Quote from: Elliot WilenOther than that, dar's nailed it: justification. People are still shocked to find out that other people have different tastes, so the behavior in question is just a natural attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Not really. These folks are just behaving like dicks. I mean let's be honest here. You can have two people who disagree with each other about their individual preferences and still have a civil conversation without resorting to thrashing the preference itself.

Regards,
David R

It's not even that. Some people just don't like to take criticism and when they disagree with somebody else are quick to insults, petty comebacks, reading into things, and like behavior on an online forum.

Not once did I resort to any insults, name-calling, cussing, aside from saying, well, I think D&D 3e sucks for these reasons. My behavior was/is civil. My only "error" is that my opinions are not popular to some, and for that people like to thrash back and make up their own justifications for those unpopular opinions I have.

You may as well ask why people care what other people think of them . . .
or their games.

I really didn't want Lancer to become the target of this thread and put him on the defensive, I've certainly heard more volitile arguments and comments than his.  I probably should have waited a day or two before posting this.

This certainly isn't an excusive incident on the internet, it happens all the time.  Many of us are probably guilty of it at one time or another.

Quote from: David RYou can have two people who disagree with each other about their individual preferences and still have a civil conversation without resorting to thrashing the preference itself.

No! It's always good to discuss in great detail your preferences and the reasons for them! Like when your woman asks you to go down on her, you should ask her, "but why? Really it makes no sense", and if she gives a lame answer like, "it feels good, now lick!" just keep asking questions. That always makes things really good, having everything analysed critically. It's so hot, she'll spotaneously combust in front of you, honest.

Asking what people like and giving it to them is good and helps fun in a game session. Too much analysis of why they like what they like is not good, and makes no game session fun.

Quote from: David RNot really. These folks are just behaving like dicks. I mean let's be honest here. You can have two people who disagree with each other about their individual preferences and still have a civil conversation without resorting to thrashing the preference itself.

Well, of course you can, but I believe that these sorts of flare-ups aren't just a failure of civility. Here's Lancer:

QuoteOr is it a matter that most gamers (not hardcore ones like sites like these) only play D&D (instead of WFRP,MERP, Earthdawn, insert favorite fantasy game here) because it happens to be the most popular one? And I daresay, many of them just don't know any better. I certainly didn't when I used to be ignorant about skill-based systems and defended AD&D against them.

What we have here is an insistence that people's preference for D&D would be significantly altered by exposure to other games; it's a failure to believe that others' tastes aren't one's own.

That said, grubman, I think you missed the fact that the question in the thread was pretty expressly defined in terms of the tastes of person reponding, and Lancer did answer in those terms for a while until the above quote appeared.

Quote from: LancerIt's not even that. Some people just don't like to take criticism and when they disagree with somebody else are quick to insults, petty comebacks, reading into things, and like behavior on an online forum.

Not once did I insult anybody with any insults, cussing, aside from saying, well, I think D&D 3e sucks for these reasons. My behavior was/is civil. My only "error" is that my opinions are not popular to some, and for that people like to thrash back and make up their own justifications for those unpopular opinions.

See this is what I mean. How you could consider your behaviour civil when you use the term sucks when describing someone else's preference. I mean D&D does not work for me. It's all about tone. You want a reaction.

It's not that your opinons are not popular. The majority of this site's users were banned from other forums not because they had unpopular opinions but because of they way they expressed them.

You don't see the label "hater" being used on folks who don't like or play a particluar game. You see it used on folks behaving like dicks. People are not precious snowflakes. They can take honest civil criticism of their favourite games. *shrug* saying a game sucks tell me nothing about the game but everything about the person saying it.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat we have here is an insistence that people's preference for D&D would be significantly altered by exposure to other games; it's a failure to believe that others' tastes aren't one's own.

And what we would call behaviour such as this?

Kyle : You miss Tangency Open, don't you?

Regards,
David R

Like saying "does not work for me" would have made a difference, David. Especially since I used "sucks" so many times (what twice?) throughout the discussion. :rolleyes:

Elliot hit the nail on the head. In this case, it wasn't about civility at all. Walker hasn't been saying anything particularly uncivil either in the thread of interest.

Many people just don't like certain opinions people hold and are offended by them.  I am not saying that nobody can handle fair criticism, but rather some can't. All I can say to those-- is that's too bad.

EDIT: BTW, Elliot. People's tastes can evolve over time as a direct result of exposure to different things. This is nothing new and I don't know why you have a problem with that.

Lancer I was talking about the nature of the discourse and some of it's participants in general...I should not have used your post as a launching pad. And yes if all you say, is that "D&D does not work for me" the conversation would be civil. *shrug* Like I said it's not about the opinon but the way how it's expressed.

Regards,
David R

ALright....let me guess some thread on tbp went badsly , so Grubman starts a thread over here. Then Walkerp refers to that thread tyhat most of us probably haven't seen.


 Have I got that right??


 If they tell you your favorite game sucks - then tell them to sit on a fork and give themselves a  misguided wedgie.


 Zheeesh!!!!


I like GURPS - everbody knows that by now.

I try my best  not to badmouth other games. (Although one in the fall deserv'd it)

I'm also willing to give SAVAGE WORLDS a try, and I own a good number of D20/D&D books (SAGA SW included) so I might give those a try.


The only game that really sucks - is the one where you're not having fun.


- Ed C.

Actually Koltar-- It wasn't TBP, it was here

Quote from: LancerActually Koltar-- It wasn't TBP, it was here

Oh...okay.

 Thank you for the clarification.

 Obviously, since I am not currently running either a 3e D&D game or D&D in general - I didn't look at that thread.

See - thats what I mean, tho If it doesn't apply to what I am currently running - then I don't tend to check out a thread.
- Unless I think there may general concepts discussed that may apply to other RPG systems and campaigns.


- Ed C.

One reason to do it is if you're putting together a group, or already have a group that's looking for a game to play. Then it's important to point out that game X is a kludgy piece of crap filled with hyper-detailed rules no one will ever learn or use, with an awful setting that has no room in it for the kinds of stories your group likes, and the book is $50 a pop, and so complicated and filled with fiddly tables that you'd require a copy for each player at the table.

On the internet on the other hand, it's because people solicit opinions from one another and then challenge one another to support their opinions with facts and evidence.

Quote from: David RAnd what we would call behaviour such as this?

Thickness? Parochialism?

I suppose once you've been exposed to enough people who take offense at the way you state your beliefs, it's at least possible that you're a dick if you don't think to re-examine them. But you know, in then end, if you really believe something and just don't express it, it's self-censorship; it doesn't further discussion, it just cuts it off.

On the other hand if you honestly re-examine your belief, then it's not dickery per se to stick to your guns. In this particular case, what takes it over the line isn't that it's an unpopular opinion, but that it resorts to saying that other people are deluded about their own tastes.

I mean, if someone thinks the the Star Wars prequel trilogy is "just fine", I've got no problem believing they have bad taste, but I don't doubt they enjoy the movies. Furthermore, and this is important, I have to accept based on this that I may not be able to offer useful advice to that person.

Whereas what goes on all the time in RPG discussions is that people are told their tastes and opinions matter so little that they should should listen to some supposedly wiser critic.