Why are D&D discussions so angry?

[Hussar]

Actually, recently, there have been some really excellent 4e threads going on without any ire or attack. To the point where there was a recent poll about whether or not people would welcome 4e. Which also didn't degenerate.

You get what you give.

 

[Nightfall]

I'll only accept 4th edition if I get another Divine War in the Scarred Lands.

 

[Hussar]

Meh, leave the Titans out of this one. I wanna see the gods have at it and spawn a whole number of lesser dieties that are less tied to alignment.

Oh, and ALL the elves die this time.

 

[iwatt]

Oh, and ALL the elves die this time.

If that happens I'll be the first one shelling out money for the books

And Hussar, stop feeding Nightfall. He's just trying to catch up to Crothian

 

[iwatt]

The way I stated that may have been blunt but everyone knows it's true.

This is another generalization. I was going to post on that other thread, but by the time I got there it was already going downhill. But it obviosuly wasn't "true" since at least some people disgreed. In my experience, whenever I'm absolutely convinced of the uncontestable (sp?) validity of my position, someone else will always have the opposite opinion.

Can enworld "handle the truth?"

Once again ..... you're assuming it's true. It's not a fact, since it hasn't been proven.

Finally, let me add my voice to those who have said that there have been some very interesting discussions about changes to the game and 4E.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Speaking from the six years I've spent here, let me be the first to say that the way the initial question is posed has a huge impact on the tone of the discussion.

If the original poster appears to have an agenda or insults people's opinions when posing a question, I can almost guarantee that the thread will go south within half a page. The same question (even a negative one!) asked from a more neutral view does a lot better.

This is pretty much my view as well. And if the original poster then takes a 'why are you picking on me? I am right and everone who disagrees with me is a *Fill in appropriate insult here*!' then I get downright annoyed.

My response tends to be the same as it would be in face to face conversation.

The Auld Grump, enough so that one of my players figured out who I was by the tone of one of my posts...

 

[Agback]

Why is it that any time any discussion about D&D comes up which could even remotely somehow be construed as some kind of criticism of D&D as-is, a select few of the forum regulars swoop down with such venomous, vicious spiteful attacks to shut it down?

It's like what Henry Kissinger said about university politics: it is so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

 

[big dummy]

Yes, clearly the game will evolve. In some ways that evolution might be an improvement. In other ways, it might not.

If we accept that the game will evolve, then to me, it makes sense to discuss how it might change so that when the change does come, it will be more for the better than for the worse. This phenomenon where we stick our head in the sand and refuse to even discuss or concieve of the possibility of any eventual change or of a new version because we aren't ready for it or are afriad it will be bad is very ....um, negative. To be diplomatic.

BD

 

[Gundark]

Every board has it's cliques, ENWorld included. There's plenty of times I've seen board regulars push the line, and some publishers can jump the line whenever they feel like it. It's not a huge thing for me, just an accepted part of the internet.

I mean, I've had my post edited when defending my actions when I was called a troll, while the original statement calling me a troll was left intact.

Hey the same happened to me. I got hand slapped by a mod for a comment I made (that IMHO was pretty tame). Whereas stronger comments by regulars are left untouched. But hey maybe the mod was having a bad day, you roll with it.

 

[big dummy]

And, BD, that is why you draw so much ire. In that last sentence, you baldly state your view. Reform is equivalent to saving babies and anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who wants babies to die.

I can't be the only one who has noted this tone. While one doesn't have to always walk on eggshells, if a poster starts making comparisons like this, stating opinions as facts then there should be no surprise when the poster gets blasted for it.

Yes, I baldly state my view that change is inevitable, and that there is room for improvement. Yes, I did. Sorry. It's a fact.

It doesn't mean I don't recognize that change could be for the worse or that not all new ideas are good ideas or that there are good things about the current system.

Again, lawyerly diplomacy is understandable when you are talking about something subjective like, should elves exist. It is not necessary when you are talking about something obvious, like, the sky is up. Or that 4E will come out one day.

BD