wtf is going on with this sub thread?

[CyberThread]

Serious we are days from massive release and everyone is arguing instead of having fun. What is up folks?

[Leon]

Business as usual for the Role-playing Section of the forum.

[Envyus]

I blame Lokiare he tends to start stuff up. Well at least Captpike has not shown up for a while or it would be even worse.

[Tholomyes]

Have you never been on the internet before? This is kind of what we do.

Though I'd argue that all this debating over the rules is healthy. All these House-rules (well, the good house rules) for various editions didn't spring up out of nowhere. They are largely the result of people coming together to solve common problems with a system. Even with one person coming up with the house-rules, usually multiple people critique it. But in order to get to that point, we need to argue, or at least debate, about what the common problems are. Even house rules we tend to take for granted, like removing XP penalties for multiclassing in 3e, or giving away math-fix feat-taxes in 4e for free, wouldn't be as prevalent without these sorts of debates that highlight the problem. I'll admit, it's more important for the math side of things, since those are more difficult to get a direct feel for. After long enough, you might realize that (for the 4e example) PCs start hitting less often at higher levels, but the math of when and where and how much characters begin to fall behind, vs monsters, is less clear.

[akaddk]

I blame Lokiare he tends to start stuff up. Well at least Captpike has not shown up for a while or it would be even worse.

There are at least four people on this subforum that everyone should have on ignore for their own sanity. Captpike, Lokiare, Tholomyes & akaddk.

[MadBear]

There are at least four people on this subforum that everyone should have on ignore for their own sanity. Captpike, Lokiare, Tholomyes & :smallconfused: akaddk :smallconfused:.

I see what you did there :smallwink:

[Giddonihah]

Is this the For Fun thread then?

I'll share something fun I thought of. With the way concentration spells work, we can make a cleric that acts like the Medic from TF2, using a Buff spell that gets disrupted by shooting the medic :smallbiggrin:. All we need is a way to constantly heal your target while concentrating.

[Envyus]

There are at least four people on this subforum that everyone should have on ignore for their own sanity. Captpike, Lokiare, Tholomyes & akaddk.

While I disagree with him a decent amount of time Tholomyes is not bad and is not guilty of anything that would warrant ignoring him.

[Knaight]

While I disagree with him a decent amount of time Tholomyes is not bad and is not guilty of anything that would warrant ignoring him.

Putting someone on ignore is hardly a punishment. People don't have to be guilty of things. I keep a fairly small Ignore list, but a few people on there got there just because they decided that capitalization, punctuation, and paragraph breaks didn't matter. It's not some judgement of them being guilty, just a filter to keep the content looking like it was written by someone who cares enough to try.

[Lord Raziere]

Serious we are days from massive release and everyone is arguing instead of having fun. What is up folks?

This happens every edition. happened with 4e. probably happened with 3.5. change always bring conflict. its practically roleplaying tradition to argue over this sort of thing.

[Envyus]

Putting someone on ignore is hardly a punishment. People don't have to be guilty of things. I keep a fairly small Ignore list, but a few people on there got there just because they decided that capitalization, punctuation, and paragraph breaks didn't matter. It's not some judgement of them being guilty, just a filter to keep the content looking like it was written by someone who cares enough to try.

Yeah, but he does not do anything like that ether so there is not point in ignoring him. Pretty much I am saying I disagree with akaddk putting him on the should be ignored list.

[Crueldespot]

Serious we are days from massive release and everyone is arguing instead of having fun. What is up folks?

I've been browsing around a few different D&D forums over the last few weeks to see the reaction to 5E and to learn more about the pros and cons. IMHO, This is the most anti-5E subforum about 5E that I've found.

I'm not trying to imply that the other 5E forums on the internet are entirely positive about 5E, but the GitP 5E forum seems to be particularly negative.

My impression is that the internet reception for 5E has generally been quite positive, with one exception: dedicated fans of 4E. This is not surprising at all, because WotC killed their favorite game and set out to make a game that veers in the other direction.

I don't normally spend time on this site, so this is just a guess, but I am guessing that there is a higher density of 4E fans on this site, and therefore an overall atmosphere about 5E that is more negative.

That doesn't mean the 4E fans are "wrong" - it's just a matter of different personal preferences about play style. 4E had more elaborate rules for combat. There were a lot of tactical options. Combat took longer to resolve. In 5E (at least for now) combat is deliberately faster and simpler. Which also makes the fighter "boring" (if you don't care about backgrounds).

Honestly, the unrelenting negativity here is what keeps me coming back. I'm a fan of 5E so far, but I'm not naive. I realize no game is perfect. If there is any forum to learn about problematic issues with 5E, this is probably it.

[Knaight]

I don't normally spend time on this site, so this is just a guess, but I am guessing that there is a higher density of 4E fans on this site, and therefore an overall atmosphere about 5E that is more negative.

I doubt it. This forum is pretty 3e centric, and a lot of the criticism is coming from 3e players. There are a few prominent 4e players who are being particularly loud in their criticism (though they're on so many ignore lists it doesn't really affect all that much), but overall the 4e crowd has been less critical.

[unwise]

This seems a good a place to ask as any, if you put somebody on ignore, it just gets rid of their posts right? It does not get rid of, or censor, posts that quote them?

Just wondering if it is possible to both not see the initial post or the replies to it, which tend to also be wasted space. Not sure if I would bother turning it on if that is an option, just curious.

[Knaight]

This seems a good a place to ask as any, if you put somebody on ignore, it just gets rid of their posts right? It does not get rid of, or censor, posts that quote them?

Just wondering if it is possible to both not see the initial post or the replies to it, which tend to also be wasted space. Not sure if I would bother turning it on if that is an option, just curious.

It doesn't do anything about the quotes. With that said, a lot of the people who get ignored get ignored by enough people that it's a non-issue. At the very least I've found it helps me from contributing to them getting quoted and derailing the thread they're in; your mileage may vary.

[Mr.Moron]

Serious we are days from massive release and everyone is arguing instead of having fun. What is up folks?

Just haters gonna hate, taters gonna tates, neckbeard gonna neck. Or would be that be neckbeards gonna beard? I'm not sure I'm willing to condemn bears that broadly.

[da_chicken]

Serious we are days from massive release and everyone is arguing instead of having fun. What is up folks?

GITP forums are, IMX, poorly moderated, and from what I've seen elsewhere do not have a positive reputation. Our monkeys like to fling feces as much as bang on the typewriters. It is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. At least the software is better than WotC's.

[akaddk]

It is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Just the way I like it.

[Joe the Rat]

It doesn't do anything about the quotes. With that said, a lot of the people who get ignored get ignored by enough people that it's a non-issue. At the very least I've found it helps me from contributing to them getting quoted and derailing the thread they're in; your mileage may vary.Indeed. Nobody ever notices what I write. It keeps threads much more in line that way.

I like having the range of options for opinions. The two places I'm tracking are wotc (general positive, lots of minutiae arguments and debate antics), and here (critically ambivalent, generally better mechanics analysis, plus Australian Parliament-style bashing)(edit: Ooo, I like that poo-flinging analogy better).

[akaddk]

plus Australian Parliament-style bashing
Equating people here to the Australian Parliament is highly offensive... to the people here.

[obryn]

Yeah, there's no way in which this is a pro-4e forum. :smallbiggrin: If you want those, you need to look to RPG.net and somethingawful. This is a heavily 3.x forum, and often more 3.x than Pathfinder.

What's nice about this place is that most folks at least try to think critically about their elfgames. If you go to the 3e forum, you find a lot of people talking constructively about 3e's problems. If you go to the 4e forum, you find a lot of people talking constructively about 4e's problems. If you go to the 5e forum, you have a few howler monkeys edition warring, and ... a lot of people talking as constructively as possible, given the circumstances, about their enjoyment and/or disappointment in the new rule set.

I think it's also pretty important to note that, just as 4e was made in response to peoples' problems with 3e, 5e is being made in response to peoples' problems with 4e. As I mentioned, this is a 3e-centric board, and a lot of people here have problems with 4e. Critically, though, the problems a lot of folks here have with 4e aren't the issues that 5e is addressing.

[archaeo]

I think it's also pretty important to note that, just as 4e was made in response to peoples' problems with 3e, 5e is being made in response to peoples' problems with 4e. As I mentioned, this is a 3e-centric board, and a lot of people here have problems with 4e. Critically, though, the problems a lot of folks here have with 4e aren't the issues that 5e is addressing.

I think it's helpful that Mearls & Co. haven't followed their predecessors' example and have generally been, for lack of a better phrase, "4e-positive" throughout this whole experience. I suppose it helps that WotC is still raking in DDI subscription cash, but nonetheless, I think we'd see a lot more outrage from 4e lovers if WotC pulled the same tone-deaf marketing nonsense they did during the 3.5e->4e transition.

[obryn]

I think it's helpful that Mearls & Co. haven't followed their predecessors' example and have generally been, for lack of a better phrase, "4e-positive" throughout this whole experience. I suppose it helps that WotC is still raking in DDI subscription cash, but nonetheless, I think we'd see a lot more outrage from 4e lovers if WotC pulled the same tone-deaf marketing nonsense they did during the 3.5e->4e transition.
Well, there's been plenty of nonsense about shouting limbs back on or whatnot, but just like I didn't think the 4e marketing was anything to get riled up about, this hasn't been either. I wouldn't call the design "4e-positive" at all though; from a design standpoint. :smallsmile: 4e concepts have been mangled and/or obfuscated to the point where there's very little left.

So you have, for example, hit dice. If you don't know anything about how 4e works, they look a whole lot like healing surges. If you do, they look nothing like healing surges. You have that Sentinel feat, but the action economy kills its utility. You have a "complex fighter" but its "encounter" powers are about as strong as 4e at-wills. You have "encounter" abilities, but short rests are a full hour. You have at-wills ... but only for spellcasters. And so on.

[Squirrel_Dude]

This happens every edition. happened with 4e. probably happened with 3.5. change always bring conflict. its practically roleplaying tradition to argue over this sort of thing.Pathfinder's merit can still be a pretty hot topic in the 3.5e forum.

I'd blame 4e for creating edition wars, but from what I've read, it was more than likely a thing with 3rd edition as well. That game was quite a large departure from AD&D/2e

[Stubbazubba]

My impression is that this board is a bit more homebrew-centric than others, as well. I think that naturally leads to a heightened awareness of mechanics here, and not just mechanical knowledge but the ability to analyze and therefore predict the impact of new mechanical ideas. Other forums tend to be aware of how the mechanics work, but rarely get into huge posts with detailed statistical analysis and projections. They're more conceptual and factual, but not as analytical.

But then I don't frequent that many other forums. Mostly RPG.net and ENWorld for PbP. And there are forums out there that go the other way, too. The Gaming Den, for instance, is both 1) more mechanically-inclined, 2) more 3e-centric, and 3) moderated far, far less, than the playground (like, if this is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, tgdmb.com is a murderous, enraged drug cartel of Sith lords).

[Yuki Akuma]

Pathfinder's merit can still be a pretty hot topic in the 3.5e forum.

I'd blame 4e for creating edition wars, but from what I've read, it was more than likely a thing with 3rd edition as well. That game was quite a large departed from AD&D/2e

The only reason you don't hear about the Chainmail/D&D edition war is because the Internet wasn't really a thing in the 70s.

[akaddk]

The only reason you don't hear about the Chainmail/D&D edition war is because the Internet wasn't really a thing in the 70s.

I take it you've never heard of Dragonsfoot?

[Porthos]

but from what I've read, it was more than likely a thing with 3rd edition as well. That game was quite a large departure from AD&D/2e

Anyone who frequented rec.games.frp.dnd back in the day (as well as EN World which was initally formed in part because of the coming of 3e) can tell you that the 2e->3e transtion was just as loud and angry as 3.x->4e was.

The only difference, and I DO mean the only difference, is there was a heck of a lot more internet around durning the later transtion. :smallamused:

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: We do not need a separate thread to argue about arguing in other threads. If someone is violating the Forum Rules, please report them. Otherwise, people can argue, discuss, debate in whatever rules-compliant manner they desire.