"That's Not D&D"

[FireLance]

I've been seeing this statement crop up more and more lately, and it's starting to annoy me. I find it rude, dismissive and antagonistic. Would it be a good idea for the moderators to request that posters stop using it (in the same way that posters aren't supposed to refer to other peoples' interpretations of the rules as "house rules" in the Rules forum), or am I just being too sensitive? :\

 

[DaveMage]

I've been seeing this statement crop up more and more lately, and it's starting to annoy me. I find it rude, dismissive and antagonistic. Would it be a good idea for the moderators to request that posters stop using it (in the same way that posters aren't supposed to refer to other peoples' interpretations of the rules as "house rules" in the Rules forum), or am I just being too sensitive? :\

It is rude, dismissive, and antagonistic.

However, I think you're being too sensative.

Just pretend that if someone says it, there's an "(IMO)" attached to it. Then ignore the rest of their post.

 

[BOZ]

yeah, it's just an opinion. what they really mean is "That's not D&D to me."

 

[Crothian]

This isn't D&D

I haven't actually seen anyone post that but I knowwhen I do see I will laugh at them.

 

[Umbran]

The point of the phrase is certainly dismissive, and since dismissiveness is rude, I think calling it rude separately is a touch redundant.

Antagonistic? I wouldn't call it that, it is more patronizing. But still unpleasant.

I suspect if the use of it continues, we are rather likely to consider it akin to the "that'd make a great house rule" thing in the Rules forum.

Mind you, I am loath to create a list of things one cannot say - that way madness, and the road to EN World Political Correctness, which would not be a good thing. Lists of forbidden phrases give rise to workarounds - which come out as the passive aggressive stuff that people don't like any more than outright aggression.

I would prefer folks discover that the gneral mode of operation is less than fruitful.

 

[Lanefan]

Given as there's been several discussions of late about what makes D+D D+D as opposed to something else, and how close any hypothetical 4e will be to that definition, it only makes sense that people have been thinking along those lines somewhat...

Lanefan

 

[diaglo]

i'm not seeing it.

would you cite a few examples for me?

 

[FireLance]

Well, I didn't want to single out any specific post, but it looks like you can't do a search for the term "not D&D". Here's the post that set me off (relevant parts quoted):

Ideally, everyone's contribution should be roughly equal at all levels of play. If the group doesnt play past 4th level, how is the wizard's theoretical late game edge worthwhile if it never comes to pass? If you start in the teens, why play a fighter? Its kind of like choosing to play the guy with a broken leg during a superbowl RPG. "That's how its always been!" is a pretty bad reason for not correcting something.

That's a fine idea for a game. But it is not D&D.

 

[Darkness]

edit - Never mind; I found what I was looking for.

 

[XO]

Actually..

It would be difficult for the example to be less offensive than the author's choices.

Let alone the fact that given the example, whoever replied is essentially right.

I reckon that being offended by it means any divergence in opinion will be found to be offensive. You will fit perfectly in the prototypical PoliCorr American Corporation of the XXIst Century: they will love you...

btw, Harvard School of Business now finds one of the major hurdles to business progress in the workplace is lack of divergent opinions and too great a care to avoid confrontation.

We're slowly sinking into a mire of girlish sensitivity.... Therein lies the end of all discussion.