# Discussions re: RPG Theory



## lowkey13 (Feb 19, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Morrus (Feb 19, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I was just moderated for threadcrapping ... my own thread. That's ... special. I mean, I can see all sorts of moderation reasons (like not being nice) but threadcrapping the thread that I created? That's new.




I don't know what situation you're referring to specifically, but one doesn't threadcrap a thread; one threadcraps _in_ a thread.  Doesn't matter who started the thread; we don't recognize thread ownership. Threadcrapping is an activity directed at the participants, not the thread itself.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 19, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Morrus (Feb 19, 2020)

You could try the + thread thing. See how it goes? I mean I don’t know what happened in the thread you’re talking about, so it’s hard to comment.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 19, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Feb 19, 2020)

There are some times when a collaboration is not at its best when wide open to the entire world.  And, unfortunately, we don't have the functionality for threads with limited/curated membership.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 19, 2020)

Umbran said:


> There are some times when a collaboration is not at its best when wide open to the entire world.  And, unfortunately, we don't have the functionality for threads with limited/curated membership.



Yes we do, actually. The conversation system is literally an invite only thread. Only things it lacks are mod access, and polls.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 19, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> ......oh.
> 
> Well, about that. I re-introduced that idea to try and have a productive thread about creating a new Leader class (you may know it by another name).
> 
> ...you can probably guess how that worked. So while I pushed the idea, I don't think + threads are the answer.



Speaking as someone who recently had a rather heated falling out with lowkey, the above is absolutely correct.

@lowkey13 I don’t know if you reported them in the marshal thread, but if not maybe that’s the way to go.

also thread ownership should be a thing. We should be able to close our own threads, at the least.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 19, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> also thread ownership should be a thing. We should be able to close our own threads, at the least.



Forum threads are public conversations. In a public space you don’t get to demand everybody end a conversation just because you started it. Your choice is to walk away from the conversation.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 19, 2020)

I also want to point out that the general moderation attitude that posters shouldn’t talk about reporting posts, but instead just quietly do so, is a bad position that leads to bad outcomes.

in nearly all contexts, most people don’t report most of what they see that should be reported. But if someone points it out as worth reporting, more people actually pay attention and either lend support, also report, or both. The habit of vocally reporting poor behavior also increases the more general habit of reporting poor behavior.

Otherwise civility trolling, threadcrapping/hijacking and then reporting attempts to tell the trolls to knock it off or leave the conversation, etc, just continue with little recourse.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 19, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Forum threads are public conversations. In a public space you don’t get to demand everybody end a conversation just because you started it. Your choice is to walk away from the conversation.



This is...a very bad stance, but I know you don’t change your mind about such things, so I’ll leave it at that.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 19, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is...a very bad stance, but I know you don’t change your mind about such things, so I’ll leave it at that.



OK.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 19, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 19, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Feb 19, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I also want to point out that the general moderation attitude that posters shouldn’t talk about reporting posts, but instead just quietly do so, is a bad position that leads to bad outcomes.




With respect... announcing it in thread leads to bad outcomes, for two reasons:

1) "I'm telling Daddy!" does not convince anyone to back the heck off.    

2) More importantly, if moderators _don't agree_ that the issue needs moderator action, the reporter now has a severe positioning issue in the thread.  

I'm not signing up for being weaponized, and then taking blame when I don't come down on the reporter's side of the question.  Sorry.



> But if someone points it out as worth reporting, more people actually pay attention and either lend support, also report, or both.




We already look at every single report.  Multiple reports of the same issue do not hurt, but they don't help, either.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 19, 2020)

Umbran said:


> With respect... announcing it in thread leads to bad outcomes, for two reasons:
> 
> 1) "I'm telling Daddy!" does not convince anyone to back the heck off.
> 
> ...



Damn, man. Really good and cool to see mods talking about reporting in the same terms a schoolyard bully would use. Very encouraging.

point 2 is...just false, IMO. The reporter is in the same position as anyone who points out bad behavior.

The attitude that bad behavior shouldn’t be pointed out is directly contributive to further bad behavior.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 19, 2020)

Again, as I’ve said in every discussion relating to this topic I’ve ever posted in, an Internet forum is not an in person conversation. Trying to treat it as if it is (“IRL you can’t just close a conversation”, which isn’t even _really_ true) will lead to uneven moderation that favors bad actors over people who just want to have normal discussions without jerks constantly trying to troll and derail them.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 19, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Really good and cool to see mods talking about reporting in the same terms a schoolyard bully would use.




Moderators are for failure cases in human behavior, not successes, so when you ask us to talk about how folks in arguments behave... the language is of people behaving poorly.  Go figure.

People in conversations gone awry act rather like they are in a schoolyard squabble.  If you find that insulting,  I am sorry, but if folks were being empathic, thoughtful, kind and mature all the time, I'd have nothing to do, and be happy for it.  



> point 2 is...just false, IMO.




Okay.  Your opinion is noted.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 19, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Moderators are for failure cases in human behavior, not successes, so when you ask us to talk about how folks in arguments behave... the language is of people behaving poorly.  Go figure.
> 
> People in conversations gone awry act rather like they are in a schoolyard squabble.  If you find that insulting,  I am sorry, but if folks were being empathic, thoughtful, kind and mature all the time, I'd have nothing to do, and be happy for it.



You’ve misunderstood. You referred to the act of reporting bad behavior in the same way that a bully would. Mocking _reporting bad behavior _as if it is childish to _report bad behavior_.

which is...not great.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 19, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Again, as I’ve said in every discussion relating to this topic I’ve ever posted in, an Internet forum is not an in person conversation. Trying to treat it as if it is (“IRL you can’t just close a conversation”, which isn’t even _really_ true) will lead to uneven moderation that favors bad actors over people who just want to have normal discussions without jerks constantly trying to troll and derail them.



I think you are fighting against basic human nature here.  There are tons and tons of people here who can have a nice conversation and even a well thought out debate and not take things personally.  Then there are some posters who, it seems to me, clearly have no idea the difference between an opinion and a fact and are incredibly difficult to even have a basic interaction with because it becomes so difficult to communicate.  People you want to punch are just part of being on the internet (and the reason I literally NEVER touch the multiplayer content in any videogames).

Oftentimes threads will morph and change into a different topic than that which was originally stated.  I think this mirrors exactly how a normal IRL conversation goes.  It twists and turns and ends up in a different place than it started.  If you allow OPs to close threads (because they are bored, or mad, or for whatever reason) you allow them to shut down a conversation between two or more others that may just be getting started.

But I do also see, in @lowkey13's defense that it would be nice to have a space to link to where you can work on a project (Building a Warlord for 5e for example) and not have to put up with 35 posts saying "But why?" and "Warlords are stupid." and "Just use a bard" every single time you try to start one.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 20, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> I think you are fighting against basic human nature here.  There are tons and tons of people here who can have a nice conversation and even a well thought out debate and not take things personally.  Then there are some posters who, it seems to me, clearly have no idea the difference between an opinion and a fact and are incredibly difficult to even have a basic interaction with because it becomes so difficult to communicate.  People you want to punch are just part of being on the internet (and the reason I literally NEVER touch the multiplayer content in any videogames).
> 
> Oftentimes threads will morph and change into a different topic than that which was originally stated.  I think this mirrors exactly how a normal IRL conversation goes.  It twists and turns and ends up in a different place than it started.  If you allow OPs to close threads (because they are bored, or mad, or for whatever reason) you allow them to shut down a conversation between two or more others that may just be getting started.
> 
> But I do also see, in @lowkey13's defense that it would be nice to have a space to link to where you can work on a project (Building a Warlord for 5e for example) and not have to put up with 35 posts saying "But why?" and "Warlords are stupid." and "Just use a bard" every single time you try to start one.



Some good points, but OTOH, again, forum threads _aren’t IRL in person conversations_. 

However, about in person conversations. At a gathering, if someone won’t drop something, you absolutely can tell them to drop it or leave the conversation, and all it takes to enforce it (unless they are a very awkward maladjusted jerk), is for a couple other people in the discussion to agree.

That isn’t possible on a forum, thus moderation. But, moderation doesn’t always work.

at the very least, we should have the capability to put threads on Ignore, so they don’t show up on our feed, and easily delete all of our posts in a thread.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You’ve misunderstood.




Ah.  Misunderstanding on both sides, then - I was referring to it _as it is typically perceived_ by those who are reported*.  I was using that language to be demonstrative of the dynamic that results.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.





* I mean that from experience - as in, I have had numerous private conversations about such incidents with those involved, this is the typical outlook.  Yes, it is childish.  I can't help that, it is the way people get.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> But I do also see, in @lowkey13's defense that it would be nice to have a space to link to where you can work on a project (Building a Warlord for 5e for example) and not have to put up with 35 posts saying "But why?" and "Warlords are stupid." and "Just use a bard" every single time you try to start one.



Of the things mentioned in this thread, this is the one I do think is an issue. I'd love to see more collaborative work on things like that on the forums, and I agree that threadcrapping is annoying as hell. I'll talk to Umbran and Danny and see what they think we can do about it. My main worry is that people would use it to prevent others from simply disagreeing with them about topic, which would be stifling to discussion (or would require an extra moderator overhead which we'd frankly rather not have to deal with - moderating isn't much fun).


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 20, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> FWIW, I tried to resurrect the "+" tag (as mentioned previously) and I don't think it works that well. If people are going to crash the thread, they are going to regardless of the tag and how gently you point it out.




We are having a bit of a conversation about how we can make this a thing we can support.  It will probably mean having to define the [+] topic clearly, and we will have to note what should, and should not, be considered disagreement.  More on that as it develops.




> This one didn't have an explanation, and I don't understand it (in terms of the reason).




Discussion incoming.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 20, 2020)

Same thing happened to me, with regards to the speeding analogy, in the thread about Judges Guild. It was very confusing, and felt totally arbitrary.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2020)

This whole thread is a bit gish-gallopy, with about 40 different topics now, so I'm just focused on the threadcrapping/[+]thread topic for now. I can't follow all the rest!


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 20, 2020)

Do I attribute "gish-gallopy" to you or is that a thing but not in my area?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> Do I attribute "gish-gallopy" to you or is that a thing but not in my area?



Gish-gallop is a debating tactic in which one is overwhelmed with multiple arguments and can’t address them all simultaneously. It’s very loosely used here.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 20, 2020)

I have never heard that phrase in my 46 years but I have now added it to my arsenal for the future.

Did you have a time in your life you were a "formal debater" where you picked it up?

Sadly after perusing the Wikipedia entry on it I WAS familiar with *The Chewbacca Defense" which is related.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> I have never heard that phrase in my 46 years but I have now added it to my arsenal for the future.
> 
> Did you have a time in your life you were a "formal debater" where you picked it up?
> 
> Sadly after perusing the Wikipedia entry on it I WAS familiar with *The Chewbacca Defense" which is related.



I don’t recall where I picked it up. It doesn’t really apply here, other than that the initial topic has been a bit buried by multiple other topics, and I’m a poor multitasker.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2020)

As "gish-gallup" is added to the list of topics of the thread...

How about we focus, folks?  For poor Morrus' sake?


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 20, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Morrus (Feb 21, 2020)

Right, so as Umbran alluded to above, we are going to be making [+] threads a thing on a trial basis. We’re hammering out the wording, but for those rules lawyers out there, we’ll be looking out for folks who abuse it as much as for those who ignore it. We’ll see how it goes and likely amend our approach organically.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Okay, that's what I've got so far. I might add that one more thing to put in is that if it's a plus thread, you shouldn't question the premise of the thread (for example, if you have a thread:
> 
> (+) Help Build a Magic Item Shop and Price System for 5e
> 
> ... then comments about, "We don't need those in 5e" would be considered threadcrapping and subject to moderation.



Colour me thoroughly opposed to any such idea.

Why?

Two reasons.

One: echo chambers are generally a bad thing.

Two: threads like these might (as in, will) give the impression to a casual reader or visitor that there's a more or less greater desire for that thing than there really is.  Using the 5e price guide example*, someone reading the thread and seeing no opposition would gain a false impression that a 5e price guide is universally in demand, when the reality is that there is in fact in some (and in some cases, a lot of) dispute as to its usefulness, desirability, or whether it should exist at all in any form beyond by-table houserule.

* - an idea which I support and would houserule in were I running 5e.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 21, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Eltab (Feb 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> One: echo chambers are generally a bad thing.



OTOH, a dedicated workshop where everybody is working to accomplish a goal, without noisy distractions, is generally a good thing.  "We want to design the mechanics / rules to run an X" does not mean there is Only One Way to achieve that goal.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Colour me thoroughly opposed to any such idea.




Then we'd strongly suggest you stay away from the threads.



> One: echo chambers are generally a bad thing.




So, this is a vast overstatement of the concept.  One thread does not an "echo chamber" make.  That concept is relevant when considering one's overall exposure to topics, not individual discussions.  Folks will still have exposure to differing ideas in the myriad of other threads they have access to on the site.

If folks are trying to actually accomplish or talk about a thing - like, say, trying to build a new subclass for D&D - having the constant static of naysayers trying to tell them they shouldn't do it, or insisting they justify their personal reasons for wanting the thing is generally, and specifically, a bad thing.

But, apparently, you're okay with that bad thing.  The dichotomy is not persuasive.



> Two: threads like these might (as in, will) give the impression to a casual reader or visitor that there's a more or less greater desire for that thing than there really is.




Oh, for pity's sake! The discussions on EN World are not, and were never intended or claimed to be, an accurate representation of gaming as a whole.  We are a self-selected population, not a representative sample.  Being so is not part of our mission.  Reading EN World at all gives an inaccurate impression of what gamers desire.  So, this argument is moot.


Edit:  I did _not_ like how the prior end of this post came out.  I have retracted it.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2020)

Eltab said:


> OTOH, a dedicated workshop where everybody is working to accomplish a goal, without noisy distractions, is generally a good thing.  "We want to design the mechanics / rules to run an X" does not mean there is Only One Way to achieve that goal.



No, but it does presume a desire - that not everyone might share - to end up with mechanics / rules to run an X, in whatever form said mechanics / rules might end up taking.

I mean, if I started a thread based on "Hey, let's riff off _Expedition to the Barrier Peaks_ and design rules for spaceships and space travel in 1e D&D" I'd fully expect assorted people to chime in with variants on "What a dumb / useless / genre-inappropriate idea"; and if enough of 'em did I'd maybe have to concede they have a point and abandon the attempt.

But if they weren't allowed to, thus all I ever saw was versions of "Great idea, here's x-y-z thoughts on how to make it happen", my perception of the demand for such a thing would get distorted all to hell.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2020)

Umbran said:


> So, this is a vast overstatement of the concept.  One thread does not an "echo chamber" make.  That concept is relevant when considering one's overall exposure to topics, not individual discussions.  Folks will still have exposure to differing ideas in the myriad of other threads they have access to on the site.
> 
> If folks are trying to actually accomplish or talk about a thing - like, say, trying to build a new subclass for D&D - having the constant static of naysayers trying to tell them they shouldn't do it, or insisting they justify their personal reasons for wanting the thing is generally, and specifically, a bad thing.
> 
> But, apparently, you're okay with that bad thing.



I guess I don't see it as such a bad thing, and I'm by and large OK with it.

Put another way [and keeping in mind that in the end it's just a game we're talking about here], if your intent is to publicly discuss something that might be controversial or generate mixed opinions then asking (or expecting, or mandating) people not to express views that disagree with yours and-or your premise is a bit much.



> Edit:  I did _not_ like how the prior end of this post came out.  I have retracted it.



FWIW I never saw the unedited version - maybe I should be thankful?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 21, 2020)

@Lanefan

Do you not see a very fundamental difference between these two threads?

A: 5e needs spaceship rules.

B: Help me design rules for 5e spaceships.

A is an invitation to discuss whether or not 5e needs spaceships.  B is a request for people interested in designing 5e spaceships to help someone already interested in 5e spaceships.

They are fundamentally different in focus and it's not a huge leap to expect enough basic reading comprehension (bolstered by the boilerplate verbiage discussed above) to understand the difference between the two.

This proposed system is very similar to Reddits "This poster requests serious replies only" which seems to work just fine on a platform with WAY less etiquette in general than this one.

"This poster requests collaborative replies only".


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> @Lanefan
> 
> Do you not see a very fundamental difference between these two threads?
> 
> ...



B subsumes A as part of itself.

A's the high-level theoretical discussion, B also hopes to incite more nitty-gritty practical discussion side-along with the theoreticals from A.  Both invite discussion of whether 5e spaceships are a good idea.

Put another way, with all the assumptions added in B actually reads "_5e needs spaceship rules, if you agree_ help me design rules for 5e spaceships,_ if you disagree, discuss._"

Very relevant if there's just the one (current) thread on the topic.



> This proposed system is very similar to Reddits "This poster requests serious replies only" which seems to work just fine on a platform with WAY less etiquette in general than this one.
> 
> "This poster requests collaborative replies only".



A poster is, as far as I know, free to request that as it stands right now.  But, given this site's consistent track record up till now of posters not owning the threads they start, a poster is neither free to demand it nor to expect to have such a request enforced.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> B subsumes A as part of itself.
> 
> A's the high-level theoretical discussion, B also hopes to incite more nitty-gritty practical discussion side-along with the theoreticals from A.  Both invite discussion of whether 5e spaceships are a good idea.
> 
> Put another way, with all the assumptions added in B actually reads "_5e needs spaceship rules, if you agree_ help me design rules for 5e spaceships,_ if you disagree, discuss._"



Not true.  When my coworker asks me to help put together a TPS report he most certainly is not also inviting me to complain about TPS reports instead of assisting.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 21, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> Not true.  When my coworker asks me to help put together a TPS report he most certainly is not also inviting me to complain about TPS reports instead of assisting.



Exactly this.

The “+” shouldn’t even be required. If someone doesn’t want there to be a 5e warlord, even a homebrew if it that will never even be brought up by anyone at your table, go make a thread about it. Don’t crap all over a thread about building a homebrew with the equivalent of the “Debate Me!!!” meme.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> B subsumes A as part of itself.
> 
> A's the high-level theoretical discussion, B also hopes to incite more nitty-gritty practical discussion side-along with the theoreticals from A.  Both invite discussion of whether 5e spaceships are a good idea.
> 
> Put another way, with all the assumptions added in B actually reads "_5e needs spaceship rules, if you agree_ help me design rules for 5e spaceships,_ if you disagree, discuss._"




No it absolutely does not subsume A as part of itself.  B reads, "I would like spaceships in my personal game and would like help with coming up with those rules."  A reads, "5e as a whole needs rules on spaceships."

Your opinion on whether 5e as a whole needs rules on spaceships is entirely irrelevant to his personal game and has no place in his discussion.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> Two: threads like these might (as in, will) give the impression to a casual reader or visitor that there's a more or less greater desire for that thing than there really is.  Using the 5e price guide example*, someone reading the thread and seeing no opposition would gain a false impression that a 5e price guide is universally in demand, when the reality is that there is in fact in some (and in some cases, a lot of) dispute as to its usefulness, desirability, or whether it should exist at all in any form beyond by-table houserule.




Not only do I not think that would happen, I also think that even if it did happen, it doesn't really matter? What matters is that _somebody_ wanted to make a 5e price guide with the help of likeminded people.

If you are on a beach and you see four people making a sandcastle, is it really, really vitally important that they be interrupted and made aware right now in no uncertain terms that you don't think sandcastles are needed, and that it's important that they don't create a false impression that there is a greater desire for sandcastles than there really is?

We're just talking about a game. It doesn't affect anybody's life or wellbeing. And there's nothing stopping you creating your own thread "Should sandcastles exist?" if you want to.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 21, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> in nearly all contexts, most people don’t report most of what they see that should be reported. But if someone points it out as worth reporting, more people actually pay attention and either lend support, also report, or both. The habit of vocally reporting poor behavior also increases the more general habit of reporting poor behavior.




I have only just started reading this thread but wanted to reply on this early comment.
Personally I'm not a fan of reporting. Sure I have wanted to report when things became unnecesarily antagonistic, but it isn't in my nature to report for something that is harmless and happens on the net. And as for political/religious/other commentary which isn't permitted by board rules or slightly risky humour - well that too rubs me the wrong way mostly because I believe in open dialogue despite strong differing opinions. Now I can respect the board rules but I also do not want to be on a site where slight commentary ends the discussion or gets you an immediate warning.

Just a few weeks ago someone made an off hand joke as he is/feels somewhat familiar with another poster all in good cheeky fun and some dude could not but keep hammering about the joke relentlessly about how offended he was and in general just threadcrapped what otherwise was a light-hearted thread. It is people like that, I feel take the use of reporting to the next level. IMO those high-horse riders are by far the worst offenders on this site, not the ones that make jokes or throw in some political or historical commentary. 

Anyways rant over.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 21, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> So I had a new one today.
> 
> I was just moderated for threadcrapping ... my own thread. That's ... special. I mean, I can see all sorts of moderation reasons (like not being nice) but threadcrapping the thread that I created? That's new.
> 
> ...



You have my sympathies. EN World has a serious issue with letting threads derail.

Case in point: I started a thread years ago discussing the lack of an useful magic items economy (3E-style) in 5E.

Soon the thread was overrun by people discussing how good it is that 5E doesn't have a gold economy. No matter what I did, it was impossible to re-rail the discussion, and finally the thread was closed down - the naysayers won.

Being told "you can always start a new thread" sucks.

Not only because there's no guarantee your detractors won't simply follow you into the new thread, and derail that one too.

But simply because it creates a conversion climate actively hostile to anyone outside of what the main group considers acceptable.

Even the idea "set up two threads, first one you allow naysayers to overrun, then a second one where you actually get to have constructive discussion in", feels like a "tax".

It all boils down to the basic fact that the moderation here won't see the problem, and how they exclude people by reframing a thread derail into "you don't own the thread".

Fine, so I don't own the thread, but how am going to be able to have a constructive discussion in a thread where maybe five out of six posts are actively hostile to the topic of thread?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 21, 2020)

CapnZapp said:


> It all boils down to the basic fact that the moderation here won't see the problem, and how they exclude people by reframing a thread derail into "you don't own the thread".
> 
> Fine, so I don't own the thread, but how am going to be able to have a constructive discussion in a thread where maybe five out of six posts are actively hostile to the topic of thread?



You might want to actually read this thread. There has been plenty of development on that discussion.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> I mean, if I started a thread based on "Hey, let's riff off _Expedition to the Barrier Peaks_ and design rules for spaceships and space travel in 1e D&D" I'd fully expect assorted people to chime in with variants on "What a dumb / useless / genre-inappropriate idea"; and if enough of 'em did I'd maybe have to concede they have a point and abandon the attempt.




Um... dude?  You're talking about a hobby that, for decades, was looked down upon by the rest of the world.  Kids got wedgies and shoved into lockers for having D&D books.  If we listened to naysayers, we'd not have RPGs at all.

We are talking about threads in which it is explicitly noted that nobody is asking for your opinion of whether it is necessary.  Why do you feel such a need to insert your idea where it is not invited?

Stop trying to control what other people have or do.  Let them make what they want to make, and discuss what they want to discuss.   If you don't like it, you don't have to partake.  And nobody should give a hoot if it isn't really wanted in the gaming world at large.



> But if they weren't allowed to, thus all I ever saw was versions of "Great idea, here's x-y-z thoughts on how to make it happen", my perception of the demand for such a thing would get distorted all to hell.




Again - _the boards are not here to set anyone's perceptions of demand_.  This is not our mission.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 21, 2020)

Lanefan said:


> But if they weren't allowed to, thus all I ever saw was versions of "Great idea, here's x-y-z thoughts on how to make it happen", my perception of the demand for such a thing would get distorted all to hell.




If you're looking to this or any forum as a guide to overall demand, then your perception is already distorted all to hell


----------

