D&D 4E The Usage of the Non-Sequitur "4e is a Tactical Skirmish Game"

[Manbearcat]

2-4 have nothing to do with a de facto statement though. I don't think most people believe anything suggested, they are just stating their personal impression. If there is anyone else of a similar opinion, they might talk a bit about why they think what they think, but that's usually all.

Online, the situation is a little different, I guess, because everyone is able to read up if something has been said already (although if a thread is too long I don't always do that either). It might be more of a "me, too" effect if several people post the same opinion.

It's unfortunate that humans tend to see personal experiences/opinions as a fact. Everyone does that at some point.

Talking to friends in casual conversation is very different from the M.O. of:

Turning on the computer > going to a specific website > logging into your username > putting fingers to keyboard and explicitly typing (while in the midst of a thread or to start a thread) words > typing words that say "4e is nothing more than a tactical skirmish game.

Only under 4 (catharsis) are you opining just for the sake of opining. I could have clarified significantly further and stated:

The user is opining for the sake of opining and is either indifferent to the implications/connotation of the statement or aloof to the implications/connotation of the statement.

Rather than putting that much into it (which is basically irrelevant...its still catharsis), I extended unto the commenter the courtesy of assuming competency and awareness. If one is so obtuse to not understand the implications/connotation of the statement (as below) "4e is just/merely/only a Tactical Skirmish Game" then it would be shocking to me that they have the mental acumen to fire up a computer in the first place. It is as inflammatory and exclusionary a statement as one could make (correct or incorrect) in light of a collective hobby. It is worse than "you're doing it wrong" or "wrongbadfun" or "your game sucks" or "I have a problem with these mechanical aspects of your preferred system." It is, by definition, the ultimate exclusionary statement of "you do not belong here and are excluded from our club because what you are doing is not RPGing...because your game is not an RPG...and worse yet, you don't even realize that you are not an RPGer." The entire point of this board is to exchange ideas about our collective hobby/club. Saying "you're not in the club and too stupid to know it" is the most inflammatory thing I can think of saying to someone regarding a hobby. Its either said in good faith and then the point clearly elaborated upon (as an attempt to enlighten and exchange ideas) or said with consideration to provoke or thoughtlessly said without consideration for the implications.

 

[Manbearcat]

Wonder what would happen if the same poll were ran for phrases like "15 minute adventuring day" or "quadratic wizards/linear warriors", which I think are used to be inflammatory at least as often as the above but don't seem to be called out as such.

I don't know. By all means, pose the poll. Regardless, someone saying "this mechanic is problematic to this playstyle or to pacing, etc and here is why" is a gaping chasm away from the inflammatory implications of "4e is just a tactical skirmish game...eg: "you are excluded from the club because your game is, by definition, not an RPG and apparently you are too stupid to know it." I'm pretty sure exchanging ideas about the specific impacts of mechanics on the fiction and playstyles is one of the primary reasons for having an RPG hobby message board. I'm also pretty sure that the exchange of ideas ends when commenter tells someone commenter that, in effect, they don't belong here and they might want to go post on a 'board game' website...but cannot (or will not) articulate why. Meanwhile the person being charged regales the charging party with play experience after play experience indicating legitimate RPGing that is antithetical to the statement of "4e is just a tactical skirmish game."

***

Ah, so it's *public*, but only for a select few. Say what?

Yes. Meaning: I clicked the button stating "do you want to make this a public poll" which makes each commenters' vote visible to the public". Hence, public poll.

 

[Lwaxy]

Talking to friends in casual conversation is very different from the M.O. of:

Turning on the computer > going to a specific website > logging into your username > putting fingers to keyboard and explicitly typing (while in the midst of a thread or to start a thread) words > typing words that say "4e is nothing more than a tactical skirmish game.

You'll be disappointed. The more common going online is, the more people tend to not put any more thought into their offhand comments online than they do offline. Just posting a line or two requires little thought. Users post what's in their mind the same way as they speak offline, probably even more so. And often, it's not like you go somewhere specifically as it is random surfing through forums/threads/whatever.

If it's getting too heated, one can always ignore the thread, after all, or the poster never checks back to begin with. Any trouble resulting from such posts are usually not much felt by the poster but those interpreting the post and/or feeling upset by it. And the moderators, of course.

Now if someone throws a long rant at you about edition X of any game, then they must have put some thought into it. I very much doubt that "Edition x is/isn't Y" is the result of an elaborate thought process though.

 

[Manbearcat]

You'll be disappointed. The more common going online is, the more people tend to not put any more thought into their offhand comments online than they do offline. Just posting a line or two requires little thought. Users post what's in their mind the same way as they speak offline, probably even more so. And often, it's not like you go somewhere specifically as it is random surfing through forums/threads/whatever.

If it's getting too heated, one can always ignore the thread, after all, or the poster never checks back to begin with. Any trouble resulting from such posts are usually not much felt by the poster but those interpreting the post and/or feeling upset by it. And the moderators, of course.

Now if someone throws a long rant at you about edition X of any game, then they must have put some thought into it. I very much doubt that "Edition x is/isn't Y" is the result of an elaborate thought process though.

I agree with everything you've said here. I just extend the benefit of the doubt, and assume good faith/decorum/politeness/thoughtfulness/consideration before I assume malice. Once I'm proven wrong enough I will revise my initial benefit of the doubt and go straight toward malice/indifference toward being disrespectful, etc. Neither of those are good for conversation/dialogue...and they are the prime reason why your name is in green I have been a moderator/arbiter in a considerable number of situations in my life and do not envy the job. Therefore anything to "unpoison the well" is a positive by my estimation.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yes. Meaning: I clicked the button stating "do you want to make this a public poll" which makes each commenters' vote visible to the public". Hence, public poll.

Poll definitions aside, this thread is visible and votable to anyone with an ENW account. Myself and the others who posted above were pointing out the hypocrisy of telling anyone who doesn't fall within a certain group not to participate in your discussion about how other people use what you believe is divisive rhetoric.

Regardless, someone saying "this mechanic is problematic to this playstyle or to pacing, etc and here is why" is a gaping chasm away from the inflammatory implications of "4e is just a tactical skirmish game...eg: "you are excluded from the club because your game is, by definition, not an RPG and apparently you are too stupid to know it."

Perhaps, but with the right (or wrong) intent, the former can also become:
"the user is attempting to gratuitously provoke/goad. "
"the user is gratuitously 'preaching to the choir/converted'."
"the user is high-fiving/chest-bumping with other detractors or some other form of catharsis."

It's largely a matter of context and intent. A lot of "legitimate" mechanical discussion has, as I noted above, taken on added meaning and become inflammatory. The point being that the phrase you've singled out is just one small example of a rather large problem (dismissiveness, incivility, etc.).

 

[Manbearcat]

Poll definitions aside, this thread is visible and votable to anyone with an ENW account. Myself and the others who posted above were pointing out the hypocrisy of telling anyone who doesn't fall within a certain group not to participate in your discussion about how other people use what you believe is divisive rhetoric.

Hypocrisy is a word that has specific meaning. It is utterly, and wrongly applicable here...and unfair to me, at best.

I made a specific poll. For a specific end. That poll, by definition, REQUIRES an exclusive polling base. You may not like the poll. You may not like me. You may not think that the poll asks an important or interesting question. You may not like the result of the poll. But in order for me to be a hypocrite, I would have to demand a behavioral imperative that I myself cannot, or will not, fulfill the stipulations of. Nothing of the sort has happened here and the usage of the term "hypocrite", and the charge, is bizarre and unfair.

I can't stop non-advocates, neutral parties, or detractors from voting. I just requested that they do not (in good faith) to reduce the noise ratio and distill the signal of the question that specifically asks 4e advocates what their reaction is to a specific brand of rhetoric. Further, I cannot stop them from posting in the thread...nor did I request they do so. I really have no idea why you're even bothering with this line of...I'm not even sure how to classify it.

The point being that the phrase you've singled out is just one small example of a rather large problem (dismissiveness, incivility, etc.).

You'll get no disagreement from me on this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Further, I cannot stop them from posting in the thread...nor did I request they do so.

Am I reading this wrong?

This is for 4e advocates only.

***

I can't stop non-advocates, neutral parties, or detractors from voting. I just requested that they do not (in good faith) to reduce the noise ratio and distill the signal of the question that specifically asks 4e advocates what their reaction is to a specific brand of rhetoric.

I guess my point is that seems like a strange and somewhat uncivil request on a large and diverse message board. To actively solicit opinions of a certain group is fine-you've already done that by putting it in this forum. To tell anyone who isn't in that group that the discussion is off limits when anyone who visits ENW could see it just seems rude to me, and recognizing and stopping rudeness is the goal isn't it?

I can't think of a lot of ENW threads where someone puts in the first post "If you aren't part of X group, get lost".

Usually, people who post polls and are interested in teasing out the opinions of a particular group post and inclusive poll and subdivide the responses according to the groups of interest.

 

[Manbearcat]

Am I reading this wrong?

Yes. You are. Voting in a poll vs Posting in a thread. The voting in the poll is for 4e advocates only. The posting in the thread is open to whomever would like to discuss the issue.

I guess my point is that seems like a strange and somewhat uncivil request on a large and diverse message board. To actively solicit opinions of a certain group is fine-you've already done that by putting it in this forum. To tell anyone who isn't in that group that the discussion is off limits when anyone who visits ENW could see it just seems rude to me, and recognizing and stopping rudeness is the goal isn't it?

I can't think of a lot of ENW threads where someone puts in the first post "If you aren't part of X group, get lost".

I didn't do that. At all. Discuss away. I fully support it. The more discussion the better! I never requested people not post. I just requested a self-selecting voter base (in good faith) so the coherency of the poll is maintained and the Signal:Noise ratio is reduced. For God's sake. I didn't even vote in the poll (nor will I). This bizarre witch hunt (This request was neither uncivil, unreasonable nor am I a hypocrite) is unfair and utterly tedious.

Usually, people who post polls and are interested in teasing out the opinions of a particular group post and inclusive poll and subdivide the responses according to the groups of interest.

That's great. That wasn't my methodology due to my main consideration being answering a specific question and reducing the Signal:Noise ratio.

 

[mneme]

As someone who rather likes 4e...I won't vote in the poll, and think it's a terrible idea.

For starters, it's a rather stupid question. When someone says something disparaging about 4e, what I think they mean is extremely contextual -- and, in fact, might mean something different if said to me, or if said to friends, or if said to someone who does not yet play any form of D&D.

 

[Jacob Marley]

What constitutes a 4e Advocate?

I have played through a couple 4th Edition campaigns. I have posted -- albeit rather infrequently -- in this forum about my experiences. I also post in the Legacy forum concerning 3rd Edition and 1st Edition. I enjoy all three editions. Am I a 4e Advocate or a neutral 3rd party?

When someone says something disparaging about 4e, what I think they mean is extremely contextual -- and, in fact, might mean something different if said to me, or if said to friends, or if said to someone who does not yet play any form of D&D.

This. Very much this. I also take into account the particular poster and their posting history. In some cases I may nod my head in agreement, and in others may frown with disapproval.