"Switching"

[Angel Tarragon]

This phrase in particular I don't get. What is this "community", why should I care about it and it's health?

Well look at it this way, EnWorld is like the human body; each user comprosing a blood cell; each moderator a major organ and all administrators like the brain. If all are functioning harminously, no problems.

When the Dungeon/Dragon and 4E debacle were at their height, EnWorlds immune system had to weed out the bad 'germs'.

So ina awy, it is all about respect. Respect every one else's opinions, while maintaining your own, and EnWorld's body should last a good long time.

 

[EricNoah]

Thanks for a great post.

I myself do have kind of a one-track mind. It's all or nothing for me, usually. I never would have played some 2e and some 3e. I guess there is a possibility I could end up a player in a 4E game, and as such it certainly behooves me to keep up with the development somewhat. And I am certainly interested in it from an academic/observer point of view. I fully understand the excitement a new edition can bring. But I have just begun to get into the groove with 3.5. I have a lot more to do with it and I'm just not ready to be done with it. And thus I'm not ready to dive into a different edition. So I guess for me there is a "switching" or "not switching" mentality. I know there are many other RPG players out there who can and do juggle multiple games, and editions of games. I just don't roll that way.

All that said -- I do also hope to see a future here where 3E and 4E folk can rub shoulders but not rub each other the wrong way. I think it's possible. But only if people can bring their discussion up to a civil, respectful and friendly level -- even now, when emotions are flying around. Folks must know on some level that their mission here isn't to change anyone's mind -- or to make guesses as to their motives -- but to say what they think, what they like or don't like, without trashing others who hold different opinions.

I truly do wish the 4E fans all the best -- this is an exciting time for them, and I don't begrudge their joy one iota. I will do my best to never quash their fun.

 

[Starman]

This is teh interwebs, buzz. Your attempt at being civil and reasonable has no place here.

 

[Mark Hope]

Cool post, well-put.

I do, however, think that there is room in the world for a "switching or not switching" opinion, assuming that such an opinion exists without ill-feeling. From my perspective, for example, 4e has simply failed to capture my interest. As such, I have no real desire to check it out. The same applies for Rifts, Shadowrun, Blue Rose, that Rokugan game and any number of others. I don't have any gripe with those games, but to get me to spend precious hobby/leisure time on them, they need to successfully sell themselves to me. They haven't. Plenty of other games have. End of story. That's where "switching or not switching" comes into it for me. There's no grumblies there, just mild disinterest. So I'd say it's quite possible to be on one side of the fence or the other without drawing lines in the sand, confusing the games we play with who we are, demanding that people pick sides or feeling like we are our own enemies.

I do agree, though, that some folks take these things far too seriously, and I salute your attempt to highlight the folly of such a standpoint. Nice one.

 

[buzz]

This phrase in particular I don't get. What is this "community", why should I care about it and it's health?

Honestly, there is no requirement that you have to. And I don't even know if there is a "community" per se, especially if we embrace the idea that RPGing is a pastime, not a lifestyle. There is certainly a subculture, though.

At the least, ENWorld is a community one can care about.*

And actually, controversy, if anything, does more to keep it healthy than anything else, because it brings people out, stirs up their interest and keeps it at a high level.

Controversy may bring attention, but I dunno if it always promotes healthy behavior. I can think some other fora that are full of controversy, but also happen to be places where I don't enjoy hanging out.

It may be better to say "inviting" rather than "healthy." Ergo, I think that if you want the hobby, much less the subculture, to be inviting, it's better that people are not divisive or exclusionary or hostile.

I also think that, hobby aside, if all you care about is your own sanity, there's some merit in my original post. I know that I had my own group in mind when I was writing it.


* And if you did care, you'd come to more Chicago Gamedays!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

We're not talking about a marriage, or a lifestyle choice, or a mortgage. We're not talking about anything irrevocable, or that defines us as people, or that demands allegiance.

We're talking about games.

Hmm. Not a sports fan? Because those are "games" where people do indeed pick allegiances and derive enjoyment in part from those allegiances. At least, that's the case for me.

For me, allegiance is a way to be happier in enjoying that which I like. If I take the point of view "This is good enough," I can be content with what I have once I find one that is "good enough." If I were to take the point of view "Some other option might be better," I'd never be content, because I'd always be thinking "Some other option might be better."

You can like multiple things, but there's an opportunity cost. I can't be as much a fan of any MLB team as I am of the Red Sox, because ultimately only one team can win the World Series. I can't care about every band that I might possibly like as much as I care about the top 20 bands on my iPod, because I have a finite amount of time and money to buy songs, go to concerts, and listen to music. I can't like every TV show as much as I like Lost, because I only have so much time to watch TV. I can't like every RPG system as much as I like Classic D&D or 3.5 because my gaming time is limited. So I have to pick and choose, and I derive greater enjoyment from picking a few hobbies/bands/teams to be "loyal" to. I am aware that these are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but I enjoy being passionate about them.

So that's a different perspective on why some people actually enjoy having largely meaningless loyalties.

 

[buzz]

Hmm. Not a sports fan? Because those are "games" where people do indeed pick allegiances and derive enjoyment in part from those allegiances. At least, that's the case for me.

Oh, absolutely. I know there are some RPGs I feel are just flat-out, objectively superior to others. But, there's passion, and there's civility.

Also, sports fandom might be a bit different, as the various teams are in active competition with each other. But all of the fans still love baseball, etc.

 

[buzz]

There's one component of the "it's just a game" concept that's missing from this thread. We're not talking about something that's as simple and cheap to pick up as a deck of playing cards or Uno.

Well, true... though there are a lot of RPGs out right now that do fit the Uno model. Granted, they are not the massively popular ones.

I think one can still adopt the sense of perspective, though.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Oh, absolutely. I know there are some RPGs I feel are just flat-out, objectively superior to others. But, there's passion, and there's civility.

Also, sports fandom might be a bit different, as the various teams are in active competition with each other. But all of the fans still love baseball, etc.

Well, different RPG systems are in active competition for your time and dollars. And baseball fans do get to arguing about which ruleset is better -- there are purists that HATE the designated hitter rule. That's one very minor change in the rules compared to the scope of rules changes that D&D had seen. If the differences between NL and AL were anything like 1E to 2E (let alone 2E-3E or 3E-4E), there would indeed be legions of fans shouting "Your game isn't REAL baseball." 1E-2E is, I'd say, as big a change as from baseball to softball. 2E-3E and 3E-4E are more like baseball to cricket.

I agree that I'd rather see more civility in all fandoms (including the Sox-Yankees rivalry), but I don't think there's anything wrong with allegiance or loyalty per se.

 

[talien]

I hear you saying: "Buzz, c'mon. My group is all gung-ho about 4e/3.5e/GURPS/etc. What if I'm not? What am I supposed to do? I don't wanna play 4e/3.5e/GURPS/etc."

You know what you do? You keep an open mind, and you talk to your group.

Well said Buzz! I'll go one step further:

It doesn't matter what anyone says on any board. It matters what the group you play with decides.

It all comes down to the preferences of whom you play with. I was recently challenged on why my group uses the D20 Modern system to play Call of Cthulhu. And my answer was: "Uh, cause they like D20." That was it. I had no means of explaining how one system is superior to another, how one game is better than the other, or any other philosophical argument involving the system. It's that my players know D20 and that makes it a lot easier to play for the group as a whole. Period.

You can argue about 3.5, 3.7, 4.0, whatever. The only people you need to convince are the ones you play with.