# Why are D&D discussions so angry?



## big dummy

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?

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.

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.

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.


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?

BD


----------



## Turanil

Ah, tell me about fanboys!   

I remember a review I wrote about a rpg book, and that provoked the ire of one of the author's fanboys...  ::Rolleyes::


----------



## Odhanan

Well I'm on the other side of the fence. I do not stand people who are rude when posting on a forum. No matter what side of the argument they're on. 

Forums are not bars or cell phones people! We have the _time_ to write things in our posts and then edit them so that they express what we mean. Therefore, people who are rude when writing do so deliberately, either by being lazy and not re-reading themselves, or searching for a fight. No excuses. 

People who want good, meaningful debates can do so by being respectful, constructive, and argumenting their point of view in a friendly rather than spiteful manner. Maybe some people need to be banned to learn the lesson, but that'd be better to show how smart they are by learning it before it comes to it.

Cheeky remarks, veiled insults, pretention and so on and so forth are just not excusable for people writing and pretending to be smart. Moderators are perfectly right to act the way they do here, IMO. They are doing an outstanding job on this board, in my opinion.



> I remember a review I wrote about a rpg book, and that provoked the ire of one of the author's fanboys...



I guess you're talking about your review of _Beyond Countless Doorways_. See. That kind of remark is typically the kind of cheeky comment that spawns flamewars. You're not demonstrating anything smart by pouring oil on the fire, Turanil.


----------



## takasi

I just wanted to add that I think there should be a little more Forgotten Realms and Eberron material in Dungeon.


----------



## Crothian

It is angry becomes of the medium, the message boards.  What people type is read as being rude as many times the words are.  The typer rarely seems to realize that their jokes don't translate over this medium, even if the use a smiley.  Also, there are plenty of rude people that do drive byes on RPG boards to piss people off.  Sometimes it is hard to tell the good posters from the bad.


----------



## Piratecat

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.

I think of EN World as a party at Morrus' house. I won't pick a fight with someone when we're both guests, so I won't pick a fight with other posters; I may disagree with someone, but that's as far as it goes. The rules of conduct in polite society still stand, so no matter what I may think of someone personally I can still share the space with them.

Some people, though, forget that they're a guest in someone else's house. They treat EN World as if everyone else is a guest in _their_ house -- and that way lies madness.


----------



## big dummy

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Cheeky remarks, veiled insults, pretention and so on and so forth are just not excusable for people writing and pretending to be smart. Moderators are perfectly right to act the way they do here, IMO. They are doing an outstanding job on this board, in my opinion.




I'm not sure what you mean by veiled insults and all that (is that a veiled reference to me somehow?) but I am not faulting the moderators really.  The moderators have to shut down debates which get out of hand, because they will just get worse and worse (RPG forums on usenet being an excellent example!!)

I just think that the system is being manipulated by some of the more aggressive posters.  If thats what y'all like here, so be it.  I've just noticed the pattern.  

BD


----------



## Crothian

big dummy said:
			
		

> I just think that the system is being manipulated by some of the more aggressive posters.  If thats what y'all like here, so be it.  I've just noticed the pattern.




I don't think people like it, but a few posters do enough to make people mad without crossing the line.  As long as the agressive posters are allowed to do as they do, it will go on.  So, report those posts you feel goes over the line and are rude.


----------



## Odhanan

Just to be clear, big dummy: I'm not targeting you. I'm just expressing an opinion based on many instances of threads that crashed into some form or another of petty debates and firestorms of insults and "who has the biggest" rather constructive exchanges of opposite points of view. And it is possible.

Another example is the "debate within the debate within the debate". This kind of arguments somehow nearly always comes down to exchanging definitions of the dictionary and nitpicking about the meaning of this quote or another, that the other poster meant something else 5 posts ago therefore "he's inconsistent" and so on and so forth. That's not constructive either. That's just "wanting to be right", i.e. pride.


----------



## big dummy

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, big dummy: I'm not targeting you. I'm just expressing an opinion based on many instances of threads that crashed into some form or another of petty debates and firestorms of insults and "who has the biggest" rather constructive exchanges of opposite points of view. And it is possible.
> 
> Another example is the "debate within the debate within the debate". This kind of arguments somehow nearly always comes down to exchanging definitions of the dictionary and nitpicking about the meaning of this quote or another, that the other poster meant something else 5 posts ago therefore "he's inconsistent" and so on and so forth. That's not constructive either. That's just "wanting to be right", i.e. pride.




Ok I recognize all that, it comes up in all forums.  But do any of you recognize the trend of even moderately proposed threads being attacked and derailed into fights of this sort because _their subject[ /i] is some kind of D&D reform?


BD_


----------



## mhacdebhandia

big dummy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by veiled insults and all that (is that a veiled reference to me somehow?) but I am not faulting the moderators really.  The moderators have to shut down debates which get out of hand, because they will just get worse and worse (RPG forums on usenet being an excellent example!!)



rec.games.frp.dnd is great!

It's just a shame it, like most USENET groups, isn't very populated. Of course, alt.games.whitewolf is even worse off.


----------



## DaveMage

People here are very passionate about the hobby.  

With passion comes emotion that sometimes doesn't get tempered well in this medium.


----------



## Odhanan

> But do any of you recognize the trend of even moderately proposed threads being attacked and derailed into fights of this sort because their subject is some kind of D&D reform?



I'm sure this may happen, but I don't have any specific example coming to my mind. I somehow dread to ask for specific examples, because that would look a lot like finger-pointing. 

So can this happen? Sure. But on the other hand, how do you differenciate a constructive debate about one or the other aspect of D&D from a thread that just says 'my hat of d02 know no limit' ? That's the role of the original poster IMO. To write things intelligently enough so as to not present pure opinionated condemnations that would just spawn flamewars but invite fair discussion on the topic. And accepting that many people will not have the same opinion in return. 

We are all part of the problem. The solution is not to point the finger at each other and accuse this or that one of wrong-doing, but to acknowledge that we all have our part in how ENWorld feels like in the end. We just need to each do our part and take our responsabilities.


----------



## Vocenoctum

Crothian said:
			
		

> I don't think people like it, but a few posters do enough to make people mad without crossing the line.  As long as the agressive posters are allowed to do as they do, it will go on.  So, report those posts you feel goes over the line and are rude.




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. 

Big Dummy, I doubt they're intentionally trying to dump the thread with flames, usually they're just so uptight and righteous that they consider it their duty to make sure everyone knows how wrong everyone but them is.


----------



## Andor

big dummy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by veiled insults and all that (is that a veiled reference to me somehow?) but I am not faulting the moderators really.  The moderators have to shut down debates which get out of hand, because they will just get worse and worse (RPG forums on usenet being an excellent example!!)
> 
> I just think that the system is being manipulated by some of the more aggressive posters.  If thats what y'all like here, so be it.  I've just noticed the pattern.
> 
> BD




Speaking of which, perhaps it's not your intent, but when I read your posts your tone comes across as that of someone with a chip on their shoulder the size of a wedding cake. Prinicpally this is because you seem to state things which are a matter of perception and opinion as though they were facts as basic and obvious as 'things fall down' or 'the sun rises in the east'. It is tantamout to daring someone contradict you, and begins the conversation from an adversarial position. If you use some qualifiers in your opinions it softens the tone of the post and leaves more room for discussion, rather than arguement, or at least that's how I find it. Just my 2¢.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

takasi said:
			
		

> I just wanted to add that I think there should be a little more Forgotten Realms and Eberron material in Dungeon.



I Disagree   



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

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



Like many such things (politics/religion), people are very passionate about their gaming. If they believe their way is the "right" way of doing things, then they will criticize the near-sightedness of others who cannot see with their clarity. Who is right and who is wrong becomes a matter of affirming ones beliefs in a public forum. However, I really like Piratecat's perspective on the matter. This place is not really a public forum; it's Morrus's place where we are guests. I like it here!   Morrus is a fantastic host.



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> What is it about D&D that makes people to devote hours to willing to insult and ridicule complete strangers?



I think this just comes down to manners. However, I think it's worth mentioning a spectacular piece of recent moderation, that perhaps some could learn from. In a recent thread, a poster who had had their thread closed started up a new thread with the purpose of inflaming the board. It was an obvious piece of trolling which people called out as such. However, the moderator said the following:

_Why don't we drop the discussion on whether or not this is a "troll". 

Either speak to the premise and content of the OP (or some reasonable tangent it suggests) and leave the speculation and accusations out of this or don't post to it.

If the thread has merit it will continue, *if it serves no purpose it will drop away soon enough.*

This means everyone. Thanks._
(and thank you el-remmen).

And so the criticisms dropped away as did the thread. Not posting is better than posting something that will just heat up a thread. It's difficult when sometimes a poster can be so one-eyed, so inflammatory and so ridiculous in the sanctity of their opinions but in the end, I think el-remmen has pulled the right rein and shown the simple result that the civility of not saying anything actually works.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## jester47

takasi said:
			
		

> I just wanted to add that I think there should be a little more Forgotten Realms and Eberron material in Dungeon.




Now, this was funny.   I hope it was meant to be!


----------



## Turanil

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I guess you're talking about your review of _Beyond Countless Doorways_. See. That kind of remark is typically the kind of cheeky comment that spawns flamewars. You're not demonstrating anything smart by pouring oil on the fire, Turanil.



Who is pouring oil on the fire?! I didn't mention what review and where, so people wouldn't have bothered to google the Internet for it. But now that you've guessed this is that one...    



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?



Mmmmh... I don't know why, but I suddenly feel the urge of beginning a thread on the merits of a heavy houseruled version of C&C being better than a lite houseruled version of D&D 3.5, which is incidentally better than will be 4.0 anyway.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

Crothain hit upon the most important reason that discussions go south... "What people type is read as being rude... "

Alot of the inflamatory posts result from someone misreading a post and assuming something that is not.

The rest of the inflamatory posts come from when the two sides are arguing completely different points and no-one notices 

But, lets take an example... the OP..that way we don't derail into other debates..

Your starting sentence 







			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?




Check join date and post count of poster. The perception could easily be created that the poster has walked into the party, bumped into one non-freindly conversation, and decided to stereotype everyone at the party based on that one encounter.

Add to that potential perception a phrase that can appear to be a veiled insult to forum regulars

Result, about mid first page you have a mild flamewar with vieled insults on both sides of the discussion.

How can people avoid this.. well, it depends.
- If the flamewar is a fly-by poster who is just here to tweak you... ignore the poster and report them
- If the flamewar is someone actually attempting to debate, sit back and rethink your assumptions. Tactfully post a 'we are getting off track, lets recap what we are really talking about' and get about destroying the false perceptions and assumptions.

Both of these methods involve you, as the poster, taking a step back from your position to think that maybe your perceptions/assumptions are wrong.


Yes, EnWorld has some regulars that get a bit more, umm, aggressive and appear to get away with it. Why? More than likely because their posts were not reported. I know I have been involved in a couple threads that got over the line....waaay over the line   
The thread did not get closed, nor did anyone get banned..but the thread also closed itself out with an agreement to disagree.

As DaveMage pointed out {while I was rereading this post for accuracy}, passion leads to emotional post content.

I do not beleive anyone is intentionally derailing a thread in order to get it killed. Its much easier to wait the couple hours it takes for the thread to drop off page one   

I do beleive that taking the time to rethink your position and being aware that other folks should be able to disagree with you will go a long way to mitigating the issue you see.

So, to wrap it up, the inital post tends to set the tone. Think before you type..and re-read before hitting submit. Understand that this is the internet, so keep your flame-retardant sleepwear on just in case.
 Don't take it personal.... {If need be, use a screen name that reminds you of that.. a practice I think both of us ascribe to  }


----------



## frankthedm

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?



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. :\


----------



## NewJeffCT

To be honest, it's certainly not nearly as bad here as it is on a political discussion board!  (try visiting one and dropping the name "Hillary Clinton" or "George W. Bush" with the words "I love..." or "I hate..." in front of the name.  Just get ready to put a flak jacket on over your bullet proof vest and your suit of full plate mail armor!)

That said, I think it's the nature of the internet.  You can tell somebody they are an idiot or a fool or just bass ackwards if you want online a heck of a lot easier than you can in real life.


----------



## rounser

> 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.



Try a spell in the dance music production world, then.  Cubase vs Logic vs FL Studio vs Reason, analog vs digital, hardware vs software, what's the best synth/compressor/reverb/eq....and it's all so subjective that nothing can be proved, even by wave cancellation because even turning up the volume a db or two can sound higher quality yet be undetectable as being at a higher volume so folks will refute such irrefutable evidence.  "Your sound is thin and digital, mine is phat and warm"...and the amount of misinformation spread is just staggering.  Some folks will swear black and blue that a sound straight out of a software synthesizer will sound better than a perfectly recorded digital copy of it, and that's just the tip of the ignorance iceberg.

Just like here, people tend to accentuate what is arguably trivial and studiously ignore the craft of the pursuit....spending all their time trying to squeeze out the last 10% of sound quality or find the perfect synth or sequencer whilst ignoring songwriting; trying to find the perfect setting, rules or worldbuilding whilst ignoring adventure writing.  The parallels between hobbyists are sometimes startling; writers groups prefer to talk tools too - they'd rather argue over what's the best _word processor(!!!)_ than talk craft, even though writing is basically all craft.

You get folks who've decided that such and such has a "poor quality mixing engine" based purely on a rumour and their expectations based on the price of the software and associations with it's users, and not even statements to the contrary from the developers themselves that the mixing engine is no more able to be stuffed up than basic summing like 1+1=2 (because all it is _is_ basic summing, and that _all_ digital mixing is done that way) will shake this belief.  People _in general_ are intractable - one of the developers of the software studio Reason said words to the effect that marketing knows that once a belief is established, it's pointless to try and change it, so they don't even bother to play the game of pretending to fix problems that don't really exist.  

It's all relative, but I think techno production has RPGs beat in those terms.  The interesting thing is that, like here perhaps, those who are actually using the tools the most - and being productive - are the quietest.  It's exam season for me, so that's my excuse.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

big dummy said:
			
		

> Ok I recognize all that, it comes up in all forums.  But do any of you recognize the trend of even moderately proposed threads being attacked and derailed into fights of this sort because _their subject[ /i] is some kind of D&D reform?
> 
> 
> BD_



_

Unless you're using an alt and are a regular here, you really haven't been here long enough to know if the boards in general are that bad. Throughout the past 6 years or so I've frequented one incarnation of this board or another, I've generally found that this place is not all that bad, considering its size. I've definitely had a beef with the passive-aggressiveness that seems to manifest at times, but overall...this place is pretty tame. It really depends on how one approaches a topic, as Piratecat said. 

I think a lot of people who've been here a while have seen the same old arguments put forth time and again. So it's easy for some to assume they know what will come next or what is implied by a particular post, simply because it seems to tread old ground at first. Too often, what someone might feel is just a call for simple "D&D reform" comes off condescendingly, as in "YUO 3tards don't know how to play right! MY WAY is the only right way!!!11!" I think people too often word posts in a very combative way and simply aren't aware that there are others who feel almost the total opposite. That is, what one sees as a problem may well seem like a big plus to another. I think that if people were more cognizant of that, fewer flamewars would ensue. The types of posts that kinda get under my skin often start out like "As we all know..." or "I'm sure we all agree that..." I think if people more often presented their premise like "OK, this is how I see things; does anyone else see it this way? If so, why? If not, why not?", that fewer fights would erupt.

Or maybe they would. I dunno._


----------



## Andre

I think you can point to a number of reasons for the intolerance that too often shows up in these boards (and others):

1. People act differently when they feel they're dealing with strangers. Would there be as much road rage if we knew all the other drivers? How about griping at work about someone in "that other department" for screwing things up. It's amazing to me how often this attitude changes when people meet face to face and form a connection, no matter how superficial or tenuous. There really is no substitute for meeting folks in real life, as opposed to "virtually".

2. The Internet conveys a sense of anonymity and face it, most of us simply aren't on our best behaviour when no one's watching. As PC suggested, I act differently when I'm a guest in a friend's house than I do in my own. For whatever reason, ever since boards began, there have been folks who just don't feel the need to be polite, courteous, deferential, etc.

3. As has been mentioned, some folks are awfully passionate about some subjects. Certainly there is a tendency to overreact among all of us when we feel someone else is being deliberately provocative (not in a good way). That said, I'm so tired of a poster starting a thread and the first dozen posts call him/her a troll. Folks, not everyone spends all day at EnWorld and knows that a particular subject (e.g., 4E) has been debated to death. Give them a break. If it's a real troll, the most brutal response is to completely ignore them and let the thread die of starvation.

4. Who posts matters. It is amazing to me difference in how an opinion is treated solely based on who posts it. Psion can make a statement and immediately have a dozen folks post versions of "ditto". Quasqueton can make the exact same statement and be flamed for his supposed "hatred of 3E". (I mean no offense to either Psion or Quas - they're just the first names that came to mind)  

Of course, this is no different than the real world. How many times have you been in a meeting, trying to convince the powers that be, and the person no one likes speaks up...to support your idea.    The kiss of death!   

Seriously, there are a few individuals who have regularly crossed the line in being rude, intolerant, ignorant, whatever, that I tune out whatever they say. But I see this happening to too many posters who either don't belong to the right clique, or have a few die-hard haters who seem to enjoy raining on their parade. It gets old fast.

5. We're all opinionated jerks!!!! Ok, just kidding. (Really) But think about it: why post on a board unless you believe you have something important or original or thought-provoking or profound or funny or...to say. We're all a bit like authors, whom Asimov called the most egotistical people in the world because they actually expect people to pay to read what they have to say. I've dramatically reduced the amount I post just by reminding myself that most of what I have to say doesn't add much (if anything) to the conversation. I just wish a few others would follow that example...  

And in reference to point 5 above, I hope my post wasn't a complete waste of everyone's time...


----------



## iwatt

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?




See, right here in your first sentence you've already included enough fuel to start a flame-war.  I'm not trying to be rude, but in this one line you:

- Generalize 
- Post an opinion in the form of a factual statement
- Add qualifiers to a segment of the ENWorld population like "venomous", "vicious", and describe their attitude as "swooping down", which is usually associated with birsd of prey.

Any one of these points will cause irritation on many board members. When you include all three, the only reason I can think this thread hasn't derailed into another flamewar is that a moderator posted 3rd in the thread   and people are been careful because of the recently closed thread in which you were involved.

Now when I started in ENworld I got caught in some minor conflicts. Most of the time it was because I did one of the three of the above. After I got called on it, I apologized and moved on. Since then I haven't been involved in a closed thread (Although my cheating thread came close a couple of times   ).


My advice: If someone's post is causing you to respond in anger you should:

1) stop
2) Go read another 2 or 3 threads.
3) Give the other poster the benefit of the doubt
4) responfd when you'er temper has cooled.


----------



## Delta

Because you're a big dummy?


----------



## Insight

A good friend of mine once said:



			
				The Emperor said:
			
		

> Feel the hatred flowing through you.  Give in to your anger, and your path to the Dark Side will be complete!


----------



## el-remmen

Delta said:
			
		

> Because you're a big dummy?





Thank you Delta for giving us a perfect example of the kind of thing that is posted in humor but that can totally be taken as snark and irritate someone and lead to the derailment of a thread.

If that _wasn't_ supposed to be a joke then consider this a warning.

If that was _supposed _to be a joke _still_ consider this a warning.

See folks intention does mean much when you know what the result is likely to be. . .


----------



## EricNoah

If I can just reiterate and emphasize some great points...

1) Use that "report a post" button -- it helps the moderators see problems that are otherwise invisible to them.

2) Keep in mind that you really can't control other people -- you can only control yourself.  So do your best to set a good example and others will rise to your level. 

3) If someone persistently gets on your nerves, use that Ignore list.  That's what it's there for.  On a forum this size there's no way everyone can get along with absolutely everyone else.  

4) "Troll" is never a good word to throw around, even if you are pretty sure it's true.  Give the poster the benefit of the doubt.  

5) Past practice (and I believe present practice) is to close threads that are heading south; but you're right, it does kind of punish everyone who was involved in the thread, not just the one or two people who took it down.  I know the mods try to keep their eyes open for purposeful thread-killing and do their best to delete individual posts rather than whole threads if it can be done.  It's a tough balancing act.  

As to the question "Why" ... I would say it's because people ascribe motivations to the behaviors/words of others, and then make value judgements on those motivations.  Example:  "You run a low-magic game because you're not a very good DM; and bad DMs should not be in the hobby."  Instead of assuming -- much better to ask for clarification.  But only if  you want to risk seeing the other person's point of view!


----------



## big dummy

frankthedm said:
			
		

> 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. :\




Thats the way I see it as well.

BD


----------



## big dummy

rounser said:
			
		

> It's all relative, but I think techno production has RPGs beat in those terms.  The interesting thing is that, like here perhaps, those who are actually using the tools the most - and being productive - are the quietest.  It's exam season for me, so that's my excuse.




Ok, youve convinced me.  I'm going to stay the hell away from techno production forums!!!

BD


----------



## big dummy

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Unless you're using an alt and are a regular here, you really haven't been here long enough to know if the boards in general are that bad.




I've been coming here on and off for about 7 years.  Used to be a supporter.  I lost my account passwords and stuff after Katrina, and then again after the recent system crash.



> It really depends on how one approaches a topic, as Piratecat said.




Ok so can you remember some fairly recent threads on reforming D&D in any way that did not get really nasty and / or derailed?  I was just involved in starting a thread which wasn't even really about D&D reform, so much as simply making an official setting or sourcebook in D&D for what I admitted up front was a minority (about 25% based on numerous polls) of people who prefer playing in Lower magic.  I was told D&D can't be played lower magic, and both I and several regulars who took my position were repeatedly personally attacked and the thread was totally derailed into bogus side tracks and then closed.

I usually go months and months without posting here (such as between Katrina and my latest restart) but always check in to look for new developments.  inevitably if I notice a D&D reform thread, no matter how tactfully broached, it ends up horribly vile and nasty.  It doesn't seem to matter if it's one of those dumb "my hat of d02 knows no limits!11!!" type posts or a very reasonable discussion or poll brought up by some polite forum regular, it always ends up the same way with the same people shouting it down.

In fact when I posted my own little quasi-reform thread, I thought it wasn't going to be contraversial at all.  At best unpopular with some people, I thought the rest of us who liked the idea would be able to discuss it and develop it a bit.  We didn't get half a chance.

BD


----------



## Nonlethal Force

Piratecat said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> I think of EN World as a party at Morrus' house. I won't pick a fight with someone when we're both guests, so I won't pick a fight with other posters; I may disagree with someone, but that's as far as it goes. The rules of conduct in polite society still stand, so no matter what I may think of someone personally I can still share the space with them.
> 
> Some people, though, forget that they're a guest in someone else's house. They treat EN World as if everyone else is a guest in _their_ house -- and that way lies madness.






			
				iwatt said:
			
		

> - Generalize
> - Post an opinion in the form of a factual statement
> - Add qualifiers to a segment of the ENWorld population like "venomous", "vicious", and describe their attitude as "swooping down", which is usually associated with birsd of prey.




Above two items are quoted for truth.  

There is a general rule in a fight: the one who retaliates is more likely to get caught.  Why?  Because typically it takes a second to realize that the gauntlet has been thrown down by someone else.

I've found that in general when an angry post hits the board there is a post before it that evoked the angry post.  Sometimes that chain goes all the way back to the OP and the way the subject was phrased.

In general, if you want a war - state your opinion in a manner that exalts your opinion and puts another opinion down.  That brings a war quicker than anything else.  But, if you want to have a profitable discussion state your opinion in a way that demonstrates you have your own ideas but are open to other interpretations.

People respect when their ideas are valued.  I will respect a person that I totally disagree with yet who can respect our ability to disagree far more than a person who agrees with me but insults others.


----------



## Hairfoot

What often happens to me is that I'll state a preference, and others will perceive it as a claim that my way is the best and any other opinion is rubbish.  So, I try to explain my position as clearly as possible, which often begets the ugliest of responses: my OP quoted and trashed line by line.

The anger is also because roleplaying everywhere is not equal.  Some people have a wide experience of styles and games, others inhabit a monoculture with unchallenged axioms.

We make a big investment in the games we play.  We spend money and time, manage relationships, make sacrifices, and through frustrating trial and error we all try to determine how to get the very best from RP games.

Given the investment, it rankles to hear someone suggest that they play very differently, and have a better time because of it.  In those situations, the temptation is to shout the poster down so we don't have to hear them challenge our orthodoxy, rather than consider it on merit and face the task of shifting our group's paradigm in an an experiment which may prove fruitless.

For example, I've bought a heap of FR books over the years.  I've familiarised myself with setting, the history, the locations.  I've tinkered with it round the edges and negotiated consesus with my group about the way we like to portray Faerun.

Thus, when Eberron came out and people began lauding a novel, progressive setting, my first reaction was to shut my eyes and criticise Eberron-philes for their love of a shallow, kitschy setting.  I didn't want to think that the campaign setting I'd poured so much energy into might have been superseded, forcing me to start at square 1 if I wanted to get the most out of D&D.

Over time, I've grown to like Eberron, played a short campaign there, but concluded that it doesn't suit the style of game I most enjoy.  I'm happy with that.

Pre-crash I posted my "conversion" on the forum, expecting at least some open minded debate about the pros and cons of magicpunk vs high-fantasy opera.  Instead, I was trashed from all sides.  Eberron people were outraged that I hadn't embraced the setting and renounced FR forever, while Realmsers branded me a sell-out.

Despite my intentions, the thread brought us no closer to understanding the universal qualities of a "good" campaign.  It just cemented resentment and knee-jerk opposition.

Ego, comfort, fear of the new.  It's not so strange.  The only difference is that on the internet we feel freer to be aggressive because we don't have to deal with each other face to face.


----------



## big dummy

iwatt said:
			
		

> See, right here in your first sentence you've already included enough fuel to start a flame-war.  I'm not trying to be rude, but in this one line you:
> 
> - Generalize
> - Post an opinion in the form of a factual statement
> - Add qualifiers to a segment of the ENWorld population like "venomous", "vicious", and describe their attitude as "swooping down", which is usually associated with birsd of prey.
> 
> Any one of these points will cause irritation on many board members. When you include all
> .




And yet, a whole bunch of people seemed to imemdiately recognize that there is indeed a problem and knew exactly what I was talking about.  Do you have to mince around and phrase everything like a lawyer?  The way I stated that may have been blunt but everyone knows it's true.  Can enworld "handle the truth?"

If it's a contraversial idea I'll qualify it, but really, there is a limit for the sake of bandwidth alone on how many qualifiers you can use, for one thing, and for another, I've seen too many threads where more experienced forum regulars made reform statements as gently as humanly possible and still got exactly the same reaction.

BD


----------



## big dummy

Andre said:
			
		

> Of course, this is no different than the real world. How many times have you been in a meeting, trying to convince the powers that be, and the person no one likes speaks up...to support your idea.    The kiss of death!
> 
> Seriously, there are a few individuals who have regularly crossed the line in being rude, intolerant, ignorant, whatever, that I tune out whatever they say. But I see this happening to too many posters who either don't belong to the right clique, or have a few die-hard haters who seem to enjoy raining on their parade. It gets old fast.
> 
> 5. We're all opinionated jerks!!!! Ok, just kidding. (Really) But think about it: why post on a board unless you believe you have something important or original or thought-provoking or profound or funny or...to say. We're all a bit like authors, whom Asimov called the most egotistical people in the world because they actually expect people to pay to read what they have to say. I've dramatically reduced the amount I post just by reminding myself that most of what I have to say doesn't add much (if anything) to the conversation. I just wish a few others would follow that example...
> 
> And in reference to point 5 above, I hope my post wasn't a complete waste of everyone's time...




Not at all, I think that was wisely written.

BD


----------



## JustaPlayer

Me?  I think that if you ask questions of people, I don't know, such as should such and such a good idea.  It's not a good idea to tell the first person who responds and says no then trys to point you in a direction it sound like you want to go, to just go take a swim.  

Lets face it.  That thread was pretty much doomed from post 3.


----------



## James Heard

I participate in politics and religion forums. So I decided to write some of my general recommendations and reminders on how to particpate when people might rip out your throat for misstepping. It's an art:

1. Write the initial volley of your absolutely correct opinion in the most professionally neutral tone that you can muster. You may fail, expect to be called on it. Don't assume that people know what you're talking about, so include as much information as you can fit into the post without feeling like a blowhard. 

2. When you disagree with someone, don't tell them that you disagree. Ask them why they hold such an opinion, then ask them to explain that opinion some more, and then again at least once. If you understand why people disagree with you, you're better equipped to tell them why they're wrong or at least cognizant of the concept that sometimes nothing you can say will change someone's mind. You also, in this stage, sometimes learn things that change _you_ mind, because you can be wrong too. If you're wrong, tell everyone you're wrong.  A willingness to be wrong is critical in everyone accepting that you're right all of the rest of the times your mouth opens.

3. Disassemble their opinions for logical inconsistency. Pool resources from well spoken allies. Use references to respected websites that support your position whenever possible. Do not use adjectives except very clearly in statements such as "In my opinion" or "As I see it". Use short sentences to promote a slightly aggressive tone.

4. Reply to escalating tone with respectful one. Admit credible points existing in the other poster's replies. Repeat dissassembly of opposing viewpoint's opinion. Introduce new knowledge that may or may not be related to the discussion at hand, but seems to. Repeat any opinions, this might be a good time to use underlining, bolding, or italics to show the other posters that you recognize your own opinion even if they don't validate your own. This is the time you break out definitions, reference material, and enterprising posters use math. Even if your math is wrong, people will respect you for trying to do math. Math is good.

5. Never whine, seem defensive, or say anything to the order of "But you don't understand" or "Since you don't seem to get what I'm saying" Expect to fail. I've been on forums in one way or another since the mid 80s and I still freak out and do this wrong once in a blue moon. Once someone can't comprehend you, you've won. Bask in internet victory, don't try to beat them over the head with their misunderstanding you by getting frustrated with their lack of reading comprehension. 

Sometimes it is acceptable to to edit your contentious post though: if you're telling everyone how much you want to have elf babies and they're thinking you hate elves and can't wait for 4e, then you should probably work on things offline & with a spellchecker before posting anyways.

6. Wait for "I don't see where this thread is going", your other posters to call someone or you a poopy-head, or "We'll just have to agree to disagree." Any of those answers means you've won. Go eat a cookie. Every once in a blue moon, someone else will tell you that you are right. This is proven to give all people on the internet chest hairs and bragging rights in the afterlife of your choice.

7. When all else fails. Make a cute joke, or better yet an in-joke. Never make a joke you think is funny that isn't though, so know your audience. A badly received joke is the worst of all possible things to do on the internet besides post pictures of your genitals and a note "What do you all think of this?"

Note: All stages and recommendations above work for just about any other less volatile communication, except you laugh more and actually respect the opinions of the other people posting. Except if you don't win, don't eat a cookie - They make you fat.

I think I'll restate something from 7 though: Know your audience. If you think that some idea won't be well received somewhere for some reason, it's probably not a good idea to try it out in the first place unless you've got the thickest of skins. It's always easier to start with an idea that everyone agrees with and to gentle move them over to correct and right ways of thinking than bolding your ideas that you know/feel/heard in the bathroom that everyone disagrees with in the first place. Unless you're a popular political figure that's universally adored and loved by millions you're unlikely to carry the weighty charisma to pull it off.

This is especially important in regards to the first post in _this_ thread: If you think that ENWorld harbors lingering resistance to a certain idea in the first place then it's probably not the best idea to challenge the status quo right from the get-go. That might not seem "right", but it's just common sense. It's why almost every netiquette book ever praises lurking, and why most people don't bring up their religious and political views with strangers they've just met. If you don't know how something will be received or know something will be received badly then you're engaging a brutal and uphill battle almost always from the start because people _hate_ to be wrong - and sometimes they're right.

Above all, don't write up a bunch of garbage like this on a whim and then sit paralyzed for some long minutes about whether or not to post it. Usually if you're polite and respectful, or make jokes about cookies, no one will complain. And if they do, it's only the internet and there are probably a hundred things any one of us should be doing besides wasting our time here.


----------



## big dummy

James Heard said:
			
		

> I participate in politics and religion forums. So I decided to write some of my general recommendations and reminders on how to particpate when people might rip out your throat for misstepping. It's an art:




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


----------



## Andor

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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




The problem is the word reform, which is a loaded, dangerous word. Simply by using it you are stating that the existing situation is flawed and does not accomplishing what it's supposed to do. Something is in error. Something is broken and must be fixed. 

RPGs are games. They exist in the main to provide fun. If people are having fun with it then it does not need any reform, for them. It may well for you, but it is an opinion, not a fact that reform will cause the game to provide more fun. Furthermore most of us have been through enough new editions to have seen a least one excellent campaign get ripped apart by new rules in the name of 'reform'. When you tell some people a game needs reform it is the same as telling them that their way of having fun is wrong, and yours is right. And no matter how vindicated or in the majority you may feel, you are not discussing facts, just opinions. To walk onto a gaming site and discuss the obvious need for reform is about as polite and non-confrontational as going onto a maternity site and asking why everybody else's babies are so ugly.


----------



## Balgus

The web has always offered a certain degree of anonymity, although many of the more senior members do know each other on a personal level.  

Because of this, a lot of people don't seem to care about etiquette and manners, common courtesy, and just how to be a nice person.  

And rules of letter writing (i know, in this day and age, who knows how to write a letter anymore) still applies.  Never write when you are emotional.  If you do, write two, and throw away the first one.  

*Personal Note*
I sent my GF a couple letters (not emails- the real one with stamp and envelope) for the first time last year. We have been dating for 5+ years.  You should have seen how happy she was just to receive a letter from me.  Go figure...


----------



## big dummy

Andor said:
			
		

> The problem is the word reform, which is a loaded, dangerous word. Simply by using it you are stating that the existing situation is flawed and does not accomplishing what it's supposed to do. Something is in error. Something is broken and must be fixed.
> 
> RPGs are games. They exist in the main to provide fun. If people are having fun with it then it does not need any reform, for them. It may well for you, but it is an opinion, not a fact that reform will cause the game to provide more fun. Furthermore most of us have been through enough new editions to have seen a least one excellent campaign get ripped apart by new rules in the name of 'reform'. When you tell some people a game needs reform it is the same as telling them that their way of having fun is wrong, and yours is right. And no matter how vindicated or in the majority you may feel, you are not discussing facts, just opinions. To walk onto a gaming site and discuss the obvious need for reform is about as polite and non-confrontational as going onto a maternity site and asking why everybody else's babies are so ugly.




"Reform" was the most diplomatic term I could come up with.

I understand why people might be resistant for various reasons, but to rationalize a total prohibition on the very idea of reforming anything in the game seems rather amazing to me.  The game IS going to evolve, shouldn't we at least be able to discuss how?  (Or even, as I did, discuss some slightly less than mainstream ways of playing the game?)

To use your analogy, what I would see is that it would be like going into the baby ward in 1920 and discussing the possibility of a polio vaccine, or the possibility of using disposable instead of cloth diapers and having everyone shout you down!

BD


----------



## rounser

> I understand why people might be resistant for various reasons, but to rationalize a total prohibition on the very idea of reforming anything in the game seems rather amazing to me.



Because it challenges the way people already do things.  People are sensitive to the idea that the way we do things isn't the best way, because we've/they've already invested a lot of time and effort in the way things already are.  To accept that there might be a better way puts into question the investment we've/they've already made, to an extent.  Now, sometimes I think the "don't change" crew are right, and that the old ways are best - conservatives are a political force wherever you go, and in some arenas I have no doubt you're one of them.  I know I am.  Some changes people asked for are smokescreens for other issues, or a case of people not knowing what's good for them (haha), or simply change for change's sake, or lead to needless complication....whatever.

To put things in perspective that this is in no way unique to RPGs or ENWorld, on another forum, someone's asking for a better sampler (a dance music production instrument) and asking why they're not as fully featured as synthesizers and sequencers, and that there must be a better way to meet their needs.  A lot of people are chiming in to say that things are fine as they are, and that they don't need the new features, or that they're better off in another piece of software called an audio editor etc.  I agree with the guy asking for change, and think samplers are underfeatured for no good reason other than tradition (and as a result I've had to make my own workarounds because the market doesn't provide what I want).  Same thing, really.


----------



## Andor

big dummy said:
			
		

> "Reform" was the most diplomatic term I could come up with.
> 
> I understand why people might be resistant for various reasons, but to rationalize a total prohibition on the very idea of reforming anything in the game seems rather amazing to me.  The game IS going to evolve, shouldn't we at least be able to discuss how?  (Or even, as I did, discuss some slightly less than mainstream ways of playing the game?)
> 
> To use your analogy, what I would see is that it would be like going into the baby ward in 1920 and discussing the possibility of a polio vaccine, or the possibility of using disposable instead of cloth diapers and having everyone shout you down!
> 
> BD




It can be discussed. There have been dozens if not hundreds of threads on that very topic on these boards. That's part of the problem, most of the people who like calm rational discussion on topic have been there, done that, and no longer pay attention to such threads. Most 4e threads these days are tounge-in-cheek trolls. I only skimmed the other thread but I don't think you very clearly communicated what you meant by 'low magic campaign' until it was far too late to save the thread. It is a very broad term, and since you had a specific, narrow definition in mind as the topic of discussion you should have provided that definition in your first post. When I want to write a post that detailed I usually work on it at length in a wordprocessor then paste it onto the board. That technique lets you stop and the reread and edit at a later time even before you post which can save you a lot of confusion. 

And no matter how bad the flaws in the game, or how obviously beneficial the vaccine, some people _will not_ want to change anything. There are people today in this country who refuse to let their children be vaccinated. There are people who don't use disposable diapers. There are people who think D&D is the tool of the devil.


----------



## Piratecat

frankthedm said:
			
		

> 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. :\



It's worth mentioning that we have recently been more likely to order certain posters out of a thread if it still looks salvageable. That doesn't always work, though, and there's a certain balance to thread value vs. required vigilance that may still result in a thread being closed. 

We try to treat people equally, but posters who continually cause problems are a lot less likely to get the benefit of the doubt. We don't have a secret "we let these people get away with stuff" list. But we're human too. My own biggest rule has been not to moderate when angry at someone, because I'll occasionally overreact just because I'm irritated. I'm one of those people who takes a lot to wind up, and who then stays mad for some time -- so when I'm getting that way, I tend to walk away from the keyboard for a while and reevaluate my post when I return.


----------



## Nightfall

Just to be clear, I am a loud angry, angst driven d20 Scarred Lands Sage and I got this tattoo to piss off everyone!


----------



## Umbran

A moderator's opinion on why things are so angry - some people have not learned when to walk away, or when to leave well enough alone.  

I have repeatedly seen the refrain "But I didn't break any rules!"  And the speaker is usually entirely correct.  That doesn't make continuing to argue wise, good for themselves, their point, or the boards as a whole.  There is a fine art to choosing one's battles - applying that better part of valor known as discretion.


----------



## Felix

> And yet, a whole bunch of people seemed to imemdiately recognize that there is indeed a problem and knew exactly what I was talking about.



People do indeed notice when posters are agressive and push their agenda; everyone does this to some extent: were the agenda to stick to gaming I don't think there would be that much of a problem.



> Do you have to mince around and phrase everything like a lawyer?



But then you run into _ad hominem_ arguments...



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



And begging the question statements...



> Can enworld "handle the truth?"



Prejudicial language...



> If thats what y'all like here, so be it.



Associating qualities of the part with the whole...

And other naughty things as you can well imagine. Add to that the tendency for folks to remember how you post (I regard iwatt as well spoken and polite, and so will give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to him potentially being rude; I will not do this with other posters) and you will find ENWorld can be as rude, or as polite, as you yourself are, with allowances for the odd do-gooder and internet villain.

Frankly I have always found ENWorld to be a wonderful forum, where problems arise only when the start of a thread asserts one opinion to be fact (_Jiffy shouldn't sell creamy peanut butter, it's not as good as crunchy_), or when an otherwise tame assertion (_I would like the Bard to be more powerful_) is presented in an unappealing way.

As for why you haven't seen threads begin politely and responded to politely go on for 8 pages and then get locked is because those threads drop off the first page before they reach a post count of 40. 

"I think A is cool." 
"Neat. A is cool." 
"I don't like A as much as B." 
"That's cool man, rock on with B."

It just isn't that interesting and those threads don't survive long. You've an adverse selection problem; you most often see threads that survive, and those threads that survive generally have some conflict within them due to something or other, and don't evince a "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they're all equally valid" tone.

---

EDIT:

Since I've already used posts in this thread, I figure I'll do something with the opening line:

"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?"

Translated to:

Why is "_if A then B_" true?

It's hard for me to respond to this question because answering with my opinion wouldn't actually answer the question: I don't beleive that "_If A then B_" is true; I can't tell you why it's true. I would argue, "It's actually '_If C or D then B_'", and that kind of start isn't healthy for a thread.

A better edit is:

Is it the case that "_If A then B_"? Why or why not?

It might seem to be hair-splitting, but I do believe it does make a difference. My proposed edit at least allows the possibility of my opinion being wrong, and that allowance can go a long way with people.

/EDIT


----------



## BlueBlackRed

_On these boards, you get what you give._

- Don't start a thread and expect everyone to agree with you, it's not going to happen. That would be boring.
- When someone disagrees with you, don't get offended, even after you've offered a counter-argument. Sometimes you have to just agree to disagree. There's not always a right or wrong.

Those who show up to these boards with the intent of starting a fire tend to get burned themselves. They then stop frequenting ENWorld while claiming it to be elitist and cliquish when I just see it as civility.


----------



## rounser

> It just isn't that interesting and those threads don't survive long. You've an adverse selection problem; you most often see threads that survive, and those threads that survive generally have some conflict within them due to something or other, and don't evince a "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they're all equally valid" tone.



So....some of the best threads die quickly because everyone's in agreement?  That makes messageboards a bit like current affairs shows - without drama and conflict, there's no story.

It's ironic that the well-thought-out posts that everyone agrees with tend to kill threads.


----------



## Nightfall

Well thought writing doesn't kill threads. I do!


----------



## BSF

Piratecat said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> I think of EN World as a party at Morrus' house. I won't pick a fight with someone when we're both guests, so I won't pick a fight with other posters; I may disagree with someone, but that's as far as it goes. The rules of conduct in polite society still stand, so no matter what I may think of someone personally I can still share the space with them.
> 
> Some people, though, forget that they're a guest in someone else's house. They treat EN World as if everyone else is a guest in _their_ house -- and that way lies madness.




I've got to agree with Piratecat here.  Part of the problem with intractability lies in presentation.  Oftentimes the original post sets the tone for the thread, but it is also possible for the tone (as well as topic) to be derailed further into a thread.  Consider the following statements.

_I have a player that is playing a dwarf PC and seems to be overpowered compared to the rest of the group.  It seems that the special abilities of the dwarf are unbalanced._

Contrast this with:
_The dwarf PC in the group is too powerful.  What were the designers thinking when they created the race?_

Or even worse: 
_Dwarves are obviously unbalanced and the designers were smoking crack when they wrote the race up.  Only an idiot would allow a player to play a dwarf._

All three are legitimate *opinions*.  But the first statement is more likely to encourage a constructive conversation on the issues.  The second statement might end up with a constructive conversation.  The third statement is going to aggravate all the dwarf loving players and quickly degenerate into flames.  

So be thoughtful with the tone you are setting with your posts, especially if you are starting a thread!  

A second issue is when people are unwilling to let a fire burn itself out.  It takes more than one person to continue an argument or a flamefest.  Sometimes the best response is not to take the bait.  When you see somebody post something obviously inflamatory, ignore it.  Report the post if it is clearly a problem post.  

There is also the issue of not being able to read the tone the poster intended accurately.  Most of us don't personally know everyone else on the board.  It is possible to misread the tone for several reasons.  One might be that the person has a different sense of humor than you do.  Another might be a regional difference in word usage.  Perhaps the poster is even posting in a non-native language.  Perhaps the poster was in a rush, or having a rough day and was more terse than he meant to be.  Perhaps you are having a bad day and you are more likely to misread somebody else's intent.  Over time, as you become familiar with specific members of the board, you will be able to read tone better.  Just as you learn somebody better in real life, you will learn how to read people better in the virtual world.  

My experience with EN World is that the overall community and tone is helpful.  I like a good many folks here on the boards and I look forward to meeting them in person someday.  There are problem posts/threads and those need to be addressed.  As a community member, feel free to report a post.  There are a lot of threads here and moderators sometimes need help to identify the inflamatory messages.   I try to maintain a set of rules or presumptions here on EN World so that I don't get too bugged by other people and try to avoid being a problem myself.


Try to be thoughtful when posting.  If I want to maintain a good discussion, I need to be clear and I need to try to bring something to the conversation.
Avoid the fires.  If somebody appears to be looking for an arguement, I don't need to give it to them.
Be responsible.  If I can help eliminate a problem, it isn't that hard to report a post I think might be problematic.
Assume the best of my fellow posters.  I try not to assume that anybody else meant to anger me.  It doesn't cost me anything to assume I misread a post, or that the poster worded something in an unintentionally abrasive manner.  But if I assume the other guy is a jerk and was trying to make me mad, it might cost me an opportunity to make a friend.  
Show wisdom rather than post.  If every post I read seems to have a negative tone to it, the problem is likely me.  Maybe I need to logoff.  EN World will be here tomorrow and I won't be in a pissy mood then.


----------



## Nightfall

Conventional wisdom says "Anything that is posted in En World, will eventually have Nightfall talking about the Scarred Lands. At some point."


----------



## Felix

rounser said:
			
		

> So....some of the best threads die quickly because everyone's in agreement?



I didn't say that the super polite threads were necessarily the best. 

They're just less likely to attract opinionated posts, less likely to have an interesting contention, and much less likely to have mods bumping the things by asking posters to calm down.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead

I feel irrational anger* when people disagree with me.
I feel irrational anger if someone implies my gaming style is worse, or that they're more capable. ("Well, that system worked fine for _my_ group..."
I feel irrational anger if someone ignores my posts.

I don't really know why.

* Nothing as serious as wanting to throw my computer monitor thorugh a window


----------



## Nightfall

PSH,

Maybe it's that migrane you get each time you try to think...  *is kidding*

Besides who would ignore you. Uhm who are you again?


----------



## Hussar

big dummy said:
			
		

> "Reform" was the most diplomatic term I could come up with.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> To use your analogy, what I would see is that it would be like going into the baby ward in 1920 and discussing the possibility of a polio vaccine, or the possibility of using disposable instead of cloth diapers and having everyone shout you down!
> 
> BD




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.


----------



## BSF

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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




See the problem here is that I don't agree with your assertion on a wholesale level.  I have had several discussions on the relative merits of system changes.  However, I readily admit that some threads rapidly degenerate into flames.  

On the topic of 4E specifically, there are quite a few pain points in the discussion.  One issue is a perception of value.  For many of us, 4E wouldn't bring any value to our games at this time.  Indeed, it might detract value.  You can parse through the threads to see specific grievances.  But those pain points make 4E an emotional topic.  Yes, clearly the game will evolve.  In some ways that evolution might be an improvement.  In other ways, it might not.  

But I do believe it is possible to discuss changes to the core system in a constructive manner.  But much depends on your presentation and goals.  I missed the thread you are referencing, so I cannot provide specific advice on how you might phrase something differently.


----------



## Nightfall

*hums Last Caress* Yeah well it happens Hussar. Some people see dead babies. Other people see living ones. Course I'm no Haley Joel Osment, but there you are.


----------



## Nightfall

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> But I do believe it is possible to discuss changes to the core system in a constructive manner.  But much depends on your presentation and goals.  I missed the thread you are referencing, so I cannot provide specific advice on how you might phrase something differently.




Uhm using the words please and thank you works okay with me.  That and a good sense of humor.


----------



## 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

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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

Piratecat said:
			
		

> 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

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> 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

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> 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

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## big dummy

Gundark said:
			
		

> 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.




I've had the same thing happen, right before the forum crash.

BD


----------



## Graf

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.


----------



## Hussar

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> BD




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.

The second you state your opinion in such a way, it becomes an attack.  Whether you intended it to be an attack or not, that is how it will be perceived.  There are any number of ways to introduce an idea and some are better than others.

When you make the statement that you are saving babies with your ideas and anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of letting babies die, then that is not "baldly stating", it's flamebait.


----------



## Nightfall

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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.




Hey I liked deities tied to alignment. They make it easy to enjoy. Besides just cause the Titans aren't around doesn't mean they can't come back and help change things around.

But sure, I'll kill off the elves. 

And no I'm just trying to get the number #2 spot in all time posting. Catching Crothy, I figure is something I'll never quite make.

Graf,

So you're saying I'm socially immature?!  Thanks man. Next time you want an SL present I'll save it for myself.


----------



## Aikuchi

oer, 

Most of my home-brewed campaigns have the elves, readicated, wiped out, extinct, hunted or otherwise something similar. Thats doesnt stop nor deter half my players though, in fact- in some cases, it endears thems to play it much more. --- sigh --- 

I would look forward to official high fantasy material where elves (or elf-like- there are many) are not integrated into the system as playable


----------



## Nightfall

Aik,

Well this is where I'd get them to try Ratmen/Slitheren or Assatthi instead.


----------



## William Ronald

I have seen some examples of threads getting out of hand, and examples of passive aggressiveness on the boards. However, I find most threads to be fairly civil.  (Mind you, I do agree with reporting offensive posts.)

One thing that I find beneficial is to consider that my views are based on my own experiences, and other people may have vastly different experiences.  In the case of rules, some people may see an aspect of a game as a flaw and others as one of the games strengths.  With this in mind, I try to base my arguments on facts, wand recognize that there are many possible interpretations.  For example, some people love one set of rules, or a specific setting.  Others do not.  However, when I see a thread on one of those settings or other topics, I try to participate in a respectful manner.   Regardless of our differences on the board, I think we all want to be treated with respect.  In fact, I think most of the disagreements on the boards come about when someone perceives that another poster has been disrespectful -- whether or not that was the person's intention.

 I try to recognize that people on the boards can be passionate.  Sometimes, our passions can get in the way of our seeing the strengths and weaknesses in someone's arguments.  I also believe in trying to give others the benefit of the doubt.  

I think that the board benefits by having a diversity of opinions, and I have seen some great threads where people have differed strongly in their views or personal preferences yet treat each other respectfully.  I think that we do have a lot to learn from each other.  My general advice is to realize that not everyone will share your experiences or views, but that they deserve your respect as a fellow board member and a human being.

I think that most people on the boards want to have fun in their discussions and learn a lot from how other people have fun in their own games.  While not everyone will like the same things, I think that this board benefits greatly from its diversity of tastes and opinions.  So, I would suggest that we have to remember that sometimes our truths are a matter of perspective rather than absolute facts.  In which case, I think that the best attitude to have is "I may disagree with you, but I respect you.  I hope that you are having as much fun in your games as I am having in mine."


----------



## Nightfall

Will,

Speak for yourself. I want Converts!  *is slightly teasing* Well mostly converts but good insights are nice too.


----------



## Elf Witch

First of all it is not just RPG boards. Go onto almost any Battlestar Galatica board and make a comment about the differences between the old show and the new show then sit back and watch the thread explode.

I think part of it is the nature of boards people can't see facial expressions or hear tone of voice so it is very easy to misunderstand what the person is trying to say.

There will also be people who just have to win to show how smart they think they are who go into debate mode so no matter you say they will pick it a part and it goes on and on while the first person keeps trying to explain and the debate person justs keeps looking for ammunation to use against that person. I have been drawn into this cycle before and I have found that the best way to stop it is to finally say that's enough and quit answering.

We are also human and we have buttons that get pushed and sometimes we respond negatively because of said buttons. I have to watch myself over topics that use the word balanced and sub optimal build. 

I also think that it is part of human nature to feel just a little invalidated when someone critizes something we like. And sometimes we respond to that and answer hotly.

And I hate to say this put there will always be nasty people who feel that it is okay to crap all over someone else and these people seem to find the internet a good place to do it.


----------



## Nightfall

*craps all over elves* Hey Hussar told me I could!  Just saying...


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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

Graf said:
			
		

> 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

frankthedm said:
			
		

> 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

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?".



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Nightfall

Balgus said:
			
		

> What I learned: Nightfall like Scarred Lands




And you're just now figuring this out? 

Ny,

Maybe we just need to take valium or something...


----------



## Nyaricus

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Ny,
> 
> Maybe we just need to take valium or something...



I am taking a great offense to this, and reporting your post.

And I'm gong to call you a poopey-ahed and state that the Scarred Lands sux0r major balls.


----------



## Terwox

EN World is by far one of the friendliest forums I've seen, although in the past year or two it's been less friendly than it used to be

Have you played World of Warcraft?

Here's a link to their general forum:  http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/board.aspx?fn=wow-general

There, that's a garbage forum full of vitrol and ridiculous wrath.

Eh, I have more to say but I don't know how to say it in a helpful way, so I'm leaving it alone.


----------



## hong

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> I am taking a great offense to this, and reporting your post.
> 
> And I'm gong to call you a poopey-ahed and state that the Scarred Lands sux0r major balls.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/348932.stm


----------



## ThirdWizard

*walks away... just... walks away* o_o;;

EDIT: I couldn't walk away. I know, I know, I have no willpower.

I have to say this. big dummy, you have come off as very dismissive toward those who disagree with your stance. If you are wondering why some have turned adversarial toward you, it is that dismissive attitude. People don't like it when they say something and are brushed off, especially in a context that is supposed to be conductive to discussion (a message board).

Personally, my experiences with the board have great. I can be somewhat abrasive at times, and I know this, but overall, there isn't any topic that can't be talked about in a civil mannar assuming people know how to word their posts.

For example, if I want to talk about changing D&D, it is probably best first of all to do so from the House Rule forums if its anything specific. Otherwise, you're probably better off not talking about D&D, but RPGs in general and what does what well. Don't be surprised if you talk about turning D&D into a space travel game where you are a trader and others tell you that Traveller is just what you're looking for.

And, remember, if you start a thread with a question showing that you have a viewpoint but you would like to hear other, equally valid, viewpoints as well for comparison, you'll get a lot less hostility than if you start a thread without first making sure others' thoughts on the subject (or taking into account that others might have very different oppinions). 

Some subjects just must be broached more delecately than others. This is partially because regular posters have seen things come up again and again and know the drill. Certain posters even have longstanding debates with other certain posters that arise whenever a topic comes up. People can see an [insert topic here] post and jump immediately to where the last one left off!

You seem like someone who doesn't approach these things delecately (as you pointed out earlier). If you don't diplomatically approach what you know is a hot topic, though, then you can't really blame people for not being delecate in their opposition to your oppinions, though, can you?


----------



## Maggan

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?




I sometimes feel like that myself, but it is not limited to D&D, nor is it limited to RPGs. I see that a lot when it comes to discussions about Apple Computer and their Macintosh and iPod products. Very similar behaviour.

So I started thinking, "why does everyone have to be so rude to each other", and then WHAM! it hit me ...

... I'm drawn to controversial threads.

There are scores and scores of constructive threads here and on the internet in general. A lot of civil discussion, creative exchange of ideas and interest in the views of other people.

Boooooring.   

So I'm drawn to the flame wars. I occasionally reply, fanning the flames or soothing hurt feelings. And of course, if all I read is flame wars on General, and not any of the fantastic story hours, or constrictive rules discussions in the rules section, or any of the threads on the other forums ... then my impression will always be that EN World is vicious. And the internet is spiteful and mean.

I get what I read, more or less. So I've decided to not read or reply to heated discussions, and instead to find the gems that makes me think "wow! I'm using this!".

/M


----------



## Hussar

big dummy said:
			
		

> "Reform" was the most diplomatic term I could come up with.
> 
> I understand why people might be resistant for various reasons, but to rationalize a total prohibition on the very idea of reforming anything in the game seems rather amazing to me.  The game IS going to evolve, shouldn't we at least be able to discuss how?  (Or even, as I did, discuss some slightly less than mainstream ways of playing the game?)
> 
> *To use your analogy, what I would see is that it would be like going into the baby ward in 1920 and discussing the possibility of a polio vaccine, or the possibility of using disposable instead of cloth diapers and having everyone shout you down!*
> 
> BD




There, I quoted it a second time and even bolded the bit.  BD, did you not state this?  I believe that you did, unless someone is using your account.  In this statement you are saying that your opinion is the equivalent of saving babies from horrible diseases (the possibility of a polio vaccine) and anyone who disagrees with you is "shouting you down".  

I am not twisting words, nor am I taking things out of context.  This is exactly what you are saying.  Your opinons are equated with saving babies and anyone who disagrees with you is advocating letting babies die.

You can report me, and that is most certainly your right.  However, I am not the only person here to point out the problems with your choice of words.  Granted, others may be a fair bit more polite than I am.  That's fine.  But, when you toss around ad hominem attacks, why are you shocked that people so vocally oppose you?


----------



## The_Gneech

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.




Dude. Seriously. The baby allegory was the kind of thing that was very clearly _implied_ by your vaccines post. Being disingenuous about "who made the comment" will not get you off the hook.

-The Gneech


----------



## The_Gneech

Oh, and all you elf-haters -- bigotry is an ugly thing! ;P

-The Gneech


----------



## Aikuchi

It is, isnt it. 

Must be my racial -2 Cha in my orc-blood. 

My apologies (why doesn;t this have a devil face icon!)


----------



## EricNoah

The 4E subject may be touchy for two reasons:

1) Some of us 3E folks were probably just like the 4E folks back in the day of 2E.  This role-reversal is uncomfortable for those who don't have much intention (at least now) of following D&D to its 4th edition.  The irony that I probably will be a 3E grognard and that someone else will be the "4th Edition News" guy while I stubbornly stay put is not lost on me. 

2) A perceived fracturing of the community.  It is inevitable.  Once that 4th ed appears ... there will be those of us who stay and those who go.  It's not even clear where this website will choose to go -- will it try to "have it all" and cater to both editions?  Will the mods again have to quash edition wars to keep the peace?  Few people are looking forward to that day. 

The 4E-related emotion is not about the game and its rules per se.  It's about this community, and about inaccurately ascribed motivations (as I discussed before -- i.e., if you like to speculate on 4E ,you must hate 3E right? And if I like 3E, then you must hate me, right? and on and on...)


----------



## DaveMage

hong said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/348932.stm


----------



## Mark Chance

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?




I'm never angry when discussing D&D! If you say I am again, I'll make an ashtray out of your skull!


----------



## Henry

EricNoah said:
			
		

> The 4E subject may be touchy for two reasons:
> 
> 1) Some of us 3E folks were probably just like the 1E folks back in the day of 2E.  This role-reversal is uncomfortable for those who don't have much intention (at least now) of following D&D to its 4th edition...
> 
> 2) A perceived fracturing of the community...




Another reason: A lot of people have heavily invested in material for 3E, both WotC and 3rd party publishers; rightly or wrongly, they don't want a radically different system that is so far off that their previous material is largely invalid, much as what happened in 2e/3e. This kind of feeds back into point #2, but it's a large enough chunk of people to be a separate point, I feel. 

As for generalizations on the community and tone of ENWorld -- anyone remember the old tale about the blind men and the elephant? 

_Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen! _
--John Godfrey Saxe

Point: No one has a complete vision of the entire community -- some of us get the tusks, and others get the other end.


----------



## big dummy

Hussar said:
			
		

> There, I quoted it a second time and even bolded the bit.  BD, did you not state this?




You don't seem to grasp, or did not read, my previous response to this.  

1) I did not invent the "babies" allegory, it was a responded to it in kind.  It was initated in a preceeding post.  Go back and read it.
2) I was not advocating any particular strategy or way of doing things, only speaking of the idea of any kind of reform in general.

Think about these two concepts for a few minutes before you post again Hussar.

bD


----------



## big dummy

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Dude. Seriously. The baby allegory was the kind of thing that was very clearly _implied_ by your vaccines post. Being disingenuous about "who made the comment" will not get you off the hook.
> 
> -The Gneech




Read the thread.  The vaccines post FOLLOWED somebody else saying that the idea of reform was like walking into a baby ward in a hospital and saying they were all ugly.  I responded with the flipside, walking into a baby ward and discussing a polio vaccine or disposable diapers.

We were talking about reform, about whether positive change can ever happen.  I submit to you that that is inevitable.  I'm sorry if it offends you that I say it so definitivley, but it's a fact. 

BD


----------



## big dummy

EricNoah said:
			
		

> The 4E subject may be touchy for two reasons:
> 
> 1) Some of us 3E folks were probably just like the 4E folks back in the day of 2E.  This role-reversal is uncomfortable for those who don't have much intention (at least now) of following D&D to its 4th edition.  The irony that I probably will be a 3E grognard and that someone else will be the "4th Edition News" guy while I stubbornly stay put is not lost on me.
> 
> 2) A perceived fracturing of the community.  It is inevitable.  Once that 4th ed appears ... there will be those of us who stay and those who go.  It's not even clear where this website will choose to go -- will it try to "have it all" and cater to both editions?  Will the mods again have to quash edition wars to keep the peace?  Few people are looking forward to that day.
> 
> The 4E-related emotion is not about the game and its rules per se.  It's about this community, and about inaccurately ascribed motivations (as I discussed before -- i.e., if you like to speculate on 4E ,you must hate 3E right? And if I like 3E, then you must hate me, right? and on and on...)




I can understand this.... but you realise that to a lot of folks the netresult of this comes across more than a little crazy?

BD


----------



## Raven Crowking

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?





While there are many insightful comments about why people get riled up on these threads, I think your question actually nailed it.  A select few make such attacks *to shut down the thread*.

It is my understanding from The Rules that personal attacks affect the status of the person making those attacks.  That someone can, because they dislike a topic, jump in, flame someone else, and by so doing shut the thread down is not only bad policy, but it is abhorrent to the notion of free exchange of ideas.  Yet this has happened repeatedly due to the same small minority who actively seek out these threads, heap scorn, and then see them closed.

This encourages people to be insulting on threads they don't like.  I mean, what is being taught here is that if I don't like people to discuss Ptolus, I should seek out Ptolus threads and insult people.  Close them down.

Just my $.02, and IMHO, of course.

RC


----------



## Piratecat

big dummy said:
			
		

> Think about these two concepts for a few minutes before you post again Hussar.



This is a good example. Posting this kind of statement is guaranteed to cause a fight. It comes across as condescending and high-handed. A better technique might be to just drop the whole baby-analogy thing even if you know that you're right, or to defend your opinion calmly and dismissively. The minute someone tells someone else what to do or what they "must" think, problems start.

When people state things as their own opinion, things are generally fine. When they state them as unalloyed and universal truths, it's common for people to disagree.


----------



## Delta

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Thank you Delta for giving us a perfect example of the kind of thing that is posted in humor but that can totally be taken as snark and irritate someone and lead to the derailment of a thread.
> 
> If that _wasn't_ supposed to be a joke then consider this a warning.
> 
> If that was _supposed _to be a joke _still_ consider this a warning.
> 
> See folks intention does mean much when you know what the result is likely to be. . .




Dude, the original poster's handle is actually "big dummy"! C'mon!


----------



## sckeener

takasi said:
			
		

> I just wanted to add that I think there should be a little more Forgotten Realms and Eberron material in Dungeon.




I wish we had modding like slashdot.org  I'd love to mod that _funny_...or _flamebait_


----------



## Umbran

_*Moderator:*

Normally I would handle this in e-mail, but it is actually relevant to the topic.  The irony of having to moderate in a thread about why moderation is necessary should not be lost on anyone.

Hussar and Big Dummy - you know that discretion thing I mentioned?  Now would be a really good time to exercise it.  Consider it a practical exercise on the topic at hand. _


----------



## Felix

Andor said:
			
		

> To walk onto a gaming site and discuss the obvious need for reform is about as polite and non-confrontational as going onto a maternity site and asking why everybody else's babies are so ugly.






			
				BD said:
			
		

> To use your analogy, what I would see is that it would be like going into the baby ward in 1920 and discussing the possibility of a polio vaccine, or the possibility of using disposable instead of cloth diapers and having everyone shout you down!




The only similarity between these two analogies is that they both occur in maternity wards. 

The first has the subject asking an uncalled for and obtusely rude question of people who are possibly doing nothing but appreciating their babies. 

The second ascribes to the subject altruistic motives and the only reason why his methods of saving babies lives (a facet of this analogy that was not present in the first) arn't adopted is because of reactionary, ignorant maternity ward-goers.

---

If big dummy is the guy walking into the maternity ward, and he's apparently getting shouted down, is it because a) he's asking why one opinion of his is fact [everyone elses babies are ugly] or, b) he has a brilliant solution to promote healthier babies [gaming] and everyone else is the problem.

That's the difference between the two analogies. In the first one the fault lies with the guy asking why everyone's babies are ugly, the second because everyone else doesn't know what's best for their babies, and the guy does.

---

Your posts in this thread and the closed one exhibit a tendancy to turn an opinion into a verifiable fact. That can be divisive, even if there is no other material reason for disagreement. Admitting your own fallability will go a long way to easing your relations with other posters if that's what you're interested in doing. Unless you feel that it comprimises you, in which case you'll have this problem no matter the forum you post to.


----------



## green slime

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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 doesn't take hours to insult someone online. It only takes a few seconds to write a few inflammatory words. It is harder, and takes more effort to actually try and consider the tone and content of one message so that some random person *doesn't* take offense.

IMO, the insulting and ridicule is far less than it used to be. I remember the flamewars and trolls, trollbaits, and insults of yesteryear with (mostly) affection. 

Bugaboo, where are you? (rhetorical question).


----------



## Rothe

big dummy said:
			
		

> Ok I recognize all that, it comes up in all forums.  But do any of you recognize the trend of even moderately proposed threads being attacked and derailed into fights of this sort because _their subject[ /i] is some kind of D&D reform?
> 
> 
> BD_



_

Certainly have seen it here and don't think you are off base.  But have seen it far, far worse and far more often on other D&D forums, where sometimes even the moderators join in.  Excuse the language, but "thread crapping" I think it is called.


My own limited observation is the "angry response"/"take it or leave it" seems more prevalent in D&D forums than in forums directed to other RPGs I follow, such as The Fantasy Trip, Traveller, and Tunnels & Trolls, and wargame sites.  Some are bascially un-moderated and we all get along!  Do I think it has to do with something peculiar to D&D?  I don't think so and I hope not, given the numbers of D&D players/forum members you are going to get more of those who are delibrately obtuse and unable to engage in reasoned argument.  Get enough and they can form their own club that shuts down threads lickity split.

As a hobby, I find an attitude of "angry response (usually passive-aggressive)"/"take it or leave it" to be a bane on removing the negative stereo-types associated with D&D players as asocial geeks who need to get a life and also a handicap on getting new people into the hobby.  A personal story, in the last year I've pointed some people to a D&D forum site (not this one) who were interested in pen&paper RPGs to get an idea about it.  The response, pen&paper RPGs sounded interesting but they had no interest in playing the game because of the people.  They are willing to try RPGs as long as it is not D&D based purley on poster attitudes towards others!  Let me say it took some work to convince them that not all D&D palyers are like that.

P.S.  I theoretically like the idea of careful posting and editing.  Alas the reality is I often post from work, so it's a "quick" type up with my horrendous typing skills.  Edit later?  I wish I had time.   _


----------



## Janx

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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




You've been on the wrong forums...

Goto Harmony-Central.com's Backstage forum, and post about your band and how everyone should listen to your new CD...

Eric's Gramma doesn't frequent there...

On Geocaching.com, if you start a thread that's already been done, it's jumped on, and links to the original thread posted (often from years before).  Folks actually go back and look these links up.

On most sites, it's easy to research the thread history of a poster.  When folks see a post they think of as inflamatory, post count, and post history IS often researched, and taken into account on the response by other posters and mods.  Basically, what you've said and how long you've been in the village DOES affect your relations with the villagers TODAY.

And for the record, the OP's opening lines CAN be read as hostile.  While folks in this thread have not taken harshly to it, it's is wording like this, that can agitate folks.

Big Dummy said:
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 could have said:
How come some posts that might be construed as some kind of criticism of D&D as-is, some people see it as an anti-D&D and spur arguments instead of discussion?

Not perfect, but it doesn't imply that it always happens, nor does it single out any body, nor does it imply hostile intent.


----------



## Odhanan

The whole baby analogy is also a good example of "debate within the debate". What does it bring to the original discussion, besides an example of what posters should *not* do? Nothing. 

It's just another petty argument on a detail to know "who's right" and "who's to blame". That sucks.


----------



## The_Gneech

big dummy said:
			
		

> Read the thread.  The vaccines post FOLLOWED somebody else saying that the idea of reform was like walking into a baby ward in a hospital and saying they were all ugly.  I responded with the flipside, walking into a baby ward and discussing a polio vaccine or disposable diapers.
> 
> We were talking about reform, about whether positive change can ever happen.  I submit to you that that is inevitable.  I'm sorry if it offends you that I say it so definitivley, but it's a fact.




...

Um...

Okay. Whatever you say. kthxbye

-The Gneech


----------



## Piratecat

green slime said:
			
		

> Bugaboo, where are you? (rhetorical question).



Making millions from his DM-for-pay Ponzi schemes!

Actually, I'm in loose touch with Bugaboo, who I really like; we trade emails about once a year.


----------



## JustaPlayer

Let's be honest here.  When your second post on these boards starts as follows you can expect people to have a negative view.



> Its so typical any time you bring up anything about changing D&D in any way, people send you off to other games....




And that after the person tried to point you in a direction that may already suite your needs.  I saw thaat going nowhere from post 10.  If you are asking peoples opinions, it might be best not to try to force those people to say what you want them to.

[Edit] D&D is hardly perfect.  If you stay around here and stay out of trouble, you will find that most people here don't run it out of the box and are more open to changes than say someone on the WotC boards.


----------



## Hussar

Fair 'nuff.  I disagree with it being a "debate within a debate" though as referenced by Odhanan though.  How people post gets to the heart of the issue.  I mentioned earlier that there were numerous 4e threads lately that have seen little or no vitriol.

/edit - sorry nothing to see here


----------



## Rothe

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> ..snip...
> 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.




Working my way through some coffee and this thread.  After my last post, with attention to the fact that tone does not carry over the internet, I want to agree with what Nyaricus said about ENWorld being by and large a place where you can have discussions about "fixing" D&D without fear of rudeness.  Although far from a regular by many measures, I've been invovled a bit more than my crash decimated post count lets on and in several threads that might be considered "fixing" discussions with no problems or rudeness.  Heck, it's why I tend to come here for D&D related stuff even though I don't run 3.x edition.


----------



## Storm Raven

big dummy said:
			
		

> Read the thread.  The vaccines post FOLLOWED somebody else saying that the idea of reform was like walking into a baby ward in a hospital and saying they were all ugly.  I responded with the flipside, walking into a baby ward and discussing a polio vaccine or disposable diapers.




By adopting the argument and using it, you made it your own. Whether you started the analogy or not is beside the point: you analogized your contributions here to being a forward thinking smart guy who is just trying to save innocent babies, while tarring everyone else as ignorant luddites irrationally opposing your benevolence.



> _We were talking about reform, about whether positive change can ever happen.  I submit to you that that is inevitable.  I'm sorry if it offends you that I say it so definitivley, but it's a fact._




Sure positive change can happen. However, many people disagree as to what a positive change is. Some people want low magic some want more magic, others want more base classes, others want fewer. Some pople hate prestige classes, some people love them. Which change is "positive"? Who is the arbiter of such an evaluation?

And more to the point, if there are already other games systems on the market that do many of these things (providing effective rules to support a low-magic setting, for example), why is it a bad thing to direct those interested in that type of game to those systems? How silly would this be:

Player 1: Chess is poorly designed because it doesn't take into account real estate management. I think we should redesign the game so people buy and sell property and charge rents.

Player 2: How about you try playing Monopoly instead of chess? It deals with real estate stuff already.

Player 1: You are a big meanie! You shouldn't crush my dreams of changing the rules of chess to incorporate real estate deals!

Because I don't see a lot of difference between this and telling people who are dissatisfied with elements of D&D that there are other games that already do the things they want to make D&D do,


----------



## Hussar

As to the idea that people sweep down on those who suggest change, I would say that it's simply not accurate.  There are two threads right now talking about how easy it is to change advancement rates and how much resistance is there to RAW changes.  Neither sees the slightest in snark or vitriol.  Granted, they aren't really talking about actually making changes, but rather testing the water to see whether such ideas are actively resisted or not, but, since both are seeing pretty strong support, the notion that EN World is somehow opposed to change is not accurate IMO.

En World is one of the best places to come for discussing the game without getting bogged down in ridiculous flame wars.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Player 1: Chess is poorly designed because it doesn't take into account real estate management. I think we should redesign the game so people buy and sell property and charge rents.
> 
> Player 2: How about you try playing Monopoly instead of chess? It deals with real estate stuff already.
> 
> Player 1: You are a big meanie! You shouldn't crush my dreams of changing the rules of chess to incorporate real estate deals!




If that was the sum total of the interaction, you would be right.  Comically so, actually.    

However, the way I view it is more like this:

Player 1:  They came out with this new edition of chess that doesn't have rooks.  I like the rest of the changes, but I really think rooks are essential to how I see chess.  Can we make use of the good changes, and incorporate rooks?  Do you think maybe we could get rooks included in any new edition.

Player 2:  Chess is what it is.  If you don't like it, don't play.

Player 3:  You could use your rook as a playing piece in Monopoly....

Player 4:  Rooks aren't really important in chess, at least not IMHO.  You could play chess the old way, though.  It still has rooks, and is just as valid.

Player 1:  But I like most of the other changes.

Player 2:  Why do you keep on about this?  Chess is what it is.

Player 3:  I'm not sure anyone actually used their rooks anyway.

Player 4:  You could add the rules you like to the older edition.

Player 1:  Why can't I just re-add rooks to the new edition?

etc.


----------



## hong

The problem is that people just want different things out of their cliches. I want to use cliches involving foodstuffs. You want to use cliches involving mental pursuits. Both metaphors are fine on their own, but not when you mix them up. Then I get mental pursuits in my foodstuffs and you get foodstuffs in your mental pursuits. D&D is like a mixed metaphor right now, with foodstuffs in mental pursuits and mental pursuits in foodstuffs.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

big dummy said:
			
		

> I've been coming here on and off for about 7 years.  Used to be a supporter.  I lost my account passwords and stuff after Katrina, and then again after the recent system crash.




7 years? Oh, yeah. It's 2006, so I guess it's coming up on 7 years for me, too, given that Eric started his 3e site in 99. Oddly, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I don't remember you. Have you kept the same screen name?



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> Ok so can you remember some fairly recent threads on reforming D&D in any way that did not get really nasty and / or derailed?




It's always easier to remember the ones that get one's goat, so no, I can't cite specific examples. But I know such threads exist. You're exaggerating.


----------



## Storm Raven

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Player 1:  They came out with this new edition of chess that doesn't have rooks.  I like the rest of the changes, but I really think rooks are essential to how I see chess.  Can we make use of the good changes, and incorporate rooks?  Do you think maybe we could get rooks included in any new edition.
> 
> Player 2:  Chess is what it is.  If you don't like it, don't play.
> 
> Player 3:  You could use your rook as a playing piece in Monopoly....
> 
> Player 4:  Rooks aren't really important in chess, at least not IMHO.  You could play chess the old way, though.  It still has rooks, and is just as valid.
> 
> Player 1:  But I like most of the other changes.
> 
> Player 2:  Why do you keep on about this?  Chess is what it is.
> 
> Player 3:  I'm not sure anyone actually used their rooks anyway.
> 
> Player 4:  You could add the rules you like to the older edition.
> 
> Player 1:  Why can't I just re-add rooks to the new edition?




And most of the time, minor changes like the existence or nonexistence of rooks are met with a big "sure, if that's what you want". But that's not what we are talking about here. The suggestion raised is specifically how to "reform" D&D, a major overhaul. I'm saying that once you get to the point where you are making wholesale changes that require dozens or more pages of revisions, you've moved beyond the "minor changes" stage into the "maybe another game better suits your desires" stage.

So far as I can tell, most people who want to make massive changes to D&D to get some sort of different feel would be better off playing a different game, a game more suited to what they are looking for. But suggesting that usually draws angry responses along the lines of "don't tell me what to play". Which is unfortunate, because most people who want a low-magic (or rules light, or superhero, or space opera) game would probably actually be happier playing one of the many low magic (or rules light, superhero, or space opera) games that are out there. If you want to try flying, it is easier to use an airplane than to try to put wings on a bus.


----------



## Raven Crowking

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> It's always easier to remember the ones that get one's goat, so no, I can't cite specific examples. But I know such threads exist. You're exaggerating.




I can't remember one, but I only started with the lurking a few years ago...and that wasn't a whole lot of lurking at the time.

It's sort of like the threads Hussar points out, to me.  If you say "Do you change the RAW at your table?" no one gets all that heated.  If you say, "Should the RAW change?" tempers flare.

Of course, it is also true that something might seem funny to you when you're typing it, and not seem funny to people who are reading it, even if you use emoticons.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Making millions from his DM-for-pay Ponzi schemes!
> 
> Actually, I'm in loose touch with Bugaboo, who I really like; we trade emails about once a year.




Really? Bugaboo trolled me mercilessly once upon a time, when I was new to the internet and didn't have the acumen to let his nonsense roll like water off a duck's back. I also swear I remember him having a flame-out (here or at an earlier incarnation of Nutkinland), ironically enough, where he petulantly related how he just couldn't take all the meanies who couldn't take a joke. May have been another of his trolls, but it seemed genuine at the time, and I haven't seen him back since.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I can't remember one, but I only started with the lurking a few years ago...and that wasn't a whole lot of lurking at the time.




Yeah, but really, there are tons of them. No, I can't quantify that statement, but come on...every such thread results in a flamewar? I wouldn't have stuck with EN World as long as I did if thatw as true. It's just the threads that result in a flamewar that are negatively memorable.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

Coming back to the original question, this particular forum is all about D&D.  The people who come here generally like the game.  If they didn't they probably wouldn't hang out here.  

I have seen discussions about changing the game, some of them can be long and thoughtful.  There may well be people who come in and attack people who post, the original person or others.  But why do those people need to be attacked back?  That's where the problems come.  

I'm not perfect when it comes to this, but usually after making one or two less than constructive comments, I realize the way the thread may go if I continue that way and either try and refocus my own thoughts, or stop posting altogether.

In the end each of us is responsible for our own behavior.  If you don't want a thread to degenerate into flames, don't respond aggressively to attacks.  If an arguement starts, kindly ask people to keep things on track and constructive.  If others are doing it on the side while good discussion continues, report it and when you do request to the mods to let the thread live but maybe edit flame posts and advise people to keep on track.  

And if your post is misinterpreted by others because what you wrote wasn't clear (or maybe even incorrect), don't be afraid to apologize and clarify.  I've done that a few times, it really confuses people.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And most of the time, minor changes like the existence or nonexistence of rooks are met with a big "sure, if that's what you want". But that's not what we are talking about here. The suggestion raised is specifically how to "reform" D&D, a major overhaul.




But for a lot of people, taking rooks out of chess _is_ a major overhaul.  And that some of this is changing chess to a game without rooks, then complaining that adding rooks back in, is sort of the point I was trying to make.

Each edition has been a major overhaul of the game (although what constitutes a major overhaul has changed with time).  Moving from the blue box to AD&D seemed like a big change.  Changing from 1st Ed to 2nd Ed seemed like a big change.  The change from 2nd Ed to 3rd was an even bigger change.  It follows that the change from 3rd to 4th will be palpable, if not as great as that from 2nd to 3rd.

As far as low magic goes, any edition can handle a low magic campaign.  It was just easier in earlier editions because there was no mythical dime's-edge that the game balanced on.  For some of us who enjoy low-magic games, it's like going to the airport and discovering they only do flights to half the destinations they did a year ago.  

And, yes, it might be that there will never be official flights to service those destinations, but that doesn't mean that people cannot or should not say that they want to fly to Virginia.

EDIT:  Of course, it does sometimes seem as though folks are worried that flights to Virginia mean a cut to flights to Los Angeles, or that the extended service means that their fares will go up.


----------



## FireLance

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As far as low magic goes, any edition can handle a low magic campaign.  It was just easier in earlier editions because there was no mythical dime's-edge that the game balanced on.



I have a slightly different perspective: it seemed easier in earlier editions because each DM had his own way of balancing (or not balancing) his game, and there was no objective standard to compare to. Now that there is a standard, some players may feel that they enjoy games that adhere to the standard more than games that do not. I don't think it's any more difficult to run a low-magic game in 3e than in any previous edition because the DM has to do the same eyeballing of inter-PC effectiveness and PC vs monster balance without reference to standard wealth levels or CR, just as he would have done in previous editions. However, low-magic games may no longer be as popular because players' tastes and expectations have changed.


----------



## Nightfall

*hands Ny a baby wipe* There you are and if you say one more thing bad about Scarred Lands I will open up your skull like Mark Chance suggested. Or at least semi-suggested.   

*isn't angry and angsty* At least not right now. Friday I will be with an exam.


----------



## diaglo

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Yeah, but really, there are tons of them. No, I can't quantify that statement, but come on...every such thread results in a flamewar? I wouldn't have stuck with EN World as long as I did if thatw as true. It's just the threads that result in a flamewar that are negatively memorable.





i know of very few that don't end in flamewars.

heck, just simple questions here sometimes flame out.

like asking about pens. or paying your DM. or creating a halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf.


----------



## iwatt

diaglo said:
			
		

> i know of very few that don't end in flamewars.
> 
> heck, just simple questions here sometimes flame out.
> 
> like asking about pens. or paying your DM. or creating a halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf.





Or about creating Level 100 epic character's

and it's:

creating a halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf *ninja*


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

Lots of good stuff in this thread, and..interestingly enough.. lots of examples of what to do and what *not* to do regarding maintaining a polite and productive discourse.

I failed my will save. I was going to simply avoid the rest of the subject.. after 3 pages of constructive advise on why threads degenerate into hostility, with an oft mentioned point of avoiding assumptions..comes this quote from the OP.


			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> We were talking about reform, about whether positive change can ever happen.  I submit to you that that is inevitable.  I'm sorry if it offends you that I say it so definitivley, but it's a fact.




Check.... What is positive change to you may not be positive change to me. As a matter of fact, your positive change may be the one key element of the game that keeps me playing DnD instead of {insert RPG here}. Defining your opinion as fact, as you have in the quote above, leads to pointless debates.

Other point, being offended when {insert RPG here} is recommended when a poster submits a suggegtion for reform {reform being used here as major changes to the basic structure of the RAW}.  Its like the following conversation:
1 - I want a game that does X and Y. I can change DnD to do this by altering F, G, H, I, and Z
2 - Y'know, game S handles that pretty well
...
How to respond? either 
- politely with a 'I have checked that out and it doesn't fit' or  'Hey, cool I will look at that..but still want to see how my reform works out'

- or you can go the road of pointless debates and vitrolic nonsense.


Take the time to examine your perceptions and assumptions...


----------



## JustaPlayer

iwatt said:
			
		

> Or about creating Level 100 epic character's
> 
> and it's:
> 
> creating a halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf *ninja*




Or is it simply creating a Level 100 halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf *ninja*?


----------



## ColonelHardisson

diaglo said:
			
		

> i know of very few that don't end in flamewars.




I have to say I simply don't see it. Yeah, there are plenty of flamewars. Don't get me wrong, I see that. But _most_ end in flamewars? I disagree. But I guess some see it differently. :shrug: (it's too bad the shrug smiley isn't here, by the way. Love that potato-looking thing).


----------



## diaglo

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I have to say I simply don't see it. Yeah, there are plenty of flamewars. Don't get me wrong, I see that. But _most_ end in flamewars? I disagree. But I guess some see it differently. :shrug: (it's too bad the shrug smiley isn't here, by the way. Love that potato-looking thing).




point of fact. i have yet to have someone ask me my opinion about why i love the edition i do and it not turn out badly.

even with me ignoring the obvious trolling. others jump into the mess for or against.

so i have yet to complete a thread on the subject.

i simple just end up saying my usual: OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing. 

b/c that is about as far as can be discussed.


----------



## Piratecat

diaglo said:
			
		

> i simple just end up saying my usual: OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.



With respect, David, if you prefaced that with "I think" I suspect you'd have a lot easier time discussing it. 

Like I said up-thread, any time you declare an opinion as a truth, you're going to have problems. Stating it as gospel truth annoys everyone who disagrees with you and makes them more argumentative; stating it as your opinion is unimpeachable, easily accepted, and paves the way to actual discussion.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

diaglo said:
			
		

> point of fact. i have yet to have someone ask me my opinion about why i love the edition i do and it not turn out badly.
> 
> even with me ignoring the obvious trolling. others jump into the mess for or against.
> 
> so i have yet to complete a thread on the subject.
> 
> i simple just end up saying my usual: OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.
> 
> b/c that is about as far as can be discussed.




Yes, but that doesn't mean all the threads we're talking about end in flamewars. Plus, really, don't you think that the way you present your argument has a lot to do with that? People have the perception that you are of a certain mindset, and respond to you thusly. I don't recall seeing you saying anywhere when you first began posting "here is why I like this edition of the game, and not this edition." You spent a lot of time posting exactly the kind of things you just posted above, and, in effect, bashing another game. Doesn't matter that after your persona was established that you wanted to try to be reasonable and discuss it civilly; people remembered the established persona and answered in kind.


----------



## ThirdWizard

On the topic of being pointed to other RPGs:

It's worth pointing out that people who say "You should try X" aren't usually saying "Get out of my D&D, freak!" They're saying "Hey, come join us in playing X, its a great game, and I thnk you'll enjoy it too." It's not an excluding thing, its an including thing. When someone recomends something, they generally like it, and they're recommending it because they think others will enjoy it as well.

To many people, RPGs aren't a pick your favorite and only run it type of thing. There are flavors for different types of games. If you want to run horror, or sci-fi, or whatnot, then they change which RPG system they're running. So, when someone mentions that they want to make D&D into X and they've been playing X for years successfully for years under a different system, then of course they're going to recommend that system.

And, when they do, it isn't a put down toward D&D. I know people nowadays are used to hardcore fanboyism, Sony vs. Microsoft vs. Nintendo or Microsoft vs. Macintosh, but you'll find a lot more inclusiveness with roleplayers actually, in my experience at least, with regards to alternate systems than you will with the majority at large with regards to competing systems.


----------



## diaglo

Piratecat said:
			
		

> With respect, David, if you prefaced that with "I think" I suspect you'd have a lot easier time discussing it.
> 
> Like I said up-thread, any time you declare an opinion as a truth, you're going to have problems. Stating it as gospel truth annoys everyone who disagrees with you and makes them more argumentative; stating it as your opinion is unimpeachable, easily accepted, and paves the way to actual discussion.





yeah, i was trying to help *big dummy* see an example.


----------



## green slime

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Really? Bugaboo trolled me mercilessly once upon a time, when I was new to the internet and didn't have the acumen to let his nonsense roll like water off a duck's back. I also swear I remember him having a flame-out (here or at an earlier incarnation of Nutkinland), ironically enough, where he petulantly related how he just couldn't take all the meanies who couldn't take a joke. May have been another of his trolls, but it seemed genuine at the time, and I haven't seen him back since.




That's how I remember it is as well. Strange thing though, it got kind of funny once you knew what he was up to, with some of the baiting he did, which could be really well set-up, and it usually only took a page or two for the truth to out.

*sigh*

Guess I just kind of miss some of the oldtimers. Hadn't seen you around for a while either, for that matter....

*peers at CH intently*

But I seriously don't see more flamewars or trolling than in the early days, do you? Nowadays it seems sedate, almost geriatric in comparisson. Everynow and then, something sort of flickers in the distance. Maybe its because I tended to get myself mired in those debates more often. Or maybe because the moderators are doing a better (more draconic?!?) job?


----------



## BSF

diaglo said:
			
		

> point of fact. i have yet to have someone ask me my opinion about why i love the edition i do and it not turn out badly.
> 
> even with me ignoring the obvious trolling. others jump into the mess for or against.
> 
> so i have yet to complete a thread on the subject.
> 
> i simple just end up saying my usual: OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.
> 
> b/c that is about as far as can be discussed.




In all fairness diaglo, this is an easier topic to discuss in a more dynamic medium.  Such as over [insert beverage of choice] at [location of choice].  As I recall, I asked you why you like OD&D the first time we met and I understand your preference.  But seeing your general enthusiasm and body language really helps for that topic.


----------



## James Heard

green slime said:
			
		

> Maybe its because I tended to get myself mired in those debates more often. Or maybe because the moderators are doing a better (more draconic?!?) job?



Everyone watch out, just a few more levels and they'll get their breath weapons and wings.


----------



## Piratecat

green slime said:
			
		

> But I seriously don't see more flamewars or trolling than in the early days, do you? Nowadays it seems sedate, almost geriatric in comparisson.... Or maybe because the moderators are doing a better (more draconic?!?) job?



Anyone remember the flamewar over the cover of Relics & Rituals, regarding pagan symbols? Or Son of a Preacherman's thread on fireball pellets?

It doesn't feel to me like the moderation is more draconic. There are more of us, of course, but we seldom need to permanently ban people. I think we've better codified what's okay and what isn't. More importantly, the members know too; I credit Eric Noah with establishing clear, easily memorable guidelines for self-moderation. I really think it's made an inestimable difference in the friendliness here.

The other thing that has changed is our size. I remember when we were one forum, then we went to two with story hours, then three with rules. There's more people around now!


----------



## hexgrid

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> On the topic of being pointed to other RPGs:
> 
> It's worth pointing out that people who say "You should try X" aren't usually saying "Get out of my D&D, freak!"




It's not always that way, but I have seen this sort of sentiment expressed on these boards. Heck, I remember a while back there was an entire thread questioning why people who aren't fans of 3.x would be posting on enworld at all.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

green slime said:
			
		

> *peers at CH intently*
> 
> But I seriously don't see more flamewars or trolling than in the early days, do you?




Not really, no, especially taking into consideration the enormous difference in size between the site now and the site back then, as Piratecat mentions. He also points out some of the more notorious flamewars of years past. So, no, I don't think the proportion of flamewars or troll threads to civil threads has changed, and may, in fact, be smaller than in years past.


----------



## Whisper72

hexgrid said:
			
		

> It's not always that way, but I have seen this sort of sentiment expressed on these boards. Heck, I remember a while back there was an entire thread questioning why people who aren't fans of 3.x would be posting on enworld at all.




Because we are such a bunch of fun people!!!

Take a look at this very thread here... it has not (yet, and only in my humble opinion naturally) developed into a flamefest!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Well, I will say this:  I would rather see more "X day suspensions" than shutting down threads....even if it meant that I was the one suspended.  I have seen "I hate this kind of thread; stop talking about it" type posts far too often....shortly followed by the thread being closed.

Of course, to me, even a few examples is "far too often".

I don't like Kender, so if I see a thread about Kender I just ignore it.  That seems easy to me.  I like threads about comparing current to previous editions, so if I see a thread about that topic it is all too soon closed.

With respect to CH, if he could just point out *one* of those non-flaming still open threads he mentioned, I'd love to participate amicably.


----------



## iwatt

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> Or is it simply creating a Level 100 halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf *ninja*?




Actually it's a: 

Level 100 halfdragonhalfweretigerhalfvampire dark elf ninja *pirate*


----------



## green slime

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Anyone remember the flamewar over the cover of Relics & Rituals, regarding pagan symbols? Or Son of a Preacherman's thread on fireball pellets?
> 
> It doesn't feel to me like the moderation is more draconic. There are more of us, of course, but we seldom need to permanently ban people. I think we've better codified what's okay and what isn't. More importantly, the members know too; I credit Eric Noah with establishing clear, easily memorable guidelines for self-moderation. I really think it's made an inestimable difference in the friendliness here.
> 
> The other thing that has changed is our size. I remember when we were one forum, then we went to two with story hours, then three with rules. There's more people around now!




Oh yes, Eric did a fantastic job. As did his Grandmother.  

IMO, part of it does come down to the fact that moderators act more quickly, giving warning before the thread in question disappears underneath a flood of lava. Probably in part due to more people reporting questionable posts. I know these days, if I find myself getting irritated at something, I'll start a retort, then midway, realise I should actually report it and let the mods handle it. Having that report button helps keep the number of warnings I recieve down 

Are we really that many more active posters these days? How many more people are actively posting per day/week now as opposed to three or four years ago? Anyone have the statistics for ENWorld? Is there a breakdown per forum?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

diaglo said:
			
		

> point of fact. i have yet to have someone ask me my opinion about why i love the edition i do and it not turn out badly.
> 
> even with me ignoring the obvious trolling. others jump into the mess for or against.
> 
> so i have yet to complete a thread on the subject.
> 
> i simple just end up saying my usual: OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.
> 
> b/c that is about as far as can be discussed.



You don't suppose that the implied antagonism in "all the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing," might have something to do with the lack of interest in your opinion?  I know that when I go to a party and meet new people, when I open a conversation with "wow, your taste in music sucks," it does not generally go well for me.  Perhaps the same principle is at work here.  I am beginning to suspect that people don't like being told that their fun hobbies are "poor imitations" of anything, much less other hobbies that they have no interest in.  In fact, I theorize that people more or less universally dislike it when things they like are compared unfavourably to things they don't care about, when the comparison is couched in the language of fact or even simply authority.  I also believe that, upon becoming offended by a speaker, there exists a tendency to look forward to a chance to tell that speaker "where to stick it," so as to convey to the speaker the regard in which his opinion is held.  This is, I hypothesize, how flame wars get started.

Strange, I know.  But who understands these silly hu-mans?


----------



## Piratecat

green slime said:
			
		

> Are we really that many more active posters these days? How many more people are actively posting per day/week now as opposed to three or four years ago? Anyone have the statistics for ENWorld? Is there a breakdown per forum?



Not including lurkers? We have about 2600 unique registered people active in the forums on any given day, and are adding 40 registrations a day. There are about 2500 posts made per day, and somewhere between 100 and 150 threads are created. Many, many more people browse without registering -- we have between 15,000 and 16,000 unique visitors per day. For instance, right now 432 members and 1772 guests are on the site.

That's much bigger than three or four years ago, when the server couldn't even handle more than 200 people active at once.


----------



## gizmo33

big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?




I'm not sure of your exact experiences, but I think a big part of the problem in what you're mentioning is that these kinds of threads are construed as part of the Edition War.  I don't exactly know what's really motivating the Edition War.  Any criticism of any edition can lay the ground-work for another battle in the War.  I used to think that being a big fan of 1st AND 3rd edition would somehow allow me to make comments in those kinds of threads without getting my virtual head ripped off.  That doesn't seem to be the case.

Then there is the "Thespian vs. Munchkin" War.  Seems to be a crusade for some folks.

I think people should post intelligently, but at the same time, I think communication is a two-way street and if you go ballistic because of one statement where someone forgot a smiley face, IMO you have a problem that you can't blame on someone else.  

I'm sure others have remarked on this - but when I think for a few moments about two people who play some version of Dungeons and Dragons getting angry at each other, it seems so ridiculous.  You would think us geeks would bond more than we do.  Oh well, I'm not calling for an EnWorld group-hug or anything.


----------



## billd91

So why do so many of these discussions end badly?

Because we're all socially maladjusted freaks who can't cope with people.   


A bit more seriously, we're enthusiastic hobbyists. We have favorite aspects of the hobby and defend them and can't really understand why other people don't share our clearly well thought-out opinions and judgements. If we were more casual about our hobbyism, we probably wouldn't participate in such online discussions at all and our blood pressures would all be much lower.

And if you're like me, you tend to react to the tone of other people's posts more than the actual content. That's a real recipe for escalation of flamewars. People talking crap (as I see it) but being polite about it are a lot easier to ignore than people talking crap and being jerks as well.


----------



## green slime

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Not including lurkers? We have about 2600 unique registered people active in the forums on any given day, and are adding 40 registrations a day. There are about 2500 posts made per day, and somewhere between 100 and 150 threads are created. Many, many more people browse without registering -- we have between 15,000 and 16,000 unique visitors per day. For instance, right now 432 members and 1772 guests are on the site.
> 
> That's much bigger than three or four years ago, when the server couldn't even handle more than 200 people active at once.




Firstly, thanks for that information, Pkitty! 

mmm.... that was impressive! BTW, what counts as a "unique visitor"? Could it be, for instance,  glancing by from work (without logging in a "Guest"), and then surfing in after work from home, on a different IP-address? Do I then count as three seperate unique visitors if I visit from my 3G-mobile on the way home on the train? I suppose to some extent, the same behaviour was prevalent even 3-4 years ago, and so maybe irrelevant.


----------



## big dummy

Rothe said:
			
		

> Certainly have seen it here and don't think you are off base.  But have seen it far, far worse and far more often on other D&D forums, where sometimes even the moderators join in.  Excuse the language, but "thread crapping" I think it is called.
> 
> 
> My own limited observation is the "angry response"/"take it or leave it" seems more prevalent in D&D forums than in forums directed to other RPGs I follow, such as The Fantasy Trip, Traveller, and Tunnels & Trolls, and wargame sites.  Some are bascially un-moderated and we all get along!  Do I think it has to do with something peculiar to D&D?  I don't think so and I hope not, given the numbers of D&D players/forum members you are going to get more of those who are delibrately obtuse and unable to engage in reasoned argument.  Get enough and they can form their own club that shuts down threads lickity split.
> 
> As a hobby, I find an attitude of "angry response (usually passive-aggressive)"/"take it or leave it" to be a bane on removing the negative stereo-types associated with D&D players as asocial geeks who need to get a life and also a handicap on getting new people into the hobby.  A personal story, in the last year I've pointed some people to a D&D forum site (not this one) who were interested in pen&paper RPGs to get an idea about it.  The response, pen&paper RPGs sounded interesting but they had no interest in playing the game because of the people.  They are willing to try RPGs as long as it is not D&D based purley on poster attitudes towards others!  Let me say it took some work to convince them that not all D&D palyers are like that.
> 
> P.S.  I theoretically like the idea of careful posting and editing.  Alas the reality is I often post from work, so it's a "quick" type up with my horrendous typing skills.  Edit later?  I wish I had time.




Agreed... I had the same exact problem, having brought many people into the pencil and paper wargames from World of Warcraft or from never having played any games at all.  The only thing worse than having these folks see a typical D&D forum is when a pretty girl is exposed to really unsocialized people like at a hobby store.  I had one friend almost quit playing in our campaign because of what happened when she went to the FLGS to buy some dice....

But the truth is from an objective point of view it does seem abnormal and frankly sterotypical.  It's jarring to see such apparently intelligent people, often so literate in their posts, completly in a frenzy over some incomprehensible, trivial or blatantly illogical reason like say, the simle notion of discussion any kind of general change in the game, or the very existence of a 4th edition!!!

BD


----------



## big dummy

Odhanan said:
			
		

> The whole baby analogy is also a good example of "debate within the debate". What does it bring to the original discussion, besides an example of what posters should *not* do? Nothing.
> 
> It's just another petty argument on a detail to know "who's right" and "who's to blame". That sucks.




Agreed!!!!!!!

BD


----------



## Odhanan

> As a hobby, I find an attitude of "angry response (usually passive-aggressive)"/"take it or leave it" to be a bane on removing the negative stereo-types associated with D&D players as asocial geeks who need to get a life and also a handicap on getting new people into the hobby. A personal story, in the last year I've pointed some people to a D&D forum site (not this one) who were interested in pen&paper RPGs to get an idea about it. The response, pen&paper RPGs sounded interesting but they had no interest in playing the game because of the people. They are willing to try RPGs as long as it is not D&D based purley on poster attitudes towards others! Let me say it took some work to convince them that not all D&D palyers are like that.



Agreed, indeed. Many arguments on RPG boards look nerdish to newcomers to the hobby, and they usually turn these newcomers off. No question about it. Ergo, it's a bane for the hobby.


----------



## Starman

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Agreed, indeed. Many arguments on RPG boards look nerdish to newcomers to the hobby, and they usually turn these newcomers off. No question about it. Ergo, it's a bane for the hobby.




Is it really any different from any other niche hobby, though? In my experience, it isn't.


----------



## Odhanan

Well you'd have to define "niche hobby". If you mean a hobby with a public that doesn't represent "mainstream society and opinions" whose average practioners are more than passionated about whatever the hobby is about, I guess so, yes, but that's not because other hobbies are similar that we should just take this attitude as being "normal" or "okay" now, don't you think?


----------



## big dummy

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> is just trying to save innocent babies, while tarring everyone else as ignorant luddites irrationally opposing your benevolence.




True, but the subject at hand makes all the difference.  With all due respect, if you are completely opposed to even the possibility of progress on principle, then you are exactly what you described above, at best.



> Sure positive change can happen. However, many people disagree as to what a positive change is. Some people want low magic some want more magic, others want more base classes, others want fewer. Some pople hate prestige classes, some people love them. Which change is "positive"? Who is the arbiter of such an evaluation?




With all due respect, you are completely missing my point.  It doesn't matter what the specific remedy is because I'm not advocating a specific remedy.  In this case I am ONLY talking about the possibility of reform, period. 

Specific ideas for implementing reform OF COURSE have to be broached in a very diplomatic and theoretical manner and even then one has to expect disagreement and resistance, even outright rejection since only a small percentage of proposed innovations to a working system can be expected to actually succeed.  

So for the record I agree with all the posts advocating good manners.

But the issue at hand is simply the discussion of reform, in the abstract.  The baby analogy everyone had trouble with was about that specific issue.  I gather definitive statements are not welcome here, but some thigns are definitive.  D&D is a game.  There I said it.  D&D has had more than one version.  I said that too.  No if ands or butts.  Sorry.  



> And more to the point, if there are already other games systems on the market that do many of these things




Again, totally irrelevent to the concept of reforming D&D.  It will change.  And it will change in the fairly near future, unless bird flu wipes us out or something.  You can't escape it.  So since we know it will change, it makes sense to discuss how we might best like it to change, even what aspects we feel are most important to keep as-is.



> Chess is



a very poor analogy because nobody owns it, it hasn't changed substantially in centuries, is about 1000 times simpler than D&D, and works perfectly.  Are you suggesting then that you believe D&D is in roughly the same design state as chess?  That would explain a lot...

BD


----------



## Piratecat

big dummy said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting then that you believe D&D is in roughly the same design state as chess?  That would explain a lot...



You were doing so well -- and then you slipped in the snide insult. This sort of jab is a major impediment to trying to have a discussion about an interesting topic; it distracts from the topic at hand, and instead focuses people on thinking that the person who said it is being inappropriately rude. Your point about chess would have had much more weight if you'd just left off the last sentence.

You want to discuss change in D&D? It's not too hard. Just don't insult people.

Ultimately, the only person we're each responsible for on these boards is ourselves. That's why self-moderation is so important. 

To everyone: If you're a poster who finds that most threads you participate in break down into fights, it's quite possible that you're feeding that pattern. Breaking away from your pugnacious tendencies and being deliberately non-aggressive can really help in those cases. If you aren't trying to prove something, arguments usually don't occur.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

Big Dummy, Debating the general issues of 'reform' is a moot point. The only constants in life are change and death {which itself is a form of change}

When you start a thread debating the merits of 'reform' you must speak in specifics. These specifics are the points where disagreements are made and opinions created.

Should we here at Enworld look at how the hobby may change? Sure. Visit the House Rules forum.. it happens all the time there 

Should we assume that something I think will improve the game should be universally accepted and embraced? Of course not.

Are definitive statements wrong-fun and need to be avoided? No. 
However, stating *opinions* as definitive fact does need to be avoided as this leads to arguments.
... and even then you have to take the context of the statement. Diaglo's oft quoted definitive opinion is that he will not 'swoop down' on those who politely disagree with it.
You get what you give.  
Re-read this thread with an eye towards the tone of the posts.. and the places where posted have turned an opinion into fact or made an assumption that broad stroke generalizes. {eg "if you are completely opposed to even the possibility of progress on principle" .... an assumption that opposition to a thread or two translates to complete opposition despite a healthy and long running practice of discussing change in a number of forums here}

Pay special attention to your own posts. This thread has lasted long enough to have most of the constructive advice get offered twice over, and yet the discussion is still at the same place it was when you started it. Your last post still have a tone that promotes the perception of exactly what you initially complain about.
{recent throwing in of 'with all due respect' not withstanding. For those of us in the military..that phrase has its own special undertone  }


----------



## Piratecat

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> {recent throwing in of 'with all due respect' not withstanding. For those of us in the military..that phrase has its own special undertone.}



Heh - I was thinking the same thing. When I get to the point where I'm saying "with all due respect," it usually means that none is due.


----------



## Starman

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Well you'd have to define "niche hobby". If you mean a hobby with a public that doesn't represent "mainstream society and opinions" whose average practioners are more than passionated about whatever the hobby is about, I guess so, yes, but that's not because other hobbies are similar that we should just take this attitude as being "normal" or "okay" now, don't you think?




I didn't mean to imply that it was okay. I'm just saying that I think it is common to more than just RPGs and that it probably isn't going to change anytime soon.


----------



## Storm Raven

big dummy said:
			
		

> True, but the subject at hand makes all the difference.  With all due respect, if you are completely opposed to even the possibility of progress on principle, then you are exactly what you described above, at best.




Of course, you insult everyone who disagrees with you when doing so, and now you do again. I don't think it is surprising that your posts draw lots of angry responses.



> _With all due respect, you are completely missing my point.  It doesn't matter what the specific remedy is because I'm not advocating a specific remedy.  In this case I am ONLY talking about the possibility of reform, period._




Which makes your statement basically navel gazing and pointless. Saying "reform" without saying what needs reform and why is a worthless statement. You need a direction to aim at, and without that,. you can yell all you want about how things need to change and you won't find anyone who agrees with you.



> _But the issue at hand is simply the discussion of reform, in the abstract.  The baby analogy everyone had trouble with was about that specific issue.  I gather definitive statements are not welcome here, but some thigns are definitive.  D&D is a game.  There I said it.  D&D has had more than one version.  I said that too.  No if ands or butts.  Sorry._




And? You talk about "reform" like it is some sort of goal in and of itself. Talking about things "in the abstract" is about as useful and productive an activity as wrestling with your own shadow. Reform is something that needs to be directed towards a goal.



> _Again, totally irrelevent to the concept of reforming D&D.  It will change.  And it will change in the fairly near future, unless bird flu wipes us out or something.  You can't escape it.  So since we know it will change, it makes sense to discuss how we might best like it to change, even what aspects we feel are most important to keep as-is._




And? Does it have to change? Unless the change is directed at doing something specific, I'm not sure why one would want to change things. Unless you are actually talking about a change for a reason, then no, we don't have to accept that change is inevitable. Change without purpose or direction gives poor results, and usually hinders more than it helps. Until you define the purpose of your proposed reform, then talking about reform in the abstract is not productive.



> _a very poor analogy because nobody owns it, it hasn't changed substantially in centuries, is about 1000 times simpler than D&D, and works perfectly.  Are you suggesting then that you believe D&D is in roughly the same design state as chess?  That would explain a lot..._




I'm suggesting that D&D is analagous to Chess in this regard: it provides a certain type of play experience. If you want a different type of play experience, it may not be the most useful endeavor to try to alter D&D, so much as it might be to find a game system that already delivers the game experience you want.

(And how about, instead of chess, you substitue the game Sorry. Same result.)


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Piratecat said:
			
		

> pugnacious




I was trying to figure out a way to use "pugilistic" and "pusillanimous" in such a way as to play off this word, but just couldn't do it.


----------



## Mark Chance

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> {recent throwing in of 'with all due respect' not withstanding. For those of us in the military..that phrase has its own special undertone  }




And those of us who have been in the military know how well that phrase works in actual practice. Generally, its maximum effective range is 0.0 meters. It reminds me of a student in my class this last year who once opened with, "Mr. Chance, I don't want to sound rude, but...."

I cut her off right there. "If you don't want to sound rude, then don't. If that means you've got nothing left to say, then you've got nothing to say."

Amazingly, she had nothing to say.


----------



## prosfilaes

big dummy said:
			
		

> But the truth is from an objective point of view it does seem abnormal and frankly sterotypical.  It's jarring to see such apparently intelligent people, often so literate in their posts, completly in a frenzy over some incomprehensible, trivial or blatantly illogical reason like say, the simle notion of discussion any kind of general change in the game, or the very existence of a 4th edition!!!




"!!!" seems a bit of an overreaction to me. I will join the others in pointing out that it's not an objective point of view at all; it's your point of view.

Frankly, it doesn't seem the least bit abnormal to me. Soccer fans will actually riot over their games, and two great physicists of the 20th century wrote thier greatest papers as a pair, and broke up over who should have their name first on the paper. People have got killed over what seem to me to be trivial differences in fundamentally the same religious beliefs. Goedel's first words upon meeting another mathematian was "I know of your work and consider it harmful", over an issue that would be incomprehensible to most people with a bachelor's degree in mathematics. Concerns about things that others would consider trivial or incomprehensible seem part of the human condition.

Arguments on a message board getting heated seems relatively calm and subnormal.


----------



## James Heard

Saying "with all due respect" a bunch of times and then following it up with a snide insult pretty much guarantees that everyone figures out just how much respect you think they're due too. In other words, you've just rendered any polite gestures irrelevant.

This is all good stuff to know when writing memos in your professional life too, because if people start thinking that "Bill can't talk with people without crapping into their ears with his opinions" even a little bit they're more likely to put you in basement with the stapler so you don't have a chance to chat it up with potential customers and their bosses. Again, it's possible that some people are alpha (fe)males, work in constructuion/plumping/mercenary work in Angola where straight talk is the norm and appreciated, and/or are so critical to the well oiled machine of the company or organization they're involved in that they can get away with saying whatever they want however they'd offer to say it. For the rest of us mere mortals, and likely those candidates too though, our communication and reception of news is improved by tact, humor, and the honest recognition of the validity and good faith of the viewpoints of those around us no matter much we think the rest of the world is off its rocker and wrong. No one is a perfect communicator all the time I think, but everyone should strive to be one.

I'm going to knock out a few rules of thumb again, of do's and don'ts:

1. Don't tell something they don't want to hear without telling them something they do.

2. Don't tell people what their position is, unless you cage such in an unassailable fortress of qualifiers. "I'm not trying to tell you what your position is under any circumstance, but here is what I think I'm hearing you say you think..."

3. In using the hierarchy of judgments one can make while communicating, do make proposals first, observations second, value judgements third, and assumptions last or not at all. Proposals are usually well received, or at least considered. Observations are often subjective as are values. Assumptions, even assumptions indicated by observation or value judgments, only lead to pain, suffering, and woe. Even if you _must _lean on observations and value judgments in a discussion it's best to constantly remind the audience that you're aware of the nature of what you're doing. 

4. Do be warm, friendly, knowledgeable and creative. Don't be pompous, patronizing, closed-minded, and vague.

5. Do understand the nature of the replies from your audience. Replies have several formats, but there are a few that need to be considered: "Do you know something I don't, and need to?", "Can I trust you?", "Do you make me comfortable?", "Are you reasonable?", "Who/what do you represent?", "What's in this discussion for me?" Just because these questions seem confrontation doesn't mean they are. They're normal things of any formatted behavior. Note the first three though - they're the ones you lose automatically by being rude, condescending, patronizing, etc. They're also the most important ones, because they're the ones that determine if people will listen long enough to get to the rest of them sometimes.

6.Do focus on behavior rather than people. Don't single people out, even groups of people out, unless you're fully intending to be confrontational. Singling people and groups out makes your hair fall out, causes shingles, and leads to loose bowels. Don't do it unless you're scrapping for a fight or you're positive the people under discussion aren't there. That still doesn't make it the right thing to do, but at least if you know you're going in to tick off a whole bunch of people, or one specific person, you can't complain and feel put upon when you get slugged in the guts verbally for a few days.

7. Do be humble. You are not a unique snowflake. You could be truly cast in gold in the frame of Superman, blessed with the intellect to pound Stephen Hawking into the dirt with your mighty brain. You could have fought your way through the tunnels in Vietnam with a comb and your twentieth level super-duper black belt in hot-sexy-GI-do. You don't know everything about everything. No one should be expected to care about your opinions or observations. No one should automatically respect you over the internet just because you made out with supermodels. There is nothing you have ever said or done outside the context of the discussion at hand, unless it was specifically with the people at hand, that is relevant whatsoever. Even if you have specifically relevant knowledge, that doesn't automatically trump individual opinion or insight. It's the internet, and the only thing you really are is what you convince people to see you as. Even the folks that designed 3E get sniped occasionally; sometimes with good reasons, sometimes for not so good reasons. The grace with which you accept challenges to your ideas is a vital part of how people interpret you.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

big dummy,

When speaking about fact, perhaps rather than using a loaded term such as "reform" - having a connotation of changing to something better - I think a more neutral term (at least in this context  ) such as "evolution" or even just "change" might be more appropriate. There is a more neutral value judgment involved in such terms and so you will be less likely to offend or convey a polarised tone. This is not "softening" or "sugar-coating" as some have called it, it is more the respect, civility and manners expected upon this forum.

However, if this is precisely your purpose and you are saying what you mean then your tone will most likely be perceived by other forum members as adversarial, aggressive, disrespectful or just plain rude. In such a situation, what do you think will happen to your thread? In general it is far better to actually give the "due respect" you mentioned earlier and thus promote a discussion rather than an argument.

The world is a big place and the command of the english language diverse. Sometimes it is difficult for some to see how their words may be perceived by others. This is why the "not ascribing motives" to other posts is such a good rule of thumb.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Starman

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> And those of us who have been in the military know how well that phrase works in actual practice. Generally, its maximum effective range is 0.0 meters. It reminds me of a student in my class this last year who once opened with, "Mr. Chance, I don't want to sound rude, but...."
> 
> I cut her off right there. "If you don't want to sound rude, then don't. If that means you've got nothing left to say, then you've got nothing to say."
> 
> Amazingly, she had nothing to say.




My brother and I always joke about phrases like that. The ones that mean the exact opposite of what you are saying. Another one I hear all of the time, unfortunately, at work is 'I'm not predjudiced, but...' Guess what? If you have to say that, you probably are.


----------



## big dummy

Piratecat said:
			
		

> You were doing so well -- and then you slipped in the snide insult. This sort of jab is a major impediment to trying to have a discussion about an interesting topic; it distracts from the topic at hand, and instead focuses people on thinking that the person who said it is being inappropriately rude. Your point about chess would have had much more weight if you'd just left off the last sentence.
> 
> You want to discuss change in D&D? It's not too hard. Just don't insult people.
> 
> Ultimately, the only person we're each responsible for on these boards is ourselves. That's why self-moderation is so important.
> 
> To everyone: If you're a poster who finds that most threads you participate in break down into fights, it's quite possible that you're feeding that pattern. Breaking away from your pugnacious tendencies and being deliberately non-aggressive can really help in those cases. If you aren't trying to prove something, arguments usually don't occur.





So you are supposed to have the patience of Ghandi i guess.  It's asking for a lot piratecat.

I've addressed this .... seemingly off topic.... seeemingly intentionally off topic thing about the bloody baby, and the (whether intentionally or not) switcharoo between the idea of reform in general vs. my alleged specific ideas several times, and people keep throwing it in my face.  And I'm the one who is wrong for getting just the slightest bit sarcastic?

I do notice a pattern: what tends to really push my buttons is when people stubbornly keep pushing a thread off topic, usually by making what seem to be extremely basic mistakes in interpreting what I've said repeatedly and then sticking to it like tar, while trying to pick one of these fights over semantics.  Shouldn't they be taken to task for this by the moderators?  Isn't there at least supposed to be some kind of effort to keep things on topic?

BD


----------



## big dummy

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Big Dummy, Debating the general issues of 'reform' is a moot point. The only constants in life are change and death {which itself is a form of change}
> 
> When you start a thread debating the merits of 'reform' you must speak in specifics. These specifics are the points where disagreements are made and opinions created.




I think this is where the problem is.  You are apparently never allowed to have any kind of discussion of _general _ reform of D&D.  You can of course address highly specific problems such as with this or that spell or this or that feat, especially if they are deemed to be balance problems.  If you are discussing something a bit more broad, you will be shouted down and / or your thread will be attacked by kamikaze flamers / baiters.



> Are definitive statements wrong-fun and need to be avoided? No.
> However, stating *opinions* as definitive fact does need to be avoided as this leads to arguments.




If I've done that, please show me where.  



> Re-read this thread with an eye towards the tone of the posts.. and the places where posted have turned an opinion into fact or made an assumption that broad stroke generalizes. {eg "if you are completely opposed to even the possibility of progress on principle" .... an assumption that opposition to a thread or two translates to complete opposition despite a healthy and long running practice of discussing change in a number of forums here}




I re-read the thread and I've lurked here and occasionally participated for nearly 7 years (and yes to colonel mustard or whoever I did have anothr name pre-katrina).   When I re-read the thread I notice 4 consistent reactions:

1) People who are polite but frame their answers in terms of general forum etiquette rules and do not recognize any particular problem with ENworld or with D&D forums.

2) People who agree with me and have some very insightful if depressing answers as to why things are getting the way they are.  

3) People who disagree with me and want me to believe that I am the problem (sometimes overlapping a bit with #1)

4) People who are just playing around.

I respect the #1 and have heard enough of #2 to be encouraging and make it worth while to have started the thread.  #4 is no problem.  (and I don't mind being called 'dummy' in the least)  As for #3, I can't say what I think about them because forum etiquette prevents me, but they are hardly unexpected.

I'd sincerely suggest that you re-read the thread yourself and instead of only seeing the 1s and 3s, notice the #2s as well.  They are pretty insightful IMO.



> {recent throwing in of 'with all due respect' not withstanding. For those of us in the military..that phrase has its own special undertone  }




Yeah surprised that shows through.  I've been out for 15 years.

BD


----------



## EyeontheMountain

big dummy said:
			
		

> I do notice a pattern: what tends to really push my buttons is when people stubbornly keep pushing a thread off topic, usually by making what seem to be extremely basic mistakes in interpreting what I've said repeatedly and then sticking to it like tar, while trying to pick one of these fights over semantics.  Shouldn't they be taken to task for this by the moderators?  Isn't there at least supposed to be some kind of effort to keep things on topic?
> 
> BD




Now, in my expericne there are more than a few posters who indeed do this, and seem to delight in bringing up unsolveable arguments (or at least ongoing) into any thread that is even vaguely on that topic (And the worst when it is not) I find that annoying also, expecially when they are one-liners, with no effort to address the core issues ofthe thread.

But I do not think that is the moderator's job. There are so many threads, so many posts taht I would be very surprised if a moderator could read even 10% of them, without giving up all sembelence of real life. I beleive forums or discussion boards need to be self moderated, with the moderators skimming off the worst 5-10%, (or more if they are superhuman) of the trouble on the boards. 

Really, Enworld has always struck me as a very good place to discuss D&D. It is easy enough to ignore the posters who try to derail the thread as long as you don't get angry and give them what they want.


----------



## big dummy

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Which makes your statement basically navel gazing and pointless. Saying "reform" without saying what needs reform and why is a worthless statement. You need a direction to aim at, and without that,. you can yell all you want about how things need to change and you won't find anyone who agrees with you.




Lol.  It is not pointless if that is what you are discussing, (which was the original point of the thread.)  Perhaps you mean that it's "useless" because you can't think of any logical argument against it....



> And? You talk about "reform" like it is some sort of goal in and of itself. Talking about things "in the abstract" is about as useful and productive an activity as wrestling with your own shadow. Reform is something that needs to be directed towards a goal.




No matter how many times you say it or how many belittling analogies you make, yes there is a point thats why this whole thread has gone on for so many posts.  



> And? Does it have to change?




Yes because WOTC has to sell books!

BD


----------



## prosfilaes

big dummy said:
			
		

> 3) People who disagree with me and want me to believe that I am the problem (sometimes overlapping a bit with #1)
> 
> 4) People who are just playing around.
> 
> I respect the #1 and have heard enough of #2 to be encouraging and make it worth while to have started the thread.  #4 is no problem.  (and I don't mind being called 'dummy' in the least)  As for #3, I can't say what I think about them because forum etiquette prevents me, but they are hardly unexpected.




It's funny; I don't think I've seen a reasonable poster who have a large problem with #3.


----------



## big dummy

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> "!!!" seems a bit of an overreaction to me. I will join the others in pointing out that it's not an objective point of view at all; it's your point of view.
> 
> Frankly, it doesn't seem the least bit abnormal to me. Soccer fans will actually riot over their games, and two great physicists of the 20th century wrote thier greatest papers as a pair, and broke up over who should have their name first on the paper. People have got killed over what seem to me to be trivial differences in fundamentally the same religious beliefs. Goedel's first words upon meeting another mathematian was "I know of your work and consider it harmful", over an issue that would be incomprehensible to most people with a bachelor's degree in mathematics. Concerns about things that others would consider trivial or incomprehensible seem part of the human condition.
> 
> Arguments on a message board getting heated seems relatively calm and subnormal.




Ok granted, in the overall history of human folly, this ranks fairly low.  But it's still folly, does that make it a good thing?

BD


----------



## big dummy

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> It's funny; I don't think I've seen a reasonable poster who have a large problem with #3.




I do.  Raven Crowking strikes me as extremely reasonable and polite (and a lot less blunt than I am) and he seems to be harassed quite a bit, albiet perhaps less blatantly.  He's just one of many I've noticed.

I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.


BD


----------



## prosfilaes

big dummy said:
			
		

> Ok granted, in the overall history of human folly, this ranks fairly low.  But it's still folly, does that make it a good thing?




So you're asking everyone else to have the patience of Ghandi?



> I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.




I think it's provable that humans respond first to the tone, and most strongly to the tone.


----------



## James Heard

big dummy said:
			
		

> I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.



Maybe it does, but the tone determines whether or not people think you're worth listening to. I don't know many crack addicts' political views, and it's not because I don't think they have opinions - it's because I don't value what they have to say. If people think you're an aggressive confrontational person who doesn't listen to reasonable things when they're said back to them then they'll just ignore you and that pretty much ruins the purpose of an internet forum. As you said, with all respect due.


----------



## ThirdWizard

big dummy said:
			
		

> I think the opinion matters more than the tone, contrary to the assertions of a lot of nice people in here.




Now, I don't want you to take this the wrong way () but I'm curious, and it could be a help to the conversation and understanding your position. Might you have Asperger's syndrome? Feel free to ignore the question if you think its an irrelevant tangent or whatnot.



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> Lol. It is not pointless if that is what you are discussing, (which was the original point of the thread.) Perhaps you mean that it's "useless" because you can't think of any logical argument against it....




Think of it like this. How far can a discussion go if the thread is simply about the merits of change in an ambiguous context of existance? If people don't have something concrete to talk about, or at least latch onto, then a discussion has very little merit in and of itself. A discussion about whether or not D&D should change with no qualifiers beyond "change" will either go one of two ways.

Firstly, it could simply be a pointless agreement with the eventual change of the game or agreement with the game never changing. Either way, there's no discussion, its just an endless "me too" posting until nobody feels like saying "me too" anymore.

Secondly, people could disagree. But, since they have nothing to latch onto, they end up not really saying anything at all. Discussion _how_  you think D&D might change might be interesting, but if you can't talk about how, then what's left? What's to keep the conversation running?



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> I do.  Raven Crowking strikes me as extremely reasonable and polite (and a lot less blunt than I am) and he seems to be harassed quite a bit, albiet perhaps less blatantly.  He's just one of many I've noticed.




As someone who has "harassed" Raven in the past, I have to say that I still like the guy. He often takes an opposing stance to things and sticks to his guns no matter how many people are against him in a debate. I don't think that constitutes harassment, though. People disagree, they debate/argue for pages upon pages of threads, and yeah sometimes things can get heated at times. But, I don't think that these discussions are personal, and I certainly don't remember any personal attacks (or at least egregious ones).

If you think harassment is taking place, perhaps you need to take a step back for a bit. Debate is rife with conflict, and debate is going to be a big part of the forums and especially the long posts on the forums. It doesn't mean the posters don't like each other. It's just the nature of the beast.


----------



## big dummy

James Heard said:
			
		

> I don't know many crack addicts' political views, and it's not because I don't think they have opinions -




ROFL!!!!!! Woah!!!! Ok you got me there.  Thats funny as ... thats funnier than i can fairly describe here.  Damn.  Good one.  I'm serious.  I love that.  New Sig. 

You got me, I give up.  I'm going to try not to come across like a crack addict.  

BD


----------



## big dummy

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Might you have Asperger's syndrome? Feel free to ignore the question if you think its an irrelevant tangent or whatnot.




You got me, i don't know what that is.



> Think of it like this. How far can a discussion go if the thread is simply about the merits of change




Man, I'm trying hard not to be sarcastic.... must...not....be...sarcastic.

Whew!!  That was close.

Man you have no idea how close.

LOL!

Ok, calm down big dummy.  Don't want to come across like a crack head.



This thread is pretty much about change in the abstract sense, specifically whether or not it can be discussed here and on other D&D forums, regardless of the specific type of change.  Whatever else you want to say about it, this has been a fairly rich discussion.  I know I learned a lot.  Among other things I learned that several people including the guy i was arguing with in the post you are responding to ARE against change in the abstract.  That is rather amazing.  More specifically I've learned that a lot of people are against the very existence of a 4th edition of D&D, which is also somewhat incredible to me.

I'm essentially an engineer in my job.  As an engineer, you learn to keep simplifying a given system until you can find the nature of the problem.  I think I'm getting close, finally to understanding this one.

BD


----------



## Piratecat

big dummy said:
			
		

> Piratecat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To everyone: If you're a poster who finds that most threads you participate in break down into fights, it's quite possible that you're feeding that pattern. Breaking away from your pugnacious tendencies and being deliberately non-aggressive can really help in those cases. If you aren't trying to prove something, arguments usually don't occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are supposed to have the patience of Ghandi i guess.  It's asking for a lot piratecat.
Click to expand...


No, it's not. This is one of the basic rules of human interaction, as useful at home and work as it is on the internet. 95% of people on this site do it automatically, as do I, and I'm hardly Ghandi.

More importantly, this isn't optional. It's mandatory. As moderators, we periodically cut people loose when they've consistently proven that they can't keep their temper or be polite. That's just about as true for subtle sniping as it is more outright profanity and insolence. If a person is going to pick fights, this isn't the right place for them.

I sometimes remind myself that no one has a God-given right to hang out at EN World; we're all here at Morrus' forebearance, really, and its the job of the moderators to ease out the people who just can't consistently play well with others. Jabs like the "with all due respect" are a good example of behavior I detest. I don't care if you stare at the computer screen and call the other person names, but being a jerk to them on the boards just isn't okay.



> I've addressed this .... seemingly off topic.... seeemingly intentionally off topic thing about the bloody baby, and the (whether intentionally or not) switcharoo between the idea of reform in general vs. my alleged specific ideas several times, and people keep throwing it in my face.  And I'm the one who is wrong for getting just the slightest bit sarcastic?



Yes. *Each of us is responsible for our own posts.  No one else.* You can not lay blame for your own inflammatory posts at someone else's feet. Is someone trying to derail your thread? Ignore them. If you respond to them at all, you give their derailment credibility. If you rise to the bait and are rude to them, doubly so. 



> Shouldn't they be taken to task for this by the moderators?  Isn't there at least supposed to be some kind of effort to keep things on topic?



That effort is generated by the people posting in the thread. Want it to stay on topic? Only respond with on topic posts. Threads are living, breathing conversations -- and they're "about" whatever is talked about the most in them. If you talk about a hijacking, you're actually contributing to it.


----------



## big dummy

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> If you think harassment is taking place, perhaps you need to take a step back for a bit. Debate is rife with conflict, and debate is going to be a big part of the forums and especially the long posts on the forums. It doesn't mean the posters don't like each other. It's just the nature of the beast.




I can take harassment of me.  I'm a BIG boy.  I have seen reasonable debate of positions.  I also have seen certian people (not you) picking on other people like Raven who are very polite, and even shutting down his threads by constant derailments and segues.  I will report these incidents more often in the future.

BD


----------



## ThirdWizard

big dummy said:
			
		

> You got me, i don't know what that is.




It's where someone has trouble reading others in social situations and thus generally ignores most social markers. Those with aspergers generally tend not to care for social niceties and are very literal in their approach to others. They tend to ignore subtle social cues that others take for granted and come at conversations and interactions in a very matter-of-fact mannar.



			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> This thread is pretty much about change in the abstract sense, specifically whether or not it can be discussed here and on other D&D forums, regardless of the specific type of change.




Ahhh, no that's not what I consider this thread to be about. This thread is about the feelings of ENWorlders toward certain topics and whether or not they can be discussed civily in this forum. It isn't about change in an abstract way, it is about discussion itself. So, when you brought up "change" as a topic of discussion, I had no idea you were actually talking about this thread.



> Among other things I learned that several people including the guy i was arguing with in the post you are responding to ARE against change in the abstract.




I can almost gurantee you that noone posting in this thread is against change in the abstract. Noone.


----------



## Nightfall

I am! I'm against everything! I'm an anarachist!


----------



## ThirdWizard

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I am! I'm against everything! I'm an anarachist!




Wow! You're even against anarchy then? That's deep man. You have blown my mind.


----------



## big dummy

Ok, well, I've learned what I wanted to learn.  One thing I've noticed is that the most constructive, insightful posters (in my opinion, of course) usually make their remarks and then back out.  Most of them in this thread already did so a page or two back.  I think the constructive discussion in this thread has already taken place.  So i'm outty.

BD


----------



## James Heard

big dummy said:
			
		

> what tends to really push my buttons is when people stubbornly keep pushing a thread off topic, usually by making what seem to be extremely basic mistakes in interpreting what I've said repeatedly and then sticking to it like tar, while trying to pick one of these fights over semantics.



One, "extremely basic mistakes in interpreting what you say" isn't the fault of other people in general - it's your fault for not stating what you say in such a way that there can be no disagreement over what you actually say. 

Two, people "stick to mistakes like tar" because they're really trying to establish a compromise in their communication with you despite your incorrect communications that allows some middle ground of trust - very few people are arguing just because they don't like your screen name and you've really not been posting here long enough to established long term disagreements. You're mistaking people seeking to prompt you to state something in a way that doesn't stop communication with some sort of hostile intent. That's a little paranoid to be comfortable with talking with strangers I think. 

Third, semantic arguments are the nature of written communication where precision is established by semantics and not by body language. Debate over meaning is entirely appropriate, when meaning is the issue at hand even by your own admission. If you don't want to argue semantics then everything you say should be absolutely clear in context, intent, and content. That you believe those things to be true of your communication is irrelevant, because the communicator is only half of any message. The message must be recieved properly or else simply transmitting information is absolutely meaningless. 

To restate this: If you think you're being clear and people say that you're saying something you think you aren't, then the problem isn't with them - you're the one trying to communicate. The listener is passive. That's why tailoring messages to your audience is so crucial. Getting into a hissy about not communicating well and then communicating _worse_ is awful form though. 

Anyways, semantics should be perfectable acceptable unless someone's just being a jerk about it - which for the most part only includes typo grammarians, grammar nazis, and deliberate trolls. None of which I'm seeing here, except perhaps in the fact with dozens of examples of people showing you post after post that they're willing to listen to what you have to say the continued repetition and repudiation of those examples in an almost deliberate misinterpretation and rejection of what should be a pretty clear message by now.


			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> Shouldn't they be taken to task for this by the moderators?



For what? Unless they're rude, harrassing, or spam it's really not against the rules. I know it has something to do with your perception that ENWorld is a hostile and mean place, but I know that's not true because I've not seen it myself and for the most part I hear most people saying the exact opposite. Instead, you're the one coming across as hostile. Are other posters being argumentative? Sure. But there's a difference between being argumentative and being hostile. Are some of the posters talking about other things than in the thread title? That's the great thing about internet forums - it lacks a focused message because people aren't obliged to sit passively and listen but are compelled to participate.


			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> . You are apparently never allowed to have any kind of discussion of general reform of D&D. You can of course address highly specific problems such as with this or that spell or this or that feat, especially if they are deemed to be balance problems. If you are discussing something a bit more broad, you will be shouted down and / or your thread will be attacked by kamikaze flamers / baiters.



Make no mistake about it, with your unqualified "never" you just personified anyone who replies in the negative to you with an assumption of a broad spectrum of behavior. That's aggressive and impolite, it's a troll and it's rude.


> Primitive Screwhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, stating *opinions* as definitive fact does need to be avoided as this leads to arguments... and even then you have to take the context of the statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> big dummy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I've done that, please show me where.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Ok, just remember that I'm repeating your words and that you asked.


			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?"



Statement of opinion as fact. Very many people have stated over an over again that this is a perception and assumption on your part, therefore opinion and a gross mischaracterization of your fellow community members. 


			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.



Statement of opinion in context as fact. While it's true that threads about many different subjects are closed out of hand, those subjects are clearly defined in the forum rules. Religion and politics are indeed wide swaths of subjects, but it's obvious from context you are attempting to place other subjects under this umbrella and that's an opinion. Furthermore I challenge the idea that "anyone who knows these forums" knows what you proclaim to know. Some people might know this, but not everyone, else everyone would likely be a critical and dissatisfied as yourself.


			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.



Statement of opinion as fact. People challenge this and it's subjective, therefore it's opinion.  People discuss all sorts of things in here regarding D&D in terms of things other than technical or balance issues. People discuss things besides D&D here. People discuss their children and divorces here, and their illnesses and deaths in the family. If there is some great conspiracy on topics resulting in censorship it's only in that Eric made it right from the start so that we'd only have a few things to argue about and that everyone should refrain from swearing like sailors.


			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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?



The questions themselves hinge upon opinions and assumptions that may or may not be true. Therefore their bald nature makes statements. It's like asking someone "How long have you been cheating on your wife, and how come you're always lying to me and being a jerk?" There are explicit statements backing up those sorts of questions, and those statements in this case are subjective and therefore opinion.

And, since you did all of that in the FIRST POST it's going to color the whole thread because it establishes the tone of how people will respond to you. Even if you vetted out your entire opinion with qualifiers people would likely disagree with you, but stating your opinion as facts right from the get go establishes a confrontational tone and how people are going to respond to you. Note: I'm not saying that this somehow "forces" people to react to you in a certain way, but in my younger days I've been known to punch people without thinking about it just for their tone. That is to say, it's instinctual. Language is about tone, probably because we developed body language and tone long before we developed language.

Again, if you show your teeth and assume everyone's out to bite you then generally you get bit, or else on the lovely internet everyone eventually just bans you or sets you to ignore - the ultimate social castration.


----------



## Nightfall

Third,

Hey it's no fun if I'm not against everything.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

I am actually impressed that this thread, which has tottered dangerously close to thread closing verbal repartee, is still going and relativley usefull..

Just wondering tho..what empirical evidence led to this?







			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> More specifically I've learned that a lot of people are against the very existence of a 4th edition of D&D...



I have not seen anything in this thread that even hints at this.


Opinions as definitive fact, from the first post







			
				big dummy said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> The net result is a de-facto censorship.




Of your 4 consistant reactions:
_1) People who are polite but frame their answers in terms of general forum etiquette rules and do not recognize any particular problem with ENworld or with D&D forums."_
Assuming of course, that there is a particular problem instead of one systemic of messageboards in general... {and yes, there are some interesting folks to debate with here..}

_2) People who agree with me and have some very insightful if depressing answers as to why things are getting the way they are. _
Some of the posters who agreed with you also stood out, in my mind, to be the very kind of posters you are decrying...

_3) People who disagree with me and want me to believe that I am the problem (sometimes overlapping a bit with #1)_
I kinda fall into this, altho I would say instead I disagree with you and want you to beleive that posting habits similar to what you have presented in this thread are a problem.

_4) People who are just playing around._
These are the fun guys!

I have debated, rather heatedly, with Raven Crowking, ThirdWizard, and many others on this thread. Actually its in these threads that I gained respect for them.

YMMV


----------



## Felix

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> I have not seen anything in this thread that even hints at this.



Possibly he refers to some of the Poll threads plumbing the interest or desire for a 4th edition, in which some folks do indeed say they would not be interested in a 4th edition in any way.

But no, that has not been the case in this thread. I think he refers to other threads.



			
				Nightfall said:
			
		

> I am! I'm against everything! I'm an anarachist!



"Are these Nazis, Walter?"
"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."


----------



## Nightfall

Felix,

That works for me! 

*is enjoying being useful for comedy today.*


----------



## ThirdWizard

Quick! Pimp Scarred Lands while everyone is looking.


----------



## Nightfall

No problem!

Scarred Lands forever!


----------



## Piratecat

Since the original poster got what he was looking for, I think I'll close it. Nice job staying calm, all. I'm really pleased how the discussion went.


----------

