D&D 4E Why is this board so down on 4E critics?

[vagabundo]

I think the anti-4e people see themselves on the "losing side". They know they'll probably lose. 4e will probably be popular, and WotC isn't going to listen to them anyway, so they're frustrated and maybe lash out more. (It certainly seems that way to me when it comes to StarCraft II haters).

I think the message here is "Don't hate, love"...

 

[FourthBear]

If I think about what critical threads devolve into unhelpful attacks and which result in interesting analysis, I would the difference is largely specificity. Criticisms that are broad and general almost never lead anywhere. Statements that 4e is "Too Anime" or "Is Designed to be a MMORPG" almost never result in good arguments on either side. There is simply not enough substance to the criticism for anything other than accusations of misunderstanding. The only exceptions to the above categories going astray are those in which the discussion was centered around specific examples. In terms of criticism, I wish much of it was far more specific as to which elements were under contention. And if we don't have enough information to cite these elements, then the conversation is so under-informed that the resulting discussion is likely to be vacuous, IMO.

 

[Wormwood]

I've noticed that nobody gets called out by the mods for being a jerk without deserving it.

Neither 'side' has a monopoly on jerks, either.

Perhaps there is something in the nature of a negative post that makes it *appear* to have a higher jerk component than a positive post would.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

I've noticed that nobody gets called out by the mods for being a jerk without deserving it.

Neither 'side' has a monopoly on jerks, either.

edit: perhaps there is something in the nature of a negative post that makes it *appear* to have a higher jerk component than a positive post would.

People also tend to look upon those who open threads with "Why am I being persecuted?" with some form of amusement, and perhaps a desire to poke them to see them squirm.

 

[DaveMage]

I've been about as anti-4E as anyone, but I have not noticed any bias by EN World staff at all. Indeed, I'm quite thankful that Morrus has come out and said (several times?) that this board is open to those going 4E and those staying with 3.5 or other systems.

Are there some posters that get on my nerves? Sure. But since D&D is an emotional buy-in, I really don't think we can expect anything less when people discuss what they are passionate about. *shrug*

 

[small pumpkin man]

I fully expect to be flamed pretty hard, and maybe even banned for this post. I can take it. It will only prove my point.

If you do, it would be because you're being passive aggressive not because you're "anti-4e". I mean "why are you all such a bunch of jerks? huh?" would generally be pushing flame-bait territory. I would assume that's why the other thread got locked.

I expect to see a lot of people telling you you're wrong, but I doubt you'll see more than one or two actual flames, if you look at the threads on this very page, the 4 largest ones are about...
1)why PoL (apparently) doesn't make sense with high tier play
2)how 4e is (probably) a kick in the teeth for simulationists
3)how 4e is (apparently) DM-Proofing the game
4)some positive playtest reports.

The only one that really devolved into flames and insults was the playtest ones, and that started because of anti-4e posters accusing ari (who's relatively well known around here) of essentially lying, the rest contain ongoing, detailed discussions on the nature of D&D, forge terms and roleplaying games in general.

Any "dogpiling" would simply be because optimists (apear to be)/are in the majority in these forums, so when 12 people respond, 8 or will be optimistic about 4e, and be more likely to disagree with any criticisms, especially if it's been brought up before, there's nothing malicious about it.

 

[grimslade]

Number one: It's a forum full of flawed human people.

Number two: And this goes for fanatic supporters and unplacable detractors, when posters place the same argument for/against 4E in every thread, regardless of relevancy, it spawns contempt. It is the equivalent of the scene in Ghost, where Patrick Swayze sings "I Am Henry the Eighth, I Am" for hours to get Whoopi to capitulate. Except people can always skip a post easier than tune out an earworm of a song.

Number three: We have no data points besides what WotC provides and sometimes the points provided are lackluster and contradictory. I think as the NDA loosens in the coming weeks up to DDXP, we will start to get a more rounded picture of 4E.

Number four: And this is a gross generalization, the arguments for an against 4E are subjective. The detractors generally point out specific parts to lambast, while supporters are more general, going by 'feel' or 'direction'. It is much easier to argue with specifics than with generalities. So that is why detractors might feel a skew to 'bashing'.

Or just more people like what is coming out of 4E than don't, I don't know. ;P

 

[Fifth Element]

I fully expect to be flamed pretty hard, and maybe even banned for this post. I can take it. It will only prove my point.

No it won't. You didn't post anything negative about 4E. You posted something negative about ENWorld, and its mods.

I find it funny that anti-4E folks complain about how nothing negative about 4E is allowed on ENWorld, while at the same time pro-4E folks complain that there is so much negativity about 4E on ENWorld. I think both sides suffer from a bias of perception. If an anti-4E poster sees someone beat down a very rude, non-constructive post by another anti-4E'er, he notes it in his brain. He ignores the warnings given to overzealous pro-4E'ers. And vice-versa.

So to answer the OP, it's not. People don't get dogpiled for being negative about 4E. They get dogpiled for being rude and insulting when discussing 4E. You know, the kinds of posts that not only say negative things about 4E, but also say negative things about people who like what they hear about 4E.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Does anyone have a good explanation for this?

Yes. I don't think criticising 4E is dog-piled upon, as long as the criticism is well-founded. Same is probably true for liking 4E.

But now enter non-reasoned hate or love of 4E:

"I love 4E" - it's an empty message. No value whatsoever, you simply gloss over it.

"I hate 4E" - similar to the one above, but it contains negativity, which in turn can be disrupting.

And if we get into full-fledged flaming, it gets worse: If you take "I love 4E" to the extreme, you get "4E is the best game ever and everybody should play it!" - but if you take "I hate 4E" to the extreme, you get "4E is the worst game ever and nobody should play it". But since the second statement already contains a lot of negativity, it's much easier to slide into "everybody who plays it is dumb", because you're already negative.

If you, however, positive, you're less inclined to produce negativity in form of personal attacks.

So, from a point of view of a moderator, who is inclined to keep the board civil, it's better to keep an extra eye on 4E-hate, because it is a topic that slides into personal attacks very easily, hence you also get more negativity from other posters (which, in turn, gets people on both sides suspended, I've seen a few pro-4E's suspended for a while).

Well-reasoned criticism however, is an entirely different matter.

Furthermore, ENWorld was always a board for D&D, but more specifically for 3E. I daresay that people who dislike 4E, because it's a departure from classic D&D, are already (at least partially) disliking 3E, hence there are less of them here, so there are more posters on the pro-4E side, hence the impression of dog-piling.

At least that's my observation of that matter. I guess it's rather the first aspect than the latter.

Cheers LT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Things that get me "angry" as a pro-4E guy are like this:

"Because D&D 4 doesn't support X, which existed in at least one previous edition, it's a bad game and nobody should play it!" Until the second comma, I am okay with it. But the second is simply wrong.
Worse Variant:
"D&D 4 doesn't support X, which means the designers are intentionally trying to destroy everything that is good and holy in D&D. They only do it because Hasbro demanded it, and it's purely for money and there is no chance in hell it has any worth from a game design point of view. Also, the designers kick puppies and steal lollies from little children!". That's not just wrong, it's a personal attack against people that are sometimes even members of this board! But even if they're not, it's not a nice thing to do. Now, if someone provided hard evidence (hard to do in a believable manner), okay, maybe it works.

"D&D 4 is video-gamey." "D&D 4 is so anime". Okay, fine. What was the posters real point here? Where's the merit of the post, where does it lead us?

"D&D 4 seems to aim for the 14-year old WoW-gamer". I am nearly twice as old, and disliked WoW. But I like D&D 4. Depending on the context, I see this type of post not as plain wrong, but as an attempt to insult me and other D&D 4 fans.

I think the last is the worst offender. I am really tempted into flaming such posts, but I think I managed to avoid this so far.

Criticismn I like are things that lead us to discussing underlying design goals (simulationist vs. gamist, game balance vs. versimilitude, playability and this stuff), or plainly give interesting alternate takes on things, including suggestions on "how to be a better DM"/"How to make your life easier as a DM" (or player), possibly with concepts that already existed in 1st edition...