A D&D Mantra

[Mr.Bookworm]

We really need one, similar to MST3K mantra of "It's just a show, I should really just relax".

I've been seeing a lot of anger and rage lately over what is basically a game. If you get ticked off over a game, you are seriously missing the point.

The entire point of D&D and roleplaying in general, is to have fun, not get torqued off by the new system, or another RAW interpretation another poster has.

So, "It's just a game, I should really just relax".

*waits to be torn to bits by an angry Internet*

[Scintillatus]

I've had it in my sig for about two weeks now.

Of course, I edited it out for Win's character sheet... Methinks I'll put it back in.

[Mr.Bookworm]

I've had it in my sig for about two weeks now.

Of course, I edited it out for Win's character sheet... Methinks I'll put it back in.

I was wondering about that.

And wondering which mental ward I should call.

[Sir_Elderberry]

Your 3.5 books? Still valid. Be happy that, despite what you might think, 4e isn't WoW, or WOTC could make changes--and would make changes--that heavily modified classes every few months, and you couldn't do anything but cope with them. In tabletop RPGs, we live in the beautiful freedom of Rule 0. Be thankful.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Your 3.5 books? Still valid. Be happy that, despite what you might think, 4e isn't WoW, or WOTC could make changes--and would make changes--that heavily modified classes every few months, and you couldn't do anything but cope with them. In tabletop RPGs, we live in the beautiful freedom of Rule 0. Be thankful.

My point is is that D&D/roleplaying games in general, no matter what form, is a game, first and last.

There's absolutely no point in getting ticked off in any way by what is a game, designed for enjoyment (well, that and to make money).

Not that it stops people from doing it, but I've just been seeing it a lot lately. Or it might just be that I'm noticing it more.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

There's absolutely no point in getting ticked off in any way by what is a game, designed for enjoyment…

Not even when the makers of that game take that game in a direction that is detrimental to your enjoyment of said game? What makes something more enjoyable for one person can often make it less so for another.

Your 3.5 books? Still valid.

Well, that's all well and good if you can keep finding groups that want to play the old editions and have the time to generate new content on your own when some of the stuff begins to get old. Kinda hard to keep up with your valid way of playing when everyone else is playing the new game. Lack of official support does have an impact.

People have a right to get upset just as much as they have a right to feel joy, apathy, or any other reaction to this or any other change to the system. Just like our old books, our feelings, whatever they may be are plenty valid.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Not even when the makers of that game take that game in a direction that is detrimental to your enjoyment of said game? What makes something more enjoyable for one person can often make it less so for another.

No game designer, except for extremely rare cases, would actively take their game in a direction that is detrimental to it's enjoyment. If you, personally, do not like it, there is, again, no point in getting ticked off about it and ranting.

People have a right to get upset just as much as they have a right to feel joy, apathy, or any other reaction to this or any other change to the system. Just like our old books, our feelings, whatever they may be are plenty valid.

They do. But it's pretty darn pointless and stupid to get worked up over a game.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

No game designer, except for extremely rare cases, would actively take their game in a direction that is detrimental to it's enjoyment.

I Repeat: What makes something more enjoyable for one person can often make it less so for another. Naturally, the designer finds his or her changes lead to a more enjoyable game. A given fan of the game does not necessarily agree.

But it's pretty darn pointless and stupid to get worked up over a game.

No more so than getting worked up with excitement. Just as strong an emotion. Why should it be valid to express one and not another?

[Entertainer13]

No, it's not World of Warcraft.

It is, however, combat focused. I never played D&D to kill lots of things and get gold. I played D&D to make interesting characters with cool personalities and interact. It was social hour for me. While killing Orcs and the occasional crystal troll was always fun, I liked knowing my "ol' farm boy" could use his +5 to Knowledge: Agriculture to help role play some info out from a grumpy field hand. I don't know, but reading through the game book, the emphasis is placed on fighting, fighting, fighting...

There are 1001 video games, miniature games (D&D Minis, anyone?) and other role playing systems out there that emphasize hack and slash. D&D has always seemed even handed in supporting both. Now, they're not.

It's changing a lot of the "fluff" of the game world that I enjoy, it's changing a lot of the flavor of D&D to a world that just doesn't sit well with me.

I'm sooooooo sorry if I get a little annoyed when one of my favorite past times changes itself to something I find boring. Yes, it's "just a game." But don't tell me how to react to a system a don't care much for replacing one I like. As long as I'm just ranting on the internet and that's it, who gives a carp? Ignore my posts or whining threads. If it's "just a game," why do you spend time on an internet forum discussing a silly game, debating tactics or fighting styles? Because it's an important hobby to you.

I've been quiet about the change, mostly because I know I'll just move over to GURPS or another more "character" than "class" driven system.

Rant.... done!

[Chronos]

Keep in mind, also, that it's difficult to convey nuances of emotion over a text-based medium like this. I doubt anyone is experiencing seething, uncontrollable rage over anything in any version of D&D. Some of us, however, are experiencing minor annoyance or disappointment. Unfortunately, seething rage and minor annoyance look a lot alike online.

[Scintillatus]

Funnily enough, there are half the amount of anti-4e people compared to pro-4e people, and twice the amount of threads whining about it than praising it. And every time someone makes one praising it, all the people who hate it come in one by one and make that person upset by arguing with them and ranting.

I don't think it's appropriate to do that, not at all, and I find it very disrespectful. If someone wants people to relax, your response should not be telling them "How dare you not enjoy my ceaseless complaints".

See my sig.

[Zocelot]

I believe that of the people who hate it, 90% of them will be playing only 4e in 1 year from now and enjoying it. And they will complain again when 5e comes out.

Also, many people (myself included) here are more serious gamers. As such, they don't like moving from a system where they are comfortable, and know all the rules to a simpler game. However, many casualler gamers or even people who do not play D&D yet will find 4e to be a simpler, and therefore more fun system.

[clericwithnogod]

Funnily enough, there are half the amount of anti-4e people compared to pro-4e people, and twice the amount of threads whining about it than praising it. And every time someone makes one praising it, all the people who hate it come in one by one and make that person upset by arguing with them and ranting.

I don't think it's appropriate to do that, not at all, and I find it very disrespectful. If someone wants people to relax, your response should not be telling them "How dare you not enjoy my ceaseless complaints".

See my sig.

There are just as many people threadcrapping on the pro-4e side in any thread where someone doesn't like 4e overall or some aspect of it.

Your signature is disrespectful to people that prefer more details and/or resource management in their game - you're belittling someone else's playstyle.

A better signature might read: If someone else posting negative or positive things about a game upsets you, just keep repeating to yourself, "It's just a game, I should really just relax"

[Scintillatus]

Also, many people (myself included) here are more serious gamers. As such, they don't like moving from a system where they are comfortable, and know all the rules to a simpler game. However, many casualler gamers or even people who do not play D&D yet will find 4e to be a simpler, and therefore more fun system.

Oh, goodness, I understand this. It's really difficult to shift paradigms, especially when they're as dramatic a shift as the 3.5/4e shift. I have nothing against people who have complaints, or people who are simply wary of corporate greed. What I do disagree with, quite simply, is people who bring their off-topic rants into every single positive thread about 4e, repeatedly skirting the rules and being disrespectful to people who simply want an honest and non-argumenative discussion.

There are just as many people threadcrapping on the pro-4e side in any thread where someone doesn't like 4e overall or some aspect of it.

Untrue. It's against the rules for me to name the core anti-4e group who rehashes old arguments in every new thread, but I encourage you to go out and read some of the pro-4e threads, you'll notice a few familiar faces. I have no doubt that pro-4e people and anti-4e people come into each others threads and disagree on certain issues, but believe me; more anti-4e people are disrespectful and reconstitute arguments, or outright lie.

[Suzuro]

Okay, ya know what? I've tried staying out of the 4e debates, I really have, but this just kind of angers me. No, I'm not angry at the game right now, I'm angry at all of you. All he's doing is saying that people should relax, that it shouldn't be taken too seriously, and you attack him. What if everybody had your beliefs? The world would never have any negotiators because everyone would be expressing their "Displeasure." In War.

Congratulation, just, congratulations.


-Hunter

[Zocelot]

There are just as many people threadcrapping on the pro-4e side in any thread where someone doesn't like 4e overall or some aspect of it.

Your signature is disrespectful to people that prefer more details and/or resource management in their game - you're belittling someone else's playstyle.

A better signature might read: If someone else posting negative or positive things about a game upsets you, just keep repeating to yourself, "It's just a game, I should really just relax"

There are many more people threadcrapping on the pro-4e side. However, there is about as much threadcrap from both sides.

The sig is fine. People don't use that as their playstyle, because every single other person at the table will get piseed at them for bogging the game down.

[clericwithnogod]

Untrue. It's against the rules for me to name the core anti-4e group who rehashes old arguments in every new thread, but I encourage you to go out and read some of the pro-4e threads, you'll notice a few familiar faces. I have no doubt that pro-4e people and anti-4e people come into each others threads and disagree on certain issues, but believe me; more anti-4e people are disrespectful and reconstitute arguments, or outright lie.

I have been reading both the pro and anti threads. There's no difference.

[Zocelot]

Okay, ya know what? I've tried staying out of the 4e debates, I really have, but this just kind of angers me. No, I'm not angry at the game right now, I'm angry at all of you. All he's doing is saying that people should relax, that it shouldn't be taken too seriously, and you attack him. What if everybody had your beliefs? The world would never have any negotiators because everyone would be expressing their "Displeasure." In War.

Congratulation, just, congratulations.


-Hunter

I can't argue this point without proving it, so I will respectfully disagree and explain my opinion. There are many people who wish to have a respectful discussion, but arguments have a tendency to landslide. If a single person disagrees, they will likely provide multiple points to support their argument. Then various people, using a combination of ninjas and supporting each other, show why that person is incorrect. This goes back and forth, and because forums are a limited means of communication, it is rare for an argument to end before people simply get bored of it.

[clericwithnogod]

People don't use that as their playstyle, because every single other person at the table will get piseed at them for bogging the game down.

You're wrong. I play and have played with DMs/groups that play that way. Some games that are heavy on exploration work very well that way for me (particularly if there is an engineer and a chemist in the group ). Using it in a more combat-oriented game isn't my thing, but some people like it, and I've put up with it because other aspects of their game made it worthwhile.

[Zocelot]

You're wrong. I play and have played with DMs/groups that play that way. Some games that are heavy on exploration work very well that way for me (particularly if there is an engineer and a chemist in the group ). Using it in a more combat-oriented game isn't my thing, but some people like it, and I've put up with it because other aspects of their game made it worthwhile.

"If you're wondering how PC's eat and breathe/And other science facts/Repeat to yourself/"It's just a game, I should really just relax""

What Scintillatus means, is a different version of how. It is not how they digest, or how their respiratory systems work. Rather, it is the rythm and habits. Describing in detail your character is eating his meal, or give a specific measure of time to describe the rate of your breathing for example.

If you actually do use this meaning of how, then you should repeat to yourself "It's just a game, I should really relax"

[clericwithnogod]

"
What Scintillatus means, is a different version of how. It is not how they digest, or how their respiratory systems work. Rather, it is the rythm and habits. Describing in detail your character is eating his meal, or give a specific measure of time to describe the rate of your breathing for example.

If you actually do use this meaning of how, then you should repeat to yourself "It's just a game, I should really relax"

I've had people describe a meal, or have a social roleplay situation in a formal dining setting where etiquette was expected and some characters ate more or less (or significantly more or less) appropriately. I've also had DMs that track rations, expect players to make survival checks and/or use spells to create food and water, etc. Neither is some off the wall concept. It isn't off the wall for players or DMs to expect physics to work in a consistent way. It's no more or less valid a playstyle than any other.

edit-aporpriately

[Zocelot]

Good, good. Now that we both agree on a consistent defintion of how, our points are not mutually exclusive.

[clericwithnogod]

Good, good. Now that we both agree on a consistent defintion of how, our points are not mutually exclusive.

What is your point?

[Zocelot]

That describing how you eat a meal can have two different meanings. If your character always chews on his left side, then you should calm down (If you do this for many parts of your character). However, if you are at a tavern or a more formal establishment, and you get served food, a description of the food does not hurt.

[Pie Guy]

I recomend that everybody just be quiet, and stop posting that 4e is awesome or it sucks, we don't care anymore!

*panting*

Is this the general feeling of the thread?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Funnily enough, there are half the amount of anti-4e people compared to pro-4e people, and twice the amount of threads whining about it than praising it.

I admit I've been making a point of staying away from the 4e threads, but the few I have read lead me to agree with Zocelot and clericwithnogod: there's plenty of argument on both sides.

I should point out that a number of threads on the subject: both pro and anti, even invite this sort of thing, having confrontational subjects that often tread the line on the forum rules against outside baggage.

If someone wants people to relax, your response should not be telling them "How dare you not enjoy my ceaseless complaints".

Point of fact: Telling an upset or otherwise anxious person to "just relax" tends to put that person on the defensive, thereby makes them less relaxed more often than not. "Please relax" carries with it the connotation that the speaker believes another's feelings of anxiety are somehow wrong or invalid. And how can that not make one upset?

With that in mind, one can only expect the other party to take up a "How dare you?!" position when told to "Just relax." This is why use of the phrase is generally discouraged in most bits of advice on conflict resolution, even if it does make a catchy theme song.

No, I'm not angry at the game right now, I'm angry at all of you. All he's doing is saying that people should relax, that it shouldn't be taken too seriously, and you attack him.

Who's attacking? I have not seen any attacks.

As far as "all he's doing is saying that people should relax", I direct you to my previous comment. And believe me, I've really being pulling out all the stops to avoid becoming overdefensive, because I know that the OP has good intentions, even if his methods are ill-advised.

[clericwithnogod]

That describing how you eat a meal can have two different meanings. If your character always chews on his left side, then you should calm down (If you do this for many parts of your character). However, if you are at a tavern or a more formal establishment, and you get served food, a description of the food does not hurt.

So people that describe their characters in detail including mannerisms or quirks need to calm down - unless they only have few mannerisms or quirks. It seems kind of ill defined, maybe a set limit of you can have three quirks, but only two quirks if one of them is about which side your character chews on.

But you like descriptions of food, as long as it is served in a formal setting. So roasted quail on a plate in a tavern is goodrightfun but a haunch of venison roasting over a spit in a hunting camp is badwrongfun. So saying, "You succeed on your Dungeoneering check." is OK, But saying, "You find an underground stream, the water is heavy with the taste of minerals but drinkable and you manage to catch a couple white, eyeless fish from the stream to feed the party." isn't.

[MeklorIlavator]

I think that he's saying there is a time and a place for everything. Every time one's character does something doesn't need to be a full blown dramatic description. For example, your second description is fine, but a 2 page description of the cavern just bogs down the game for no real purpose.

[clericwithnogod]

I think that he's saying there is a time and a place for everything. Every time one's character does something doesn't need to be a full blown dramatic description. For example, your second description is fine, but a 2 page description of the cavern just bogs down the game for no real purpose.

Thanks for approving of my made up Dungeoneering fluff. But as much as I appreciate that you approve of it, your approval of it is as meaningless as your disapproval of somebody else's (I'm not sure whose) 2 page description of the cavern. The playstyle I used as an example, or somebody else's playstyle that likes long descriptions are equally valid and deserving of the same respect.

As for what you think he is saying, I can't quite link it up to the signature we're talking about: "If you're wondering how PC's eat and breathe/And other science facts/Repeat to yourself/"It's just a game, I should really just relax"

But, if someone else posts what they think you're saying about what you think Zocelot is saying about what he thinks Scintillatus is saying, I bet that will clear everything up.

[Enlong]

Well, in the interest of rhyme, I think I've got a mantra.

"If you feel like complaining 'bout skills and feats
And how the game is run
Then repeat to yourself, it's just a game
We're here to have some fun."