Why do people get so defensive about D&D?

[Number 6]

I'm a natural born "fiddler". I always try to make things better.

Over the years, I have come up with some home brewed rules. Most players do not like home brewed rules, and I can understand this.

What I don't understand is how so many of them are so senstive to criticism about D&D. I could understand if it was religion or politics, but it's only a game.

Just two weeks back, after a game, I suggested that we should gain a set number of HP per level instead of rolling it because it really sucks if you roll a "1". The guy I was talking to kept telling me I was wrong, but he couldn't give one reason why. He lost his temper and stormed out of the apartment. Then the DM told me to leave because I was upsetting the players. This is one of the worst examples, but it has happened to me a lot.

The other thing that puzzles me is the fact that people think I'm bad mouthing the rules. I'm not saying that they are bad; I just think they could be better.

So, any ideas anyone? Can you tell me why people get more upset over their favorite game than they do if you insult their mother?

[Solo]

Just two weeks back, after a game, I suggested that we should gain a set number of HP per level instead of rolling it because it really sucks if you roll a "1". The guy I was talking to kept telling me I was wrong, but he couldn't give one reason why. He lost his temper and stormed out of the apartment. Then the DM told me to leave because I was upsetting the players.

They were clearly not worth your time, then.

On average, you're going to get the same results rolling as you would just adding the average HP to your class, so there really was no reason to take the suggestion that badly.

Can you tell me why people get more upset over their favorite game than they do if you insult their mother?

Because other, less intelligent, people were placed on Earth by God for your amusement, and thus you should take pleasure in trumping their illogical arguments and tormenting them.

Insult their mother after criticizing the rules for good measure.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Stockholm syndrome.

The only explanation that makes sense.


Edit: Also, isn't that in the freaking DMG? Gain average hp (rounded down and up on alternating levels) each level instead of rolling, because rolling sucks when you have a few low rolls?

[akma]

i personely use the rule that the characters and the monsters gain maximum hp per hit dice (including when my characters were level 1).
well, i never encountered that phenomonen but he probebly just couldn`t accept the fact that he lost.
anyway i use a few homebrewed rules and you shouldn`t feel sorry for believing in them. normaly i would say to you not to complain about one crazy person, but im pretty sure we live in diffrent countries so what do i know?

[Number 6]

Stockholm syndrome.

The only explanation that makes sense.


Edit: Also, isn't that in the freaking DMG? Gain average hp (rounded down and up on alternating levels) each level instead of rolling, because rolling sucks when you have a few low rolls?

Thanks for telling me that. I didn't see that one in the DMG.

[Yakk]

Take a character rolling d6 HD with a -2 to their HP per level.

The naive average is 1.5, but it is actual average is either 1.666... or 2.000... (depending on if you get a min if 0 or 1 HP per level).

So there is a small difference. :)

[Solo]

Stockholm syndrome.

The only explanation that makes sense.

I think the phrase you're looking for is Cognitive Dissonance.

[truemane]

People seem to have trouble when they are challenged about ANYTHING in which they have invested emotion. D&D just happens to be one of those things. Ever try to talk Star Wars to a trekkie? I can still remember the EPIC arguments I would get into when I used to say The Matrix was an average film.

Or that Ringo Starr was a lousy drummer.

Or etc etc etc...

D&D is just the most popular role-playing game, and role-players (pretty much by definition) enjoy role-playing. Increased enjoyment often (but not always) comes with increased emotional investment. Add it all up and there you go.

It's got nothing to do with D&D in particular.

In fact, ff you want to have fun, find people who feel the SAME about D&D that you do (that some rules could be better) and tell them that YOUR homebrew rules are better than THEIR homebrew rules.

[Number 6]

Take a character rolling d6 HD with a -2 to their HP per level.

The naive average is 1.5, but it is actual average is either 1.666... or 2.000... (depending on if you get a min if 0 or 1 HP per level).

So there is a small difference. :)

I just think it's a good idea because I've had some bad experiences with rolling HP. I had a ninth level MU who only had 17 hit points. RIP. (That was back in first edition when you didn't get a bonus unless your Con was over 14. That's one change I really liked in 3.0) It's worse if you have a 1d4 hit dice because you have a 25% chance of getting a 1 and a 50% chance of getting a one or two. I usually have to multiclass as a fighter or die quickly.

[Cainen]

I don't know, but I've seen the same result thousands of times with different things, and it's almost ALWAYS the d20 fans who throw the fit. I've seen maybe one or two AD&D fans that are the same way, an FFRPG fan, but I've literally never seen someone do the same thing to any of the Shadowrun editions I played. Or GURPS, for that matter.

[Rutee]

I think he meant the tendency to sympathize with someone who's captured you and is holding you hostage.

To answer the original question, "Because people have a natural tendency to grow defensive about things they identify with". A criticism of the system is a criticism of the person, is the thought process the player will take. I think.

[Telonius]

I'm a natural born "fiddler". I always try to make things better.

Over the years, I have come up with some home brewed rules. Most players do not like home brewed rules, and I can understand this.

What I don't understand is how so many of them are so senstive to criticism about D&D. I could understand if it was religion or politics, but it's only a game.

Just two weeks back, after a game, I suggested that we should gain a set number of HP per level instead of rolling it because it really sucks if you roll a "1". The guy I was talking to kept telling me I was wrong, but he couldn't give one reason why. He lost his temper and stormed out of the apartment. Then the DM told me to leave because I was upsetting the players. This is one of the worst examples, but it has happened to me a lot.

The other thing that puzzles me is the fact that people think I'm bad mouthing the rules. I'm not saying that they are bad; I just think they could be better.

So, any ideas anyone? Can you tell me why people get more upset over their favorite game than they do if you insult their mother?

I think part of it is expectations, and the timing of rules changes. If you're already in the middle of a game, it's kind of upsetting to have the rules change on you. If I'm DMing, I'll always let the players know about all of the houserules before the first session. That way, they know what to expect. Remember, D&D is a collaborative enterprise. If either the players or the DM starts changing the rules midstream, it kind of violates the unspoken contract.

Now, with rolling for HP, there can be a genuine difference of opinion. Some people are concerned about the possibility of having a sucky score due to low rolls. They generally prefer to take the average. Others like the element of danger and savor the sweetness of having max HP every once in awhile. They generally prefer to roll. Logic only goes so far, if you don't accept one side's premise. That could be why you two reached an impasse. So while you weren't exactly saying his mother enjoys the company of an incubus, you might have been (unintentionally) implying that his way of viewing the game isn't a valid one.

[Number 6]

I think part of it is expectations, and the timing of rules changes. If you're already in the middle of a game, it's kind of upsetting to have the rules change on you.

No, I don't change the rules in the middle of a game. I'm not stupid. The last time I happened, I said in this forum that I hoped rogues were better in combat in 4.0 and got some flame mail.

[Indon]

Now, with rolling for HP, there can be a genuine difference of opinion.

My group frequently has a 'reroll 1's' houserule, with it generally extended to 2's for D10 and 12.

This is a good thing, since I have a horrible tendency to roll low on, well, dice, when playing D&D.

[Zincorium]

Personally, I've always liked games where all PCs and monsters have full HP. Means that playing it offensively isn't worth quite so much, and healing actually becomes a bit of a concern.


People get defensive about D&D because, at least in my experience, people don't separate a cherished or tightly believed idea from themselves. I.E., if you try to say that an idea doesn't have a good basis, or it would be more fun to play another way, it's indistinguishable from a personal attack. The ability to recognize when you are wrong, and then change to have a more accurate idea or a better game, is really an important concept to take on board. Just my 2 cents.

[SamTheCleric]

Ever since I had a level 8 ranger with 20 (including max at first level) hit points, our DM has initiated the "Kalloreen Rule", You may opt to go with Half+1, but you must take half+1 from that point on.

Those guys just seem like jerks, in my opinion.

[KIDS]

I really don't know, but you bring up a good point - I find a lot of the community very hostile nowadays. No explanation from my side :(

[Azerian Kelimon]

Why do people get so defensive about D&D?

Because it's our little boy! Give him back! *snatch*.

Joke aside, because we're fanbois who can't take constructive criticism form the fans who see the flaws of the system. I think.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Ever since I had a level 8 ranger with 20 (including max at first level) hit points, our DM has initiated the "Kalloreen Rule", You may opt to go with Half+1, but you must take half+1 from that point on.

Those guys just seem like jerks, in my opinion.

Statistically speaking, you should take that immediately and never regret it. That's higher then the average and you never have to worry about being screwed.

[TheThan]

Because it's our little boy! Give him back! *snatch*.

Joke aside, because we're fanbois who can't take constructive criticism form the fans who see the flaws of the system. I think.

Yep,

even though i see the flaws in the system...

[Raum]

What I don't understand is how so many of them are so senstive to criticism about D&D. I could understand if it was religion or politics, but it's only a game.

Not everyone can easily separate criticism of the game from perceived criticism of my game. And if you can't, criticism of my game becomes criticism of me by extension. It's really just human nature. Until you learn to think objectively, criticism is usually perceived as a personal attack.

As for your specific example, I only have one question - Was it asked in an appropriate time and manner? It's purely a rhetorical question, but one to consider.

[Person_Man]

Please don't take this the wrong way, because honestly I don't know you at all. But maybe you're just being a jerk about it.

Perhaps you should try another style of communication. For example, whenever you criticize (or flat out correct) anyone for any reason, try the following formula:

1) Ask the person what they think about the subject.

2) Listen. Really listen, don't just wait for your turn to speak.

3) When they're done talking (not when there's a lull in the conversation, but when they're done talking) ask them to clarify anything about what they said that you don't fully understand.

4) Agree with something that they just said. If you don't agree with anything they said, tell them how you agree with them in theory, or recognize how well thought out their opinion is, or recognize how important their ideas are, or just compliment something about them in general.

5) Point out an observation that you've made about what they just said, and make your criticism, preferably coached in language that they just used.

6) Ask the person what they think about your criticism, and try to negotiate a compromise between your positions. Usually, you'll just get what you want because the person you're talking to feels listened to.

For example:

"You know, it really sucks for players who roll a 1 on their hit dice. What do you think. [Listen until they're done talking]. You know, you were really right about people having to pay a price for poor dice rolls. Perhaps PCs who choose to can use the average method of calculating hit points. That way they won't have very low hit points, but they'll also never have very high hit points. Or we can have them spend all of their Action Points in order to re-roll their hit dice. I'd like to try something different for one of my character in our next gaming session. You know the rules better then I do though, so what do you think?"

This method takes at least 10 times longer then just telling the person what you think. But it almost always leads to a better outcome for you. You do not win arguments by being smarter, or more eloquent, or by being able to talk for the longest amount of time, or even by being empirically correct. You win arguments by listening, convincing the person that you care about what they said, and then communicating what you want in terms of their self interest and beliefs. Most psychologists and grassroots organizers suggest a 70/30 ratio of listening/talking. If that ratio is way off for you, you might be doing something wrong.

Also, beer helps. Try buying a round before you argue with people.

[Number 6]

Please don't take this the wrong way, because honestly I don't know you at all. But maybe you're just being a jerk about it.

Just FYI, I teach communications and rhetoric at University of Texas at San Antonio, so I was aware of all your methods. They remind me of Lau Tzu and Taoism. I'm going to keep your e-mail, though. Maybe I can use it as a teaching aid.

But why is it necessary to talk to them the same way you'd talk about divorce, child abuse, or coming out of the closet?

[Kurald Galain]

Heh. Not just D&D, simply everything.

Even on a forum like this, where one can reasonably assume that most people like D&D to some extent (no, not all, and the extent varies) we get violent debates about which classes suck, and people turn not-so-friendly in comparisons between editions of the same game.

But try and convince, say, a car enthousiastic that his wheels really need a paint job. Or a sailing boat fan that motor boats are better.

[Zincorium]

Person man, I'm sorry, but the only thing in your post I've found applicable to most situations involving rabid asocial geeks people like me, is the beer. Being nice, considerate, and receptive would ideally be the way all situations are handled, but I've used it and it has backfired on me more than once.

The problem with your approach, is that someone may take so little offense that they think you agree with them, rather than the different opinion or idea that you have. Once they mistakenly believe that there is nothing wrong with their opinion, chances are good that they will feel validated and name you as someone on their side in the future. It does happen.

Frankly, being willing to offend someone is occasionally a neccessary evil. If someone's behavior is disruptive or harmful to the gaming environment, you can't leave it be just because you know offense will be caused by criticism. Judging which situations the tactful, polite approach will be ineffective or even detrimental, is not easy.

[horseboy]

I think he meant the tendency to sympathize with someone who's captured you and is holding you hostage.

Hmm, doesn't that also apply to battered wives? You know, the "he hits me because he loves me" mentality.

[Drider]

Or a sailing boat fan that motor boats are better.

HERESY!!!
10 post limit size.

[Yakk]

A general HP inflation system that makes the HP per level less damaging:
1d4 -> 1+1d3 + ConB* 2/3
1d6 -> 3+1d3 + ConB* 1/1
1d8 -> 4+1d4 + ConB* 4/3
1d10 -> 6+1d4 + ConB* 5/3
1d12 -> 8+1d4 + ConB* 6/3

At level 10:
d4 -> [20 to 40]+6*ConB
d6 -> [40 to 60]+10*ConB
d8 -> [50 to 80]+13*ConB
d10-> [70 to 100]+16*ConB
d12-> [90 to 120]+20*ConB

(That isn't counting max HP at level 1).

Replace max HP at level one with "Your Con, divided by 2, rounded down" bonus HP for every PC and NPC.

Higher HD, which is valued highly in the between-class character balance, is made more valuable. And even a character who rolls crappy on their HD isn't a cripple, unless they also have extremely low con.

(as an aside, I tweaked the above so that at no point is having a lower HD better than a higher HD with negative con.)

[Yakk]

A general HP inflation system that makes the HP per level less damaging:
1d4 -> 1+1d3 + ConB* 2/3
1d6 -> 3+1d3 + ConB* 1/1
1d8 -> 4+1d4 + ConB* 4/3
1d10 -> 6+1d4 + ConB* 5/3
1d12 -> 8+1d4 + ConB* 6/3

At level 10:
d4 -> [20 to 40]+6*ConB
d6 -> [40 to 60]+10*ConB
d8 -> [50 to 80]+13*ConB
d10-> [70 to 100]+16*ConB
d12-> [90 to 120]+20*ConB

(That isn't counting max HP at level 1).

Replace max HP at level one with "Your Con, divided by 2, rounded down" bonus HP for every PC and NPC.

Higher HD, which is valued highly in the between-class character balance, is made more valuable. And even a character who rolls crappy on their HD isn't a cripple, unless they also have extremely low con.

(as an aside, I tweaked the above so that at no point is having a lower HD better than a higher HD with negative con.)

[Starsinger]

You know, you were really right about people having to pay a price for poor dice rolls.

With the exception of that right there, I totally agree with you Person_Man. And also.. am going to have to start arguing like that more often.