So...I'm not on here to make a point, just to get the stats. I personally am not a fan of Telfer's over-the-top silly articles; I know a lot of people are. This thread is NOT for debating the merits of the writing; there's already a comment section full of that, including my thoughts. I'm just interested in the numbers. And yeah, some of the articles are better than others; there's been a few I've enjoyed. No middle ground here though...you have to choose! Also keep in mind since this is voluntary-response, it probably isn't THAT accurate.
Humour is subjective, so I get that just because I don't find his articles funny, that doesn't mean he's objectively unfunny. There are no doubt lots of people who love his style of humour and the stuff he writes for the site.
My problem is that his sense of humour is very 'troll-y'; intentionally writing in a style designed to illicit a negative reaction as the source of the humour. Just take his latest piece, "New Rules for Warforged Everyone Should Hate"; it's 'funny' because it's bad. I just don't find that content engaging. The same with his terrible UA piece and the bad alignment articles. It's all stuff that's supposed to be funny by virtue of highlighting what could be considered all the worst ways to play D&D. It's the same reason that I dislike Puffin Forest and the Angry GM; humour that glorifies negative D&D tropes like annoying character quirks, using alignment to justify bad table conduct, and homebrewing internationally antagonist rules.
It's not blanket dislike for Dan though, I loved his warforged backstory stuff, that was funny and could be used to add to the fun of the table, not take away from it. Same with some of the quirks in his latest article. I'd love to see him lean in to doing more stuff that adds to the fun of the table by being funny in a way that everyone can enjoy, not just funny by being annoying.
I don’t care for his columns, but I also don’t like other content on here. I just ignore his articles and read the articles that I enjoy.
Who cares if I don’t like everything on this site? There’s enough on here that I do like that I’m renewing my subscription!
The point isn't about liking everything, it's about discussing and understanding the stuff you don't like. For example, maybe someone who does like Dan's articles might come in to explains why, opening up a new way of viewing his writing. It doesn't really contribute anything to just say "read what you like, ignore what you don't", it just reads as trying to shut down discussion.
"It's all stuff that's supposed to be funny by virtue of highlighting what could be considered all the worst ways to play D&D. It's the same reason that I dislike Puffin Forest and the Angry GM; humour that glorifies negative D&D tropes like annoying character quirks, using alignment to justify bad table conduct, and homebrewing internationally antagonist rules."
This is right on. And sadly I've had some players who don't realize it's a joke and then emulate that behavior at my table, thinking that's what D&D is.
I would really like to know the absolute numbers of the poll instead of the percentage...
If there were only 10 people voting the poll is probably useless, if it was 1000 people it might be representative of Dan's audience here on dndbeyond. :-)
Right now it sure seems like he receives mixed opinions... 38% not liking his articles is a significant percentage.
Nevertheless he should continue to write them. Those who don't like the articles can simply skip them after all and diversity is always nice.
I would really like to know the absolute numbers of the poll instead of the percentage...
If there were only 10 people voting the poll is probably useless, if it was 1000 people it might be representative of Dan's audience here on dndbeyond. :-)
Right now it sure seems like he receives mixed opinions... 38% not liking his articles is a significant percentage.
Nevertheless he should continue to write them. Those who don't like the articles can simply skip them after all and diversity is always nice.
Agreed on both counts. I'm not sure if I can change the poll, but I'll repost it on his next article so we can get as many opinions as possible.
Humour is subjective, so I get that just because I don't find his articles funny, that doesn't mean he's objectively unfunny. There are no doubt lots of people who love his style of humour and the stuff he writes for the site.
My problem is that his sense of humour is very 'troll-y'; intentionally writing in a style designed to illicit a negative reaction as the source of the humour. Just take his latest piece, "New Rules for Warforged Everyone Should Hate"; it's 'funny' because it's bad. I just don't find that content engaging. The same with his terrible UA piece and the bad alignment articles. It's all stuff that's supposed to be funny by virtue of highlighting what could be considered all the worst ways to play D&D. It's the same reason that I dislike Puffin Forest and the Angry GM; humour that glorifies negative D&D tropes like annoying character quirks, using alignment to justify bad table conduct, and homebrewing internationally antagonist rules.
It's not blanket dislike for Dan though, I loved his warforged backstory stuff, that was funny and could be used to add to the fun of the table, not take away from it. Same with some of the quirks in his latest article. I'd love to see him lean in to doing more stuff that adds to the fun of the table by being funny in a way that everyone can enjoy, not just funny by being annoying.
^
This is basically my exact thoughts, too.
I would prefer more articles that help players and DMs play D&D rather than humour posts that don't actually contribute anything (in my view). Still, I would never be the one to say he should stop posting them as I have no doubt some people like them. To each their own.
I'm the type who plays D&D a bit more on the serious side - we can have the odd joke or weird bit but the balls-to-the-wall slapstick insanity he suggests in his articles grates on my nerves and would not be the type of D&D I would want to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
His articles seem to be aimed at the new generation of D&D players, but some of the things that he comes up with are unarguably just bad for D&D, and just shouldn't be brought up at all, or it can lead to some bad or even toxic D&D DMs and players, which D&D doesn't need more of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
His articles seem to be aimed at the new generation of D&D players, but some of the things that he comes up with are unarguably just bad for D&D, and just shouldn't be brought up at all, or it can lead to some bad or even toxic D&D DMs and players, which D&D doesn't need more of.
I don't even think it's a "new generation" thing. Remember, he's a long time D&D player himself and there is a long history of adversarial and hostile DMs, troll players, munchkins and metagamers. Heck, Tomb of Horrors was made to 'shut up' players who kept writing Gygax to say they could beat anything he could throw at them.
I honestly feel like D&D has been moving away from this adversarial mindset of late, with a focus more on collaborative storytelling and ensuring everyone at the table is having fun. Safety tools, session 0, the DM as a player too, all of those are indicative of the much more positive bent in the hobby. I guess that's why Dan's articles rub me up the wrong way, they seem a little regressive.
To be fair, the "new generation" has its own set of negative tropes: plot armor, massive backstories, author-DMs, "chaotic neutral," horny bards, Mercer-worship... :-)
(Unfortunately Dan's articles smack of these too sometimes.)
I think most of his articles are funny, but unusable, and I would just like something else. I understand he's a comedian. I understand he's talented and this is his niche, but they aren't very useful in 90% campaigns, and there are too many articles coming out about those jokes, when I'd prefer something more useful, while still being funny.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If you don't like his style of humor - don't read his articles. That's not rocket science.
Maybe some people actually DO like his humor. That doesn't affect you in any way.
So maybe you could just delete this entire thread and just let people enjoy things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
This is here because Dan Telfer's posts of mostly useless jokes take up the majority of posts now, and we'd just like them to be less common, or have them actually have useful content. I don't dislike the jokes, I laugh at them frequently, just they're not useful.
I like his humor, it isn't useful though, we'd prefer them to not be filled with chicken-sandwich warforged, and freezing underpants planes.
We aren't being toxic, his type of humor encourages toxic D&D playing as some players and DMs don't recognize these ideas as being bad for games and will likely use them. If these articles were funny and useful, no one would be complaining about the frequency of these articles or the quality of the articles. People don't normally complain about things that aren't in need of criticism.
This thread isn't toxic, it is talking about a serious toxic. A toxic thing is trying to shut down discussions about needed topics. If you don't agree with our discussions, you can say you don't want the articles changed at all, but you don't have to try to stop us from talking about this.
I don't mean any disrespect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If you don't like his style of humor - don't read his articles. That's not rocket science.
Maybe some people actually DO like his humor. That doesn't affect you in any way.
So maybe you could just delete this entire thread and just let people enjoy things.
Tayn, I said at the outset that I was not creating this to make a point. If you had read what I said you would know that I was just interested in the numbers. There is no call to be rude.
If you don't like his style of humor - don't read his articles. That's not rocket science.
Maybe some people actually DO like his humor. That doesn't affect you in any way.
So maybe you could just delete this entire thread and just let people enjoy things.
This thread is about people having a conversation about his articles. The existence of this thread and any criticism contained therein doesn't stop anyone else from enjoying Dan's articles.
I'm the type who plays D&D a bit more on the serious side - we can have the odd joke or weird bit but the balls-to-the-wall slapstick insanity he suggests in his articles grates on my nerves and would not be the type of D&D I would want to play.
This is me too.
I'm not a big fan of silly comedy or comedy in general (I'm GREAT at parties! /s) so these articles strike me as being silly for silly's sake which just seems odd.
I much prefer the helpful articles - or lore articles - and not things that I look at and wonder 'why is this here?' and end up skipping.
I like the articles, but I can see that some people are grated not necessarily by their content, but their frequency.
I think they may be better served as a less frequent but more robust monthly or near monthly article that contains a whole bunch of funny stuff at once, rather than individual articles for each individual gag. That can seem like it dominates the articles on the frontpage at times otherwise.
I am a fairly recent join to this website, and the first couple of articles I read on the front page were these. After the 2nd or 3rd one, I just stopped looking at the front page and never went back. They are not my cup of tea, and the message I got was, there will not be enough useful content on the front page that I need to bother checking.
Is that the message DDB wants to send? If so, then they’ve been successful with me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think the articles are fine - we just have to keep in mind that none of his ideas are really meant to be implemented in an actual game (unless you're intentionally running a one-off joke game and everyone's in on it.)
That said, I like D&D best when it can stop and laugh at itself. I get enough drama at work (have you worked in the performing arts? Everything that goes on backstage is essentially crisis management.) I think that's why I see something like the Acquisitions Inc book and say YES, THIS IS WHAT I NEED.
Like, I'm *really bad* at getting into the mood of something like Curse of Strahd. If I cast spiritual weapon at Strahd, you'd better believe it's going to take the form of a big jack-in-the-box with a boxing glove that pops out to bop him in the nose.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So...I'm not on here to make a point, just to get the stats. I personally am not a fan of Telfer's over-the-top silly articles; I know a lot of people are. This thread is NOT for debating the merits of the writing; there's already a comment section full of that, including my thoughts. I'm just interested in the numbers. And yeah, some of the articles are better than others; there's been a few I've enjoyed. No middle ground here though...you have to choose! Also keep in mind since this is voluntary-response, it probably isn't THAT accurate.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Humour is subjective, so I get that just because I don't find his articles funny, that doesn't mean he's objectively unfunny. There are no doubt lots of people who love his style of humour and the stuff he writes for the site.
My problem is that his sense of humour is very 'troll-y'; intentionally writing in a style designed to illicit a negative reaction as the source of the humour. Just take his latest piece, "New Rules for Warforged Everyone Should Hate"; it's 'funny' because it's bad. I just don't find that content engaging. The same with his terrible UA piece and the bad alignment articles. It's all stuff that's supposed to be funny by virtue of highlighting what could be considered all the worst ways to play D&D. It's the same reason that I dislike Puffin Forest and the Angry GM; humour that glorifies negative D&D tropes like annoying character quirks, using alignment to justify bad table conduct, and homebrewing internationally antagonist rules.
It's not blanket dislike for Dan though, I loved his warforged backstory stuff, that was funny and could be used to add to the fun of the table, not take away from it. Same with some of the quirks in his latest article. I'd love to see him lean in to doing more stuff that adds to the fun of the table by being funny in a way that everyone can enjoy, not just funny by being annoying.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I don’t care for his columns, but I also don’t like other content on here. I just ignore his articles and read the articles that I enjoy.
Who cares if I don’t like everything on this site? There’s enough on here that I do like that I’m renewing my subscription!
Professional computer geek
The point isn't about liking everything, it's about discussing and understanding the stuff you don't like. For example, maybe someone who does like Dan's articles might come in to explains why, opening up a new way of viewing his writing. It doesn't really contribute anything to just say "read what you like, ignore what you don't", it just reads as trying to shut down discussion.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
"It's all stuff that's supposed to be funny by virtue of highlighting what could be considered all the worst ways to play D&D. It's the same reason that I dislike Puffin Forest and the Angry GM; humour that glorifies negative D&D tropes like annoying character quirks, using alignment to justify bad table conduct, and homebrewing internationally antagonist rules."
This is right on. And sadly I've had some players who don't realize it's a joke and then emulate that behavior at my table, thinking that's what D&D is.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I would really like to know the absolute numbers of the poll instead of the percentage...
If there were only 10 people voting the poll is probably useless, if it was 1000 people it might be representative of Dan's audience here on dndbeyond. :-)
Right now it sure seems like he receives mixed opinions... 38% not liking his articles is a significant percentage.
Nevertheless he should continue to write them. Those who don't like the articles can simply skip them after all and diversity is always nice.
Agreed on both counts. I'm not sure if I can change the poll, but I'll repost it on his next article so we can get as many opinions as possible.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
^
This is basically my exact thoughts, too.
I would prefer more articles that help players and DMs play D&D rather than humour posts that don't actually contribute anything (in my view). Still, I would never be the one to say he should stop posting them as I have no doubt some people like them. To each their own.
I'm the type who plays D&D a bit more on the serious side - we can have the odd joke or weird bit but the balls-to-the-wall slapstick insanity he suggests in his articles grates on my nerves and would not be the type of D&D I would want to play.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
His articles seem to be aimed at the new generation of D&D players, but some of the things that he comes up with are unarguably just bad for D&D, and just shouldn't be brought up at all, or it can lead to some bad or even toxic D&D DMs and players, which D&D doesn't need more of.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't even think it's a "new generation" thing. Remember, he's a long time D&D player himself and there is a long history of adversarial and hostile DMs, troll players, munchkins and metagamers. Heck, Tomb of Horrors was made to 'shut up' players who kept writing Gygax to say they could beat anything he could throw at them.
I honestly feel like D&D has been moving away from this adversarial mindset of late, with a focus more on collaborative storytelling and ensuring everyone at the table is having fun. Safety tools, session 0, the DM as a player too, all of those are indicative of the much more positive bent in the hobby. I guess that's why Dan's articles rub me up the wrong way, they seem a little regressive.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
To be fair, the "new generation" has its own set of negative tropes: plot armor, massive backstories, author-DMs, "chaotic neutral," horny bards, Mercer-worship... :-)
(Unfortunately Dan's articles smack of these too sometimes.)
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I think most of his articles are funny, but unusable, and I would just like something else. I understand he's a comedian. I understand he's talented and this is his niche, but they aren't very useful in 90% campaigns, and there are too many articles coming out about those jokes, when I'd prefer something more useful, while still being funny.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Why is this here?
If you don't like his style of humor - don't read his articles. That's not rocket science.
Maybe some people actually DO like his humor. That doesn't affect you in any way.
So maybe you could just delete this entire thread and just let people enjoy things.
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
Anzio Faro. Lvl 5 Prot. Aasimar Light Cleric.
This is here because Dan Telfer's posts of mostly useless jokes take up the majority of posts now, and we'd just like them to be less common, or have them actually have useful content. I don't dislike the jokes, I laugh at them frequently, just they're not useful.
I like his humor, it isn't useful though, we'd prefer them to not be filled with chicken-sandwich warforged, and freezing underpants planes.
We aren't being toxic, his type of humor encourages toxic D&D playing as some players and DMs don't recognize these ideas as being bad for games and will likely use them. If these articles were funny and useful, no one would be complaining about the frequency of these articles or the quality of the articles. People don't normally complain about things that aren't in need of criticism.
This thread isn't toxic, it is talking about a serious toxic. A toxic thing is trying to shut down discussions about needed topics. If you don't agree with our discussions, you can say you don't want the articles changed at all, but you don't have to try to stop us from talking about this.
I don't mean any disrespect.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Tayn, I said at the outset that I was not creating this to make a point. If you had read what I said you would know that I was just interested in the numbers. There is no call to be rude.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
This thread is about people having a conversation about his articles. The existence of this thread and any criticism contained therein doesn't stop anyone else from enjoying Dan's articles.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
This is me too.
I'm not a big fan of silly comedy or comedy in general (I'm GREAT at parties! /s) so these articles strike me as being silly for silly's sake which just seems odd.
I much prefer the helpful articles - or lore articles - and not things that I look at and wonder 'why is this here?' and end up skipping.
If you hover over the percents with your mouse - the tooltip will show number of votes. Probably won't work on mobile.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I wish there was a 'yes but' option.
I like the articles, but I can see that some people are grated not necessarily by their content, but their frequency.
I think they may be better served as a less frequent but more robust monthly or near monthly article that contains a whole bunch of funny stuff at once, rather than individual articles for each individual gag. That can seem like it dominates the articles on the frontpage at times otherwise.
I am a fairly recent join to this website, and the first couple of articles I read on the front page were these. After the 2nd or 3rd one, I just stopped looking at the front page and never went back. They are not my cup of tea, and the message I got was, there will not be enough useful content on the front page that I need to bother checking.
Is that the message DDB wants to send? If so, then they’ve been successful with me.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think the articles are fine - we just have to keep in mind that none of his ideas are really meant to be implemented in an actual game (unless you're intentionally running a one-off joke game and everyone's in on it.)
That said, I like D&D best when it can stop and laugh at itself. I get enough drama at work (have you worked in the performing arts? Everything that goes on backstage is essentially crisis management.) I think that's why I see something like the Acquisitions Inc book and say YES, THIS IS WHAT I NEED.
Like, I'm *really bad* at getting into the mood of something like Curse of Strahd. If I cast spiritual weapon at Strahd, you'd better believe it's going to take the form of a big jack-in-the-box with a boxing glove that pops out to bop him in the nose.