Why are D&D discussions so angry?

[big dummy]

I'm sorry, but, no, you didn't. You didn't state that at all. What you stated was that the changes you advocate are the equivalent of saving babies from horrible diseases and anyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant barbarian using leeches and rattling bones.

Hussar.... what changes did I advocate in this thread?


This post is an example of exactly the kind of thing which starts serious problems. You are inventing something I didn't say to give yourself grounds to attack.. I didn't advocate any specific changes, I was talking about the idea of "reform" period. Of any kind. The baby allegory was started by someone else, read the thread.

I'm reporting this post.

BD

 

[big dummy]

To respond to the original why question:
It has to do with the lifecycle of DnD itself.

Originally the game came out (or back when it was Eric Noah’s site before the game came out) people didn’t have strong personal opinions.
A lot of people came to the boards to find out about the new thing that was happening to the hobby. They were curious, they were often thought leaders in their local roleplaying communities and trying to engage in a meaningful (from their standpoint) discussion.
The original vibe of the boards “isn’t this cool”, “how fun is this?” “look at what I thought of!”
The aggressive weirdos were more like mascots.

Now the game has aged; the player base has played enough that most of the curious new players now know as much as they need to. If someone wants to add a new magic system they may pop in for a bit but they have understood every concept they want to and houseruled the rest away. They aren’t out trawling for cool ideas. They have more than they can probably use for several years.
Also: Enworld is believed by some people to be read by folks in the industry. The Paizo folks post from time to time; so do a few freelancers and 3rd party publishers.

So the number of people posting has fallen and its shifted a lot more toward two groups 1) very serious people and 2) the population of people who play roleplaying games and aren’t really happy with their lives.

1. Serious people really want to affect the development of the game. They constantly post (esp. about dungeon and dragon) because they think it will affect what appears in Dungeon and Dragon. They feel that if they post about “too many base classes!” “not enough fluff/crunch!” their voice, which they desperately want to be heard, will be.
2. Not much to say about these people. There are always people in communities who are a part of that community to the detriment of others. Eventually those others, who can deal with a wider variety of social situations more maturely, will move to different forums. There are a few people who aren’t terribly fun to have a conversation with around here, but as the population falls (and the remainder of people post less regularly) their presence becomes huge.
They can be the first few posts on a new thread and turn it to stone, or find each other and hijack it.

It’s not an avoidable problem; many of the smarter and more creative people, who were excited about DnD and used to be regular contributors have simply left. They aren’t coming back and EnWorld will remain as it is.

Depressing but probably true.

BD

 

[Wayside]

Because it seems to me ENworld Mods are more willing to close threads than to temporary ban / close accounts of those who willfully try to derail those threads. :\

They're smart not to go overboard with bans. Anyone with a clue can make a new account, change their IP, in general take whatever measures are necessary to regain access to the forums. If that person is vindictive, there's really no way for anyone to stop him or her from attacking the site. The more people you ban, the faster you run into that guy who gets off on posting threads with ALL CAPS titles that spoil the latest Harry Potter book. Treating people cautiously and fairly is definitely the best play here.

 

[James Heard]

Appreciate the general advice, and it's well stated. I got a lot of this kind of response and it's been quite insightful for the most part, and applicable to any web forum as you said. What I'm still wondering is what it is about RpG's in particular and the idea of anything even in the ballpark of reform specifically which triggers such a violent reaction (why is the mere mention of 4E such a lightning rod for example?). I guess it's just a given that some subjects can't be discussed in some places. My next question then is, is there any other (public) place, and if not, what does this mean for the future of RPG's ?

BD

There is nothing about RPGs and "and the idea of anything even in the ballpark of reform" that promotes a violent reaction though. You're assuming that it's a specific problem when in fact it's a general one, and the problem isn't the nature of the issue but in the voice used to illicit debate. People talk about all sorts of much heavier, life and death, money in your pocket sorts of things with and without having conniption fits and they have years long flame wars over technicalities and semantics in places. It's almost never intrinsically about the subject but entirely about the initial presentation. Not the voice of reason, "can't we all get along" posts towards the end, but the bald first post(s) which set the tone and voice of the entire discussion.

That's why a lot of really supportive threads work so concisely. Lack of conflict or conflicting voice doesn't promote discussion a lot of times. In fact the main reason this thread has gone along for as long as it has already probably owes something to the inherent disagreement about tone, voice, and assumptions about behavior here at ENWorld.

There are a lot of roleplaying forums out there though. Seriously, there are a ton of publishers and a lot of them have boards - plus dozens of privately operated public forums like ENWorld. There's even rec.games.frp.dnd, though if I had a significant problem with the criticism I found at ENWorld I wouldn't recommend wading into usenet without a significant investment in liquor to ease the pain. For that matter, it's child's play to set up your own minor public forum and to put a link into your sig and hope people show up as long as a whole LOT of people don't show up.

Again though, posting in forums for the most congenial and responsive replies isn't about stating "facts", at least not in the first post. It's about presenting material relevant and discussion worthy to your audience without tipping your opinion off, because if your opinion is strong then it's irrelevant to discussion because it won't change. This is important:

If you're out to promote an agenda/opinion/hair product of your own then you should probably double check anything you post, triple check it even. Even if more than two or three people proclaim that you're attempting to promote an agenda, because even if you don't feel you're establishing a certain tone doesn't mean that other people are idiots for seeing one. Most especially several different people - because they're the audience. It doesn't matter if you're reading the label on a stick of gum, if your audience declares that you're saying it like a poopyhead then a poopyhead you are. Communication isn't just about transmitting, it's about receiving too. It doesn't do any good to argue about this, because if everyone decides you talk in Swahili and they only listen to people who speak Klingon then you've lost your audience entirely. No matter if you don't feel comfortable or don't feel it's necessary to make a grown man grunt aloud in public with your Klingon voice, that's the proper voice and tone to speak to the audience.

And one more thing, once you presuppose some "I don't like this" behavior onto your audience, you're already on shaky ground. Who talks to people they don't like the same way they do to their best friends? "I think you're all closeminded jerks" or "I shall spay your offspring and murder your parents in their sleep" is a thought that probably nails written inflections as well as body language. And since we're talking about promoting discussions and convincing people across a broad audience, making generalizations or even assuming them based on anecdotal (and sometimes hard data) experiences is usually bad for communication.

Really, it's just using good common sense in almost any communication medium. While common sense sometimes seems in short supply, that's usually just because we tend to dwell on bad experiences and then forget them while we remember good experiences and forget to hardcode a lot of bad ones. Start people off on good a good communication experience and gently illuminate them to your contrary opinions. Some people can do otherwise because they leave sweet smelling stuff in the restroom, but for most of the rest of us it's all about managing the audience correctly so that what you say gets listened to.

And, as an aside, 3E was the first game I had in a long time where I didn't nerf and genocide elves. I hatesss the elvesssssesss.

 

[Nightfall]

Not to mention they deal with me all the time.

James,

Yeah but 3rd/d20 was the first place I got sickly godless elves.

*won't make more comments about Hussar*

 

[BSF]

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

Define "we". Define "better" and "worse". I already discuss change for things I want to change. Better for me might not be better for you. If you want a low magic game and I am looking for a higher magic game, we are not going to agree. Depending on how you phrase your post and how you respond to other posters, such a discussion could go downhill fast, we could agree to disagree, or we could find a way to suggest changes for each other that make the game better for both our needs. It could also be that I read your post, recognize I don't have useful advice to offer and avoid posting at all.

How is that sticking my head in the sand or refusing to discuss change?

 

[Nightfall]

Maybe if you give him a quarter...

 

[Balgus]

WOW!
Even after all this explaining, i can't believe that people are still going at it.


What I learned: Mods are nice and let people slide
Don't post unless you are williung to read... a lot
All posts will have oppositions
Nightfall like Scarred Lands
Some people are articulate with their words
Most are short and succinct

I hope this thread turns out OK.

 

[Nyaricus]

Big Dummy, while you have stated that you've been to this site on and off for 7ish years, your posts come across as broad, swooping generalizations of an e-board with nearly FORTY THOUSAND members. That's a big ol' chunk of gamers right there, I'd have to say. In my experience on EN World, I've found this to be a welcoming, friendly community with great character, memorable people, justified mods and a warm atmosphere. EN World is a great, great place - I can't stress that enough in one measly little post. People here on this thread have given great advice for how to conduct oneself on an e-board like this, and I have to say that I took a step back after going through the posts here on this thread. From post one in this thread, I was inflamed, let me tell you. You statements were, from your own mouth "venomous, vicious spiteful attacks" on (regular) board members and was completely uncalled for. Saying that, I'll try to give you a fair go of it and go through your original post.

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?

Big Dummy, a "select few" regular board members is a big chunk. Frankly, from the get-go, your post and thread name sounds like something that belongs in a "Report Post" rather than in an actual thread. But you are upset that your Low Magic thread got closed, and wanted to start a a new thread which, while titled "Why are D&D discussions so angry?" is actually about "why are D&D discussions about critism about D&D so angry?".

You need to take more time in constructing your posts, because you are talking about two different beasts in the same breathe, and are thirdly insulting the EN World populace by declaring a few anonymous En World regualrs as being "venomous, vicious (and conductors of) spiteful attacks" on posters who talk in threads about how D&D discussions about critism about D&D are so angry in threads entitled "Why are D&D discussions so angry?".

I've been on every kind of forum, I currently spend time on historical, technical, and even political forums. On some of these, peoples entire professional reputations can be at stake based on the credibility of say an article they wrote which is under discussion. And yet, while you can always get the odd forum crazy and find a certain amount of intractibility in discussions, no other forum I know of is anywhere near as vicious as an RPG forum. I can honestly say that the RPG forums, especially any D&D forum, are both the most vicious and the most utterly intractable and cynical in terms of peoples positions.

Frankly, your past experiences are no more valid then mine. En World is my first and only forum, but it is how one conducts oneslef in it that counts. You are being rude to us and hypocritical by creating the very sort of discussion you say you loathe, and make it the equivalent of a loaded gun with the construction of your posts, and the name-calling and generalizations of board members in your posts.

Anyone who knows these forums knows that unless you are ready for a big fight, to avoid a WIDE swath of subjects, or else face the near certainty that your thread will be hijacked (as mine recently was) into a completely off-topic diatribe of insults and vicious demands to "love it or leave it" until the temperature of the "debate" inevitably gets hot enough that the moderators shut the thread down, which is exactly what the attackers want from the start.

BD, a lot of peoepl who come to these forums are new - thus they have no reason to just "know" how to properly conduct themselves at all times. Also, manyn RPGs are playing by pimple-faced teens with braces and greasy hair (c'mon, we were all somehting liek that at one point ) who can be really rude, due to lack of real world EXP - or simply board EXP. You are again generalizing many people who post here, and not allow for every person who comes here - out of curiosity, recommendation, googling, et al - a chance at adjusting to the board and the style of the the internet.

The net result is a de-facto censorship. This is in many ways a great forum, but there cannot be any rational discussion about anything real about D&D in here in terms of improving it in any way or addressing anything but techincal or balance problems. Anything else will instantly turn into an all-or-nothing debate about D&D.

Not true. False. Uninformed. There have been great threads about improving D&D, in one form or another. DM and Player advice, new ideas for DMs and Players, rule clarifications, etc etc etc etc etc. These all improve D&D for those involved, do they not? They do not all turn into flamewars, do they not? Tehy do not all turn into all-or-nothing debates, do they not. No, they don't.

Why does a role playing game bring out such intense feelings of hostility? What is it about D&D that makes people to devote hours to willing to insult and ridicule complete strangers? What is the ultimate effect of this self-censorship and passive aggression on the game itself?

It is not the gun that kills, but the one whom pulls the trigger. An RPG by itself will not bring out intense feeling of hostility, rather it is the person who chooses to funnel their feelings in such a way that intense hostility is the flavour of the week. Man, I think you just got into the wrong discussion at such a tie that you felt the need to bring it up again in another thinly veiled thread which is a meta-discussion of why your other thread failed.

You need to take a step back from your keyboard. You are painting EN World one colour, withot letting some of the quieter, less *ahem* "hostile" regulars help show EN Worlds true colours. And indeed, there are many in this rainbow. But man, just because your one thread closed down does not give you the right to call out us and give us the impression the regulars here, or a select few therein are a bunch of stalking predators waiting to swoop down on the little guy with the little postcount. We really, in all honestly, are not truely like that, and I can only hope that somewhere, you realise this adn can become a part of the community, rather than picking a fight with us.

 

[mearls]

Why does a role playing game bring out such intense feelings of hostility?

Taken as a whole, the Internet rewards attention to noise, not signal.