

But specifically, I think an exception should be made when the circumstances call for it like I outlined.

If they have nothing to add to the conversation beacuse they're just hating instinctively on the new edition, then you don't really gain anything by calling that out. It's not going to change their opinion, and it's probably going to just torque them off. Ignoring the elephant in the room (and the posts by those you can see have monkeys on their backs) makes the convo productive because people actually have to either address the actual content of the post, or be ignored.

And even those WITH agendas can make some good points.

Well I think I and others have already responded to this point as to why it is useful.

Because you don't want a repeat of the same obvious points?

It's a natural consequence of debate and discussion. I don't know of any debate, online or in the world, that involves normal people, that doesn't repeat the same arguments over and over again. Choose any major political issue of your nation of choice in the last 5 years, chances are people are STILL debating it, and probably using some of the SAME arguments they were 5 years ago. Regardless of which side you think is right, regardless of which side is winning or has won or will win, they are the same obvious points that everyone is making.

I'm not sure why this forum would be exempted from that general problem of discussion.

I also don't think that pointing at the elephant in the room does anything to make it go away. People are going to be irrational and emotional and reactionary. Pionting that out only makes them DEFENSIVE, irrational, emotional, and reactionary. It doesn't change their minds, and it doesn't stop their complaining. Debate the points you feel have merit, ignore the ones you don't. Ascribing motives, here, doesn't do much to stop the problem of round-and-round debate.

 

[Mistwell]

I am not suggesting you tell someone they are behaving in an irrational manner, as of course that would result in a negative response (particularly if it is true).

I am however saying that it should be fair to discuss the issue, in general, without focusing on a particular person.

If you see a pattern and practice of a subset of people who, on the one hand:

1) detail a complaint about WOTC, corporate greed, the cost of new products, the short period of time between editions, anime influences, video game influences, and related issue (all of which may we be very cogent, rational, and logical contentions);

and on the other hand those same people:

2) declare ANY announced change in 4e to negatively impact their verisimilitude relative to 3e, even in cases where the change under discussion is incredibly minor compared to the high lack of realism concerning the underlying rule in both editions of D&D;

Then I think it's fair to discuss that pattern and practice (in general) and speculate as to whether #1 is what is causing #2. People who fall into that subset may actually pause and question if that might be the case, and if their verisimilitude complaints have maybe sometimes gone a bit overboard because of their anger about the other issues.

You do not have to call those particular people out, or their particular posts out. But, I do think it might be productive to have that sort of general discussion sometimes to see if it helps tone down some of the more outrageous verisimilitude posts. And I felt this thread was one of those attempts to try and deal with the issue without calling anyone in particular to the carpet.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You do not have to call those particular people out, or their particular posts out. But, I do think it might be productive to have that sort of general discussion sometimes to see if it helps tone down some of the more outrageous verisimilitude posts. And I felt this thread was one of those attempts to try and deal with the issue without calling anyone in particular to the carpet.

Okay, I disagree less with this.

I do think if this thread was an attempt to do that, it's kind of useless for that purpose. Probably because it DOESN'T talk about motives. It just says "3e was unrealistic, too! So don't knock 4e for being unrealistic!" Which is a pretty disengenuous comment that both misses the point of much of the 4e criticism (even the stuff from the irrational reactionaries), because the argument isn't about being able to simulate real life, while doing nothing to say that 4e's choices are any better, because it doesn't say anything about 4e being good.

Which is probably why I didn't see this thread as trying to do that.

 

[BryonD]

If you see a pattern and practice of a subset of people who, on the one hand:

1) detail a complaint about WOTC, corporate greed, the cost of new products, the short period of time between editions, anime influences, video game influences, and related issue (all of which may we be very cogent, rational, and logical contentions);

and on the other hand those same people:

2) declare ANY announced change in 4e to negatively impact their verisimilitude relative to 3e, even in cases where the change under discussion is incredibly minor compared to the high lack of realism concerning the underlying rule in both editions of D&D;

Just to chime in:
I'm 100% in favor of WotC doing whatever they want with their property. I was thrilled when 4E was first announced. My complaints are about the merits of the rules that are presented so far.
I also take exception to the claim that "ANY" changed is declared negative to versimilitude as well as the claim the cases complained about are insignificant. If it doesn't bother your standards then great, but it clearly bother more than a few people. And in spite of the fact that this forum has stepped up the intolerance of anythign critical to yet another new level since DDXP, we still get to base our choices on our own personal standards.

And I felt this thread was one of those attempts to try and deal with the issue without calling anyone in particular to the carpet.

By calling out everyone at once and covering them all with a blanket of sweeping generalizations and flat out misrepresentations?

 

[Felon]

How that doesn't apply to the original poster, I don't understand.

I didn't want to close down the thread because others have replied with some good discussion and points, not just bickering, and the O.P. did have some points to make mixed in with the confrontational stuff.

I think we're in a fruit-of-the-poison-tree situation. The thread's title and the OP's attitude was designed to ridicule. If he had good points in there, he should've focused on them, not the shock value of ranting.

Giving people a "boot to the head"? Way too much slack was cut.

By calling out everyone at once and covering them all with a blanket of sweeping generalizations and flat out misrepresentations?

Preach it.

 

[Dinkeldog]

There's a lot of good discussion here, folks. Please do the mods a favor and try to help allow the discussion to continue. How, you ask? Well, just remember that civil discourse is still possible. Read, THINK, post. When you're thinking, you're not thinking about zing-y comebacks, but rather about how to really get across your feelings on the matter while not disparaging others' rights to their own feelings.

 

[Mistwell]

I had a response to the rest of your message, but I don't want it to distract from what just happened. So lets limit it to this:

By calling out everyone at once and covering them all with a blanket of sweeping generalizations and flat out misrepresentations?

OK, you know at this point that my position is that I am not calling everyone out at once and covering all people with a blanket sweeping generalization. But right now I am calling YOU out for having done what you just did. Why did you do that? Why did you mischaracterize what I've been saying? I'd really like to know.

It's the third mischaraterization in this thread alone:

1) Jeff Wilder mischaracterized my position as telling all 4e critics to shut up;
2) Kamikaze Midget mischaracterized my position as applying to all 4e critics;
3) You mischaracterized my position as calling "everyone" out and offering a blanket sweeping generalization, even though you knew it wasn't everyone, and it was a really narrow and specific claim that does in fact apply to an entire subgroup (it's the defining thing that makes it the subgroup).

I have responded to the prior two and nobody had the guts to actually answer. I am hoping you will give me an honest answer as to why you took what I said, changed it into something totally different, and spun it back as if that was what I was saying all along.

 

[Elf Witch]

Huh. I started with SR1 and felt SR3 was wrong. I guess it wasn't SR enough while still being too much SR. Kind of the "uncanny valley" of SR. SR4 was fine because it was a clean break.

I had a similar dislike of AD&D2e and a fondness for 3e.

I liked 2E better than 3E but my group was playing 3 and it is hard to find a Shadowrun group down here. I tried 4E but in one word NO.

I know serveral people who totally skipped Ad&d 2E and came back in 3.0 .

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Right. So Dissent itself is valueless. It can be a tool for good, for evil, or neither. But you claimed it was good in itself. It's not. If it were good in itself, it would have value even without something else.

No, because it does not exist without something else. It's not "without value" in that case ... it's "without existence."

As for whether you actually are or aren't okay with 4E criticism, I saw "aren't." And I, also, quoted it, specifically your statement that 4E criticisms are useless unless the critic becomes self-aware enough to realize that it's not 4E he's actually upset with.

I can't judge what's in your heart ... I can only go by what you write. Granted, you may well write contradictory things at different times, but I don't have any power over that, either.

I have responded to the prior two [including Jeff WIlder] and nobody had the guts to actually answer.

Right. So instead of accepting the possibility -- probability, even -- that I wasn't on EN World, in the 4E Forum, waiting with 'bated breath for your post, you assume that I don't have "the guts" to respond?

Right-o.

 

[Piratecat]

Did I just see people ignore a moderator warning? Drop it, NOW. I'm less than impressed. If you find you're arguing at a person instead of about a topic, it's time to find a new thread.