This thread is rapidly devolving from an attempt at a meta discussion about games design analysis and into a meta debate about forum rules and reacting to people you may not agree with. I would just like to remind everyone of the following:
If someone conducts themselves in a way that violates site rules, report them and disengage
Someone breaking site rules does not entitle anyone else to do so in kind, for any reason
If you have a question, query or issue with site rules, or the conduct of another user, and for whatever reason can't use the report functionality, please reach out to a member of the moderation team. We are here to help make this site safe and welcoming
Threads can get heated and it's important to remember that stepping away from a discussion you're not getting anything out of is a valid approach. There is no obligation to debate someone whose opinion is fixed. There is no entitlement to be able to change someone's fixed opinion. D&D is both one game, and a thousand, million different games, with as many opinions and views.
The issue with blocking people who irritate you (HINT HINT: this would be a great post for moderators observing this thread to pay attention to, pretty please) is that blocking someone punishes you, not the person you're blocking. You're actively choosing to cut yourself out of conversations involving that person, making it more difficult for you to participate in the forum. As well, you're making it impossible for you to counter that person's toxicity in the future and granting them free rein to be awful to other users now that they've successfully driven you into your shell. Blocking someone is not 'rising above' the desire to argue with them; it's allowing that person to "win" forever and continue their unsupported nonsensical shitposting unimpeded into the future.
There's a reason my 'Block' list has exactly one single name on it, and even that name got there only through unusual circumstances. There are a number of people on this website whose every post makes me want to freeze them in carbonite and put them on display in humanities museums under the heading "The Face of Stupidity". But putting them on 'Ignore' doesn't make them any less stupid. It just means I can't call them on their stupidity when no one else is willing to.
This is a perfect example of why I dislike using the Ignore feature. I have had to use it on a few users, but only because it got way too heated and there was no chance of either of us having a productive discussion ever again.
The Ignore button isn't the "I'm getting rid of the troll" button, it's the "I give up and will let the troll do whatever" button. If you click it, you are no longer able to correct the incorrect posts made by the ignored user or report their posts, and you're allowing the person to spread misinformation and forcing yourself to be blind to part of the discussion. There are circumstances where using the button has been beneficial for me to, but I generally only use it as a last resort. That is why I didn't mention the Ignore feature in the OP.
Thanks for the post, I agree 100%.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Not to derail the thread or get bogged down in minutiae, but you lost me at Crown Paladin. It’s completely beyond me that the Oath of the Crown could be considered indefensibly bad, so mentioning that as a subclass that can’t be supported without bordering on trolling makes it really hard for me not to question some of the judgments made even if everything else might be sensible. And that me pointing this out would paint me as one of the people you condemn makes this awkward. Ugh.
Sorry, you appear to misunderstand me. You're not a troll if you think a subclass isn't bad. I defined a Designer's Advocate as someone who unwaveringly supports the design choices of WotC, using emotions and anecdotes to support their claims, instead of evidence and good faith arguments. Whether or not you agree with me on any of the examples I listed is besides the point, the point is that if you support a feature so much that you begin to troll, you're a Designer's Advocate.
I don't condemn you for having a different opinion than me on the balance of the subclass, I apologize if it appeared that way. I also disagree with some people on occasion on what makes a subclass/feature balanced or not. I expressed my views on the balance of the Champion Fighter in this thread, defending the balance of the subclass, but I didn't troll the thread. If you don't troll, you're not what I have dubbed, "a Designer's Advocate".
No offense taken whatsoever. It’s just that listing specific opinions as potentially problematic seems a little iffy to me, and is really not needed for what you apparently intended anyway. It feels like you might single out posters based on an opinion, regardless of anything else. I don’t think you want to do that, but nonetheless it feels like that and that turned me off from the whole thing.
edit: I should really own up to the fact I probably wouldn’t have felt this way if you hadn’t mentioned the Crown Paladin. None of the other examples set me off. I definitely have some blindspots.
Acknowledging that one has blindspots is a critical part of the game design process. That's why the best games tend to be created by teams, or at least by creators that incorporate feedback and criticism into their designs. It's the other reason why these 'Designer's Advocates' are so toxic and dangerous. Wizards does not need sycophantic brown-nosing yesbois who heap unconditional praise onto everything they do. Nobody needs that. That is a terrible way to improve anything, whether that thing be a product, a process, or even simply oneself.
People who can acknowledge that they've made mistakes, or that they have specific bents/biases in their design efforts, are people who are better designers in general. Those are the folks who make the good homebrew, and the design teams that produce first-party quality (or better, let's be realistic) third-party content. Which is, perhaps, why it's so disheartening and infuriating to see people just gush heaps of useless praise all over 5e's shoes instead of trying to attain a deeper understanding of the system - and of tabletop gaming in general - to improve their play, their DMing, and their design. Folks like Third and myself see that shit and sit here all "you could be doing so much better if you weren't hip-deep up Wizards' butt...q_q..."
Acknowledging that one has blindspots is a critical part of the game design process. That's why the best games tend to be created by teams, or at least by creators that incorporate feedback and criticism into their designs. It's the other reason why these 'Designer's Advocates' are so toxic and dangerous. Wizards does not need sycophantic brown-nosing yesbois who heap unconditional praise onto everything they do. Nobody needs that. That is a terrible way to improve anything, whether that thing be a product, a process, or even simply oneself.
People who can acknowledge that they've made mistakes, or that they have specific bents/biases in their design efforts, are people who are better designers in general. Those are the folks who make the good homebrew, and the design teams that produce first-party quality (or better, let's be realistic) third-party content. Which is, perhaps, why it's so disheartening and infuriating to see people just gush heaps of useless praise all over 5e's shoes instead of trying to attain a deeper understanding of the system - and of tabletop gaming in general - to improve their play, their DMing, and their design. Folks like Third and myself see that shit and sit here all "you could be doing so much better if you weren't hip-deep up Wizards' butt...q_q..."
This is an amazing post, and I'm quoting it for truth. I emboldened my favorite lines.
It's strange that the ''Designer's Advocates'' take constructive criticism as if it is a personal attack. The reason they behave this way is beyond me, one can only speculate on this matter.
No system is perfect. I love D&D 5e, it has improved my life a buttload, but people need to recognize that everything can improve. The balance of 5e is better than almost all previous editions of D&D ever, but that doesn't mean that it is perfectly designed and inflexible. There are a ton of things in 5e that are imbalanced or poorly designed in some way (i.e. the difference between melee weapon attacks and an attack with a melee weapon, the Yuan-Ti Pureblood race, the writing of Echo Knights, etc).
I love this hobby and this edition of D&D, but it's not attacking the game designers or people who play and enjoy this edition to point out flaws in this edition. This seems like it should be obvious, but unfortunately it is not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Acknowledging that one has blindspots is a critical part of the game design process. That's why the best games tend to be created by teams, or at least by creators that incorporate feedback and criticism into their designs. It's the other reason why these 'Designer's Advocates' are so toxic and dangerous. Wizards does not need sycophantic brown-nosing yesbois who heap unconditional praise onto everything they do. Nobody needs that. That is a terrible way to improve anything, whether that thing be a product, a process, or even simply oneself.
People who can acknowledge that they've made mistakes, or that they have specific bents/biases in their design efforts, are people who are better designers in general. Those are the folks who make the good homebrew, and the design teams that produce first-party quality (or better, let's be realistic) third-party content. Which is, perhaps, why it's so disheartening and infuriating to see people just gush heaps of useless praise all over 5e's shoes instead of trying to attain a deeper understanding of the system - and of tabletop gaming in general - to improve their play, their DMing, and their design. Folks like Third and myself see that shit and sit here all "you could be doing so much better if you weren't hip-deep up Wizards' butt...q_q..."
That’s probably the opposite of what I meant about myself, to be honest. I was being a hypocrite - saying it’s not correct to single out people for opinions, when I only had an issue with one instance of that rather than for the practice in general.
That said, I hardly think someone needs to be hip deep in Wizards’ butt to consider the Crown Paladin a decent or even great subclass. So if that is the general idea, that does bring me back to that earlier point: thinking people who disagree with your assessment of something as bad are likely WotC sycophants is not a great attitude either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm closely familiar with the folks who likely inspired this particular deep-sixed thread. You're not one of them. Don't worry. I rather fiercely dislike the thematics and fluff of the Crown paladin, but the mechanics are workable enough. My own personal opinion is that the Oath of Glory does what the Crown paladin is trying to do better, but I can see where some folks might favor the Crown.
I have to refrain from joining this conversation as fully as I would like to on account of just getting back from a less-than-optional vacation from forum posting. Howsoever, I am inclined to agree that praising a design in spite of its faults is one thing, but praising a game as if it has no faults is something completely different. And while I can understand wanting to stand by a particular design premise over the course of a game’s lifecycle, supporting poor design for the sake of simply not changing things is foolish.
I'm not sure its beneficial to separate Designers Advocates from their counterparts. The counterparts being people who hate on a Certain mechanic because of Some bias or limited Perspective. I've seen just as many if not more of these in my time with 5e. I think the Haters and dismissive arguments can be just as destructive as blind support. They all fall in to the same category and use similar tactics. Every option and discussion in the forum that was mentioned could be applied to both. The same social skills are needed to navigate the situation.
When I first started 5e There were a lot of people who hated bards and would adamantly discourage people from Playing them. This came from a place of hating the bad behaviors that got emphasized when running bards.(especially remembering play from earlier editions) Now bards are considered on the high end of class rankings by many players. I've seen people discourage certain race options for mechanical reasons but also Just for not liking them. I've seen several player / dm discussions where it came down to a conversation about what the real issue was. Sometimes its worry about game disruption or tone. Sometimes its worry about "game time consumption"(Animate objects or summons). Sometimes its players tactics interfering with others. Sometimes its just feelings that don't line up with Actual play data or math. Sometimes its taking real world issues into game.
The approach should be the same in Most of these situations. You should try to get to the root of the problem by a respectful discussion and Stay on topic. Recognize the different view points and open or vague spots that give people room to work. Watch for a source of misunderstanding. If it continues to be an issue then further intervention might be needed.
While I understand your viewpoint, @Roscoeivan, I respectfully disagree. There are different groups of people, and each of them can be a problem in different situations. IMO, it is important to separate them into different "categories" in order to understand what they're arguing for, why, and how to deal with them. Though many of the ways to deal with different types of internet trolls are similar, the motivation is also important. There is a spectrum that people fall onto in this matter, and though those who adamantly despise mechanics can be just as toxic, it is important to address the two extremes in different ways.
For the people you called the "haters", I will call the "Eternal Cynic". They are on the opposite side of the spectrum from Designer's Advocates. While a Designer's Advocate will always passionately defend anything that WotC officially publishes, an Eternal Cynic will adamantly and persistently criticize and bash anything in the game that they don't like, normally not based on mechanics, but based on how they feel about that thing. For example, a lot of Eternal Cynic constantly berate newer and more exotic races, like Tieflings, Dragonborn, and Tortles. Others hate the existence of newer classes that weren't in previous editions, such as Warlocks, Sorcerers, Swordmages, and Paladins, typically wanting to scale down the amount of classes in the game. In my experience, an Eternal Cynic most often is one who used to play older editions, and have an extreme and irrational hatred of anything new that has come to the game. As you stated, they are just as toxic for the hobby, but are an entirely different category and probably are better off being discussed in a different thread.
As you state in your last paragraph, an important part of dealing with either Eternal Cynics or Designer's Advocates is to get to the root of the problem. If the roots are different, you need to treat them in slightly different ways, which is why the OP is specifically about Designer's Advocates and not about Eternal Cynics. Thanks for your post, but the discussion on Eternal Cynics is probably best for another thread to keep this one on topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
This thread is actually kind of hilarious. A good argument should stand on its own, and this need or inclination to put a lane on the person using it. We could call people bandwagoners, designer advocates, contratarians, or circle-jerkers and whatever other names you like to refer to, but that only serves to make your own arguments weaker.
Instead of creating a thread complaining about a certain type of argument you don’t like, make a stronger counter-argument. If they resort to name-calling or ad hominem, then refer to the site guidelines if you want.
Sitting around here venting about the personality of the people on this thread just sounds like you want to stifle people without actually addressing their concerns. If this makes you feel superior, I guess that’s fine... but it still doesn’t change that people WILL have arguments that run contrary to your own.
I suggest, if these “designer’s advocates” frustrate you so much that you need to create a “how to argue with them” post, maybe it’s time to step back and realize that this is a game we ALL love, we all play differently, and we all have great opinions of.
This thread is actually kind of hilarious. A good argument should stand on its own, and this need or inclination to put a lane on the person using it. We could call people bandwagoners, designer advocates, contratarians, or circle-jerkers and whatever other names you like to refer to, but that only serves to make your own arguments weaker.
Instead of creating a thread complaining about a certain type of argument you don’t like, make a stronger counter-argument. If they resort to name-calling or ad hominem, then refer to the site guidelines if you want.
Sitting around here venting about the personality of the people on this thread just sounds like you want to stifle people without actually addressing their concerns. If this makes you feel superior, I guess that’s fine... but it still doesn’t change that people WILL have arguments that run contrary to your own.
I suggest, if these “designer’s advocates” frustrate you so much that you need to create a “how to argue with them” post, maybe it’s time to step back and realize that this is a game we ALL love, we all play differently, and we all have great opinions of.
This thread should be closed. It’s divisive.
The topic of this thread is not about how people play the game, it is about people derailing threads by arguing unreasonably about certain mechanics. Just because an argument is good doesn't mean that everyone will agree with it. A lot of people have unreasonable biases, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But this thread is about certain people who argue irrationally in favor of a feature that others claim to be unbalanced, which is supported by comparisons and statistics. Sometimes you can't win a fight by coming back harder at your opponent. Sadly, a lot of people only choose specific things to listen to, and use those things to support their arguments while ignoring everything else that other people say.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
This thread is actually kind of hilarious. A good argument should stand on its own, and this need or inclination to put a lane on the person using it. We could call people bandwagoners, designer advocates, contratarians, or circle-jerkers and whatever other names you like to refer to, but that only serves to make your own arguments weaker.
Instead of creating a thread complaining about a certain type of argument you don’t like, make a stronger counter-argument. If they resort to name-calling or ad hominem, then refer to the site guidelines if you want.
Sitting around here venting about the personality of the people on this thread just sounds like you want to stifle people without actually addressing their concerns. If this makes you feel superior, I guess that’s fine... but it still doesn’t change that people WILL have arguments that run contrary to your own.
I suggest, if these “designer’s advocates” frustrate you so much that you need to create a “how to argue with them” post, maybe it’s time to step back and realize that this is a game we ALL love, we all play differently, and we all have great opinions of.
This thread should be closed. It’s divisive.
A good argument does stand on its own. That doesn't matter to the type of person who refuses to see past their own biases and acknowledge such.
Coming back with a stronger counter-argument won't change this type of person's behavior or inability to support their claims.
You cannot have two contradictory arguments and both of them be right. If one argument is proven inferior, incorrect, fallacious, unsupported by evidence, or whatever, and it is pointed out to the person making the argument, it very often results in them digging their heels in and refusing to change their opinion. This almost inevitably results in them becoming the type of person the OP is talking about.
Not sure who you are talking about when you say "just sounds like you want to stifle people without actually addressing their concerns." This isn't an issue of addressing a person's concerns, this is an issue of after concerns and arguments have been made, and the side that is clearly in the wrong refuses to accept that.
This thread is actually kind of hilarious. A good argument should stand on its own, and this need or inclination to put a lane on the person using it. We could call people bandwagoners, designer advocates, contratarians, or circle-jerkers and whatever other names you like to refer to, but that only serves to make your own arguments weaker.
Your first sentence is an abusive ad hominem, causing it to fail to support your argument, as it doesn't have any ground to stand on. If you find something in the thread humorous or not serious, all you need to do to see the its necessity is to go read any thread containing the type of troll discussed in this thread.
Your second sentence's claim is a bare assertion fallacy, making an absolute claim without any way of supporting it. You made a statement to attack my position (and then one to attack me) without any evidence to support the claim that "a good argument should stand on its own". Any wall needs a ground to stand on. Is it the fault of the wall for not being able to stand without the ground's existence? No. It's not. Does the reliance on the ground make the wall any weaker? Again, no it does not. In the future, I recommend that you support your claims with any form of evidence.
Your third sentence relies on your bare assertion fallacy from the first post, so its fault is the same as the second. If for you, making a grouping causes an argument to be less convincing, I would recommend that you find a way to change this instinct. The taxonomical groupings of "species" and "genus" are not perfect or absolute, but them being imperfect does not make the terms useless or detrimental to the field of biology. I created the term of "Designer's Advocate" for the purpose of simplicity in speaking of this type of person.
Instead of creating a thread complaining about a certain type of argument you don’t like, make a stronger counter-argument. If they resort to name-calling or ad hominem, then refer to the site guidelines if you want.
Your first sentence here assumes that a stronger counterargument would actually work. If you have had any experience debating a Designer's Advocate, you would be aware that it isn't the strength of your argument that matters, its the intent of your argument that does. I know from experience that fighting stronger doesn't work against them, so my attempt here is to fight smarter. The fallacy here is claiming that something would work without actually supporting that claim.
Your second sentence also assumes that the site guidelines matter in such a debate. Don't get me wrong, they definitely matter for the posts made and the arguments allowed to be made, but more often than not, that does not stop the posts from being made or read. The posts are made, read, and responded to well before the moderators ever get the opportunity of stopping them from being made. If the moderators decide that a specific post varies enough from the site rules to warrant infraction points, they will silently give them to the person who made the post. This is another argument based on assumption.
Sitting around here venting about the personality of the people on this thread just sounds like you want to stifle people without actually addressing their concerns. If this makes you feel superior, I guess that’s fine... but it still doesn’t change that people WILL have arguments that run contrary to your own.
Your first sentence here is a presumption fallacy, and also a slight ad hominem. My first post was not merely a complaint about a specific type of person, it also explained why this form of debate is detrimental to the community. As Korbin_Orion said, this is not an issue of addressing someone's concerns, as their position does not have any "concerns". Their side is only concerned with trying to argue against someone else's evidence with their emotions and fallacies.
Your second sentence is another ad hominem and a strawman argument. This is not about superiority, it is about civility. People are bound to disagree with any opinion that I have (and I do mean any), but if one is correct in their opinion, they are already superior in the discussion. A person who believes and argues that the Earth is flat holds less ground in an argument than one that believes that the Earth is round.
My first post assumes that people do have contrary opinions and how to deal with objectively detrimental ones. It is detrimental and inferior to derail a discussion through trolling, and this thread is about how to deal with that for of trolling.
I suggest, if these “designer’s advocates” frustrate you so much that you need to create a “how to argue with them” post, maybe it’s time to step back and realize that this is a game we ALL love, we all play differently, and we all have great opinions of.
Lastly, you are doing exactly what I said in my first post, using the argument that "If people like the game, no facet of it can be imperfect". We all love this game, but that does not make it or its community perfect.
This thread should be closed. It’s divisive.
Less divisive than your post, and certainly more constructive than it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I believe the intent of the thread is not necessarily an attack against disagreement or spirited debate, Brewsky, but an attempt to raise forum awareness against a particular type of dicktroll whose existence is well known amongst gaming forums, but which showcases unusual behavior on this forum specifically due to the nature of D&D.
What Third Sundering refers to as 'Designer's Advocates' would be referred to as 'White Knights' in a video gaming forum - those who defend the decisions of the game's creators/developers and hold those decisions to be obviously correct and beneficial simply because they are the decisions of the developers. White knights are often derided and hated on gaming forums, as their constant blocking of any sort of debate on how to improve the game in question is held as destructive to the fanbase. White knights are better than eternal cynics, but not by much - neither type of argument/stance is of any value in an online discussion.
In this forum in particular, however - and for tabletop pen and paper* games in general - white knights have the ability to demand that anyone who dislikes the game simply change it themselves via homebrew. Often, while also decrying anyone who does incorporate homebrew into their game as doing so to the detriment of the perfect, timeless masterpiece created by the game's developers. In DDB, white knights take the form of players who spend their days trolling the Homebrew forum and telling everyone who posts in it that their ideas are terrible and they should just play by the book like a proper player/DM. Alternatively, and even more destructively, they force their way into discussions held by other players concerning the game's systems, ruleset, development, and overall playability and begin castigating everyone in the thread for trying to "Ruin" their D&D by figuring out ways to address holes or weaknesses in the system.
There's a couple of players I could absolutely name (if I was in the mood for an involuntary nap, anyways) who are notorious for pouncing on any and every thread they can find which discusses shortcomings of 5e and castigating everyone in said thread, demanding that they stop trying to change 5e and instead just homebrew their own shitty inferior rules if they absolutely cannot tolerate playing the flawless, perfect and magical magnum opus of modern game design that is 5e in its pure and unsullied form. Those two or three folks are the ones Third was specifically thinking of when writing this post, I will bet y'all ten bucks. Those of us with a tinker's mindset who like to fix things and want to make our own 5e games better, and perhaps share the results so other people can make their 5e game better, absolutely cannot stand these people. And yet, they never seem to leave us the bloody hell alone @_@.
Nevertheless. Understanding the mindset behind the uniquely belligerent manifestation of white knights in DDB here helps in avoiding getting drawn into their bullshit. Is this thread perhaps spicy? I would assume yes, which is why it's been banished to the Graveyard of Lost and Forgotten Words. Nevertheless, since people seem to be reading it anyways, I simply caution folks against assuming this to be a senseless rant. Heh, if it had been me who'd written it instead? I probably would've linked it via DM to the two or three players who're the real target audience here.
I have a better way to address this whole thing instead of the rant I was about to go on. You could literally rename this entire thread "My issue with Trolls", and use nothing about opinions of popularity (argument ad populum) to make your points.
But instead, you choose to add a very specific title to these people in an attempt to discredit - also a fallacious argument.
I mean, who do we see in this thread except people that are VERY outspoken in some threads about how terrible DnD 5e is and how much they've homebrewed it to their liking? Should I make a thread on how to argue with "your kind"? You know... "Those people that come into a thread and immediately browbeat everyone into thinking the way they do, at risk of being lumped in with others?" Or should we stick to arguing LOGICALLY about each subject specifically, ignore the trolls entirely, and accept that others are absolutely, unequivocally, allowed to voice their opinion on a public forum as vociferously as they want?
Edit: For the record, I fit some aspects of your "Designer's Advocate" stereotype - I do put some credence to the designers of the game, and I do value those opinions far higher than anyone else in this thread, but I also try to be objective as well. But, if you catch me in a thread arguing that as my sole reasoning, without logic to back it up, call me out on the logical fallacy and *engage* me. What you're doing here though, is adding a step in between where you get to categorize someone beforehand, and using that as a way to discredit someone before engaging - and I feel that would make anyone a dishonest interlocutor.
There are different groups of trolls, which would be clear to you if you read this thread. Their motivation to troll matters, so then you can deal with them more effectively. A troll who only trolls to make people angry and feel like ants online has a different motive from someone who trolls specifically because they like a specific part of the game, and this requires for them to be dealt with in different ways. Also, my post is in no way an argumentum ad populum. An argumentum ad populum is saying that something is true just because the majority of people believe it, which I did not do. If you want to say that someone did a fallacy, like I said in my first post in this thread, you must provide evidence for them doing so and reasons why it is an incorrect way to argue. Just saying that someone else did a logical fallacy to discredit my post is a "fallacy fallacy" and an "argumentum abusi fallacia".
I explained in my last post why categorizing trolls can be beneficial, even if the system for doing so is imperfect. It's exactly the same thing as taxonomically categorizing the species of the planet. Also, categorizing them is in no way a personal attack or fallacious argument. Please, if you want your argument to be credible, you need to explain what my supposed logical fallacies are and how they're detrimental to the debate (besides you losing). Otherwise, you just appear as if you have no way to disprove my arguments and are just throwing around fancy words hoping they'll stick.
You mean, besides the people like you and Vince who are attacking the premise of the thread, and those like BioWizard and HeironymusZot who are just saying that you should ignore these people, and everyone else who has done nothing in this thread (or any other that I'm aware of) to attack 5e? I'm very outspoken, but I have no hatred of 5e, and neither does anyone else in this thread. If they hated 5e, they wouldn't be playing it and probably wouldn't be on this site. Also, that's both an ad hominem against people who like to use homebrew rules and a huge misinterpretation/strawman of my viewpoint. In my very first post in this thread, I made it a point to not call out any specific person from any other thread in order to keep it civil, as I don't want to make personal attacks and instead just demonstrate why I think that a Designer's Advocate is detrimental to the hobby and community. You have shown no such decency, talking about "my kind" and accusing me of being a troll (which is against site rules, btw).
Please go back and reread this post (read it if you haven't already). I addressed why your assertion that "just arguing logically about each subject" would not work. Trolls derail threads and destroy discussions whether or not logic is involved.
I have never suggested that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion, but there's a big difference between expressing an opinion and trolling a discussion. Expressing an opinion in most circumstances is harmless and subjective. Trolling is not harmless and it is not subjective. Trolling is objectively bad and detrimental when done on this site (and most other sites, but there are very, very few exceptions, such as this).
I put experience above the opinions of WotC fanboys. I'm not bashing Wizards of the Coast, I respect them and appreciate the work that they've done for creating this awesome game, but I find it extremely detrimental to the hobby and the community for people to accept anything they do mechanically in a heartbeat, praising it as if it were handed down by an angel of the gods. It is beneficial to show why people may act like this and how to deal with it, it's not bashing anyone to explain why a certain type of troll exists and how to respond to them.
P.S. I will make sure to call out all your logical fallacies that I spot in any thread, and explain why they are detrimental to your argument, including in this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
There seems to be a presumption in this thread that threads on D&D Beyond, which are non-binding discussions on the internet like almost all other discussions on the internet, are something to be "won" when there's disagreement or conflict. I think it realistically works more like: one says their piece and also ideally says their peace. To me that's best practice. Sure discussion and an exchange of ideas can and should take place, and those threads are fun and enlightening. If someone in those discussions contends with someone in an off based or bad faith way, that will be apparent to readers of the thread. If you post on a thread or start a thread, there is no obligation or expectation to respond to every single post it draws. Yeah, there's some sideshow about cults or whatever on this board, but really what's the point of sustaining an argument if one's opposition is unwilling through whatever communication impasse to see and accept one's thinking as valid. If it persists, as in you feel these poster continue to antagonize you in thread after thread, again if its speech allowed within the standards, either shrug it off when you read it or use the ignore feature.
What specific harm is being done to anyone or the broader hobby that warrants the ... strategy(?) being proposed? Have you tested it? Or is this just rant space couched in productive terms?
. . . Debates can be won. If people just say things and don't discuss anything to support their opinion and rebut other opinions, that's not a productive discussion. That's just people saying things for no good reason.
The harm that can be done to the community by Designer's Advocates can be making sure nothing about the already written mechanics of the game can be changed. It could make more unbalanced features of the game if parts of UA aren't given constructive criticism. It could prevent mechanical fixes for classes/subclasses/races that need/could use fixing (Sorcerers, Rangers, etc). If a system doesn't receive constructive criticism, that will greatly hurt the game, so the existence of Designer's Advocates is actively detrimental to the game and the community of it.
Yes, I have tested all of the recommended strategies and witnessed others use them. If you read the OP's sections on that, I'm pretty sure I made it clear that I had.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You represent your perspective being some sort of winning tactic, that's different from actually proving your tactic a winner. Show me you "winning" against a designers advocate. If you don't want to call out specific posters, DM a link to the thread or a few threads your greatest hits, I'll respect the anonymity. However, from a survey that's simply my reading of this board including some of the epic disagreements on "the game needs a fix" vs "no it doesn't and your fix is more broken" I see mostly people walking away in disagreement or the thread itself getting locked down when the line is crossed and people are just insulting each other.
People can offer opinions, inspire creative and critical thinking, and agree to disagree. That last part is key.
I think the premise behind this thread greatly overestimates the impact positions put forth on this forum have on people giving feedback to WotC (not to mention how WotC market research and community input fits into their current or _future_ game design philosophy). But hey if you're right and you've perfected rationale discourse on the internet, here's to a happier 2021.
Again, the forum isn't a closed door deliberative body. What people write down is on record. People search out topics on the forum, read what's there and take what they like and maybe contribute a bit too. It's a bit much to presume you can teach or preach people logic and reasoning for a healthy discourse dynamic in one post.
This thread is rapidly devolving from an attempt at a meta discussion about games design analysis and into a meta debate about forum rules and reacting to people you may not agree with. I would just like to remind everyone of the following:
Threads can get heated and it's important to remember that stepping away from a discussion you're not getting anything out of is a valid approach. There is no obligation to debate someone whose opinion is fixed. There is no entitlement to be able to change someone's fixed opinion. D&D is both one game, and a thousand, million different games, with as many opinions and views.
Thank you
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
This is a perfect example of why I dislike using the Ignore feature. I have had to use it on a few users, but only because it got way too heated and there was no chance of either of us having a productive discussion ever again.
The Ignore button isn't the "I'm getting rid of the troll" button, it's the "I give up and will let the troll do whatever" button. If you click it, you are no longer able to correct the incorrect posts made by the ignored user or report their posts, and you're allowing the person to spread misinformation and forcing yourself to be blind to part of the discussion. There are circumstances where using the button has been beneficial for me to, but I generally only use it as a last resort. That is why I didn't mention the Ignore feature in the OP.
Thanks for the post, I agree 100%.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No offense taken whatsoever. It’s just that listing specific opinions as potentially problematic seems a little iffy to me, and is really not needed for what you apparently intended anyway. It feels like you might single out posters based on an opinion, regardless of anything else. I don’t think you want to do that, but nonetheless it feels like that and that turned me off from the whole thing.
edit: I should really own up to the fact I probably wouldn’t have felt this way if you hadn’t mentioned the Crown Paladin. None of the other examples set me off. I definitely have some blindspots.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly?
Acknowledging that one has blindspots is a critical part of the game design process. That's why the best games tend to be created by teams, or at least by creators that incorporate feedback and criticism into their designs. It's the other reason why these 'Designer's Advocates' are so toxic and dangerous. Wizards does not need sycophantic brown-nosing yesbois who heap unconditional praise onto everything they do. Nobody needs that. That is a terrible way to improve anything, whether that thing be a product, a process, or even simply oneself.
People who can acknowledge that they've made mistakes, or that they have specific bents/biases in their design efforts, are people who are better designers in general. Those are the folks who make the good homebrew, and the design teams that produce first-party quality (or better, let's be realistic) third-party content. Which is, perhaps, why it's so disheartening and infuriating to see people just gush heaps of useless praise all over 5e's shoes instead of trying to attain a deeper understanding of the system - and of tabletop gaming in general - to improve their play, their DMing, and their design. Folks like Third and myself see that shit and sit here all "you could be doing so much better if you weren't hip-deep up Wizards' butt...q_q..."
Please do not contact or message me.
This is an amazing post, and I'm quoting it for truth. I emboldened my favorite lines.
It's strange that the ''Designer's Advocates'' take constructive criticism as if it is a personal attack. The reason they behave this way is beyond me, one can only speculate on this matter.
No system is perfect. I love D&D 5e, it has improved my life a buttload, but people need to recognize that everything can improve. The balance of 5e is better than almost all previous editions of D&D ever, but that doesn't mean that it is perfectly designed and inflexible. There are a ton of things in 5e that are imbalanced or poorly designed in some way (i.e. the difference between melee weapon attacks and an attack with a melee weapon, the Yuan-Ti Pureblood race, the writing of Echo Knights, etc).
I love this hobby and this edition of D&D, but it's not attacking the game designers or people who play and enjoy this edition to point out flaws in this edition. This seems like it should be obvious, but unfortunately it is not.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That’s probably the opposite of what I meant about myself, to be honest. I was being a hypocrite - saying it’s not correct to single out people for opinions, when I only had an issue with one instance of that rather than for the practice in general.
That said, I hardly think someone needs to be hip deep in Wizards’ butt to consider the Crown Paladin a decent or even great subclass. So if that is the general idea, that does bring me back to that earlier point: thinking people who disagree with your assessment of something as bad are likely WotC sycophants is not a great attitude either.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm closely familiar with the folks who likely inspired this particular deep-sixed thread. You're not one of them. Don't worry. I rather fiercely dislike the thematics and fluff of the Crown paladin, but the mechanics are workable enough. My own personal opinion is that the Oath of Glory does what the Crown paladin is trying to do better, but I can see where some folks might favor the Crown.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have to refrain from joining this conversation as fully as I would like to on account of just getting back from a less-than-optional vacation from forum posting. Howsoever, I am inclined to agree that praising a design in spite of its faults is one thing, but praising a game as if it has no faults is something completely different. And while I can understand wanting to stand by a particular design premise over the course of a game’s lifecycle, supporting poor design for the sake of simply not changing things is foolish.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm not sure its beneficial to separate Designers Advocates from their counterparts. The counterparts being people who hate on a Certain mechanic because of Some bias or limited Perspective. I've seen just as many if not more of these in my time with 5e. I think the Haters and dismissive arguments can be just as destructive as blind support. They all fall in to the same category and use similar tactics. Every option and discussion in the forum that was mentioned could be applied to both. The same social skills are needed to navigate the situation.
When I first started 5e There were a lot of people who hated bards and would adamantly discourage people from Playing them. This came from a place of hating the bad behaviors that got emphasized when running bards.(especially remembering play from earlier editions) Now bards are considered on the high end of class rankings by many players. I've seen people discourage certain race options for mechanical reasons but also Just for not liking them. I've seen several player / dm discussions where it came down to a conversation about what the real issue was. Sometimes its worry about game disruption or tone. Sometimes its worry about "game time consumption"(Animate objects or summons). Sometimes its players tactics interfering with others. Sometimes its just feelings that don't line up with Actual play data or math. Sometimes its taking real world issues into game.
The approach should be the same in Most of these situations. You should try to get to the root of the problem by a respectful discussion and Stay on topic. Recognize the different view points and open or vague spots that give people room to work. Watch for a source of misunderstanding. If it continues to be an issue then further intervention might be needed.
While I understand your viewpoint, @Roscoeivan, I respectfully disagree. There are different groups of people, and each of them can be a problem in different situations. IMO, it is important to separate them into different "categories" in order to understand what they're arguing for, why, and how to deal with them. Though many of the ways to deal with different types of internet trolls are similar, the motivation is also important. There is a spectrum that people fall onto in this matter, and though those who adamantly despise mechanics can be just as toxic, it is important to address the two extremes in different ways.
For the people you called the "haters", I will call the "Eternal Cynic". They are on the opposite side of the spectrum from Designer's Advocates. While a Designer's Advocate will always passionately defend anything that WotC officially publishes, an Eternal Cynic will adamantly and persistently criticize and bash anything in the game that they don't like, normally not based on mechanics, but based on how they feel about that thing. For example, a lot of Eternal Cynic constantly berate newer and more exotic races, like Tieflings, Dragonborn, and Tortles. Others hate the existence of newer classes that weren't in previous editions, such as Warlocks, Sorcerers, Swordmages, and Paladins, typically wanting to scale down the amount of classes in the game. In my experience, an Eternal Cynic most often is one who used to play older editions, and have an extreme and irrational hatred of anything new that has come to the game. As you stated, they are just as toxic for the hobby, but are an entirely different category and probably are better off being discussed in a different thread.
As you state in your last paragraph, an important part of dealing with either Eternal Cynics or Designer's Advocates is to get to the root of the problem. If the roots are different, you need to treat them in slightly different ways, which is why the OP is specifically about Designer's Advocates and not about Eternal Cynics. Thanks for your post, but the discussion on Eternal Cynics is probably best for another thread to keep this one on topic.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This thread is actually kind of hilarious. A good argument should stand on its own, and this need or inclination to put a lane on the person using it. We could call people bandwagoners, designer advocates, contratarians, or circle-jerkers and whatever other names you like to refer to, but that only serves to make your own arguments weaker.
Instead of creating a thread complaining about a certain type of argument you don’t like, make a stronger counter-argument. If they resort to name-calling or ad hominem, then refer to the site guidelines if you want.
Sitting around here venting about the personality of the people on this thread just sounds like you want to stifle people without actually addressing their concerns. If this makes you feel superior, I guess that’s fine... but it still doesn’t change that people WILL have arguments that run contrary to your own.
I suggest, if these “designer’s advocates” frustrate you so much that you need to create a “how to argue with them” post, maybe it’s time to step back and realize that this is a game we ALL love, we all play differently, and we all have great opinions of.
This thread should be closed. It’s divisive.
The topic of this thread is not about how people play the game, it is about people derailing threads by arguing unreasonably about certain mechanics. Just because an argument is good doesn't mean that everyone will agree with it. A lot of people have unreasonable biases, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But this thread is about certain people who argue irrationally in favor of a feature that others claim to be unbalanced, which is supported by comparisons and statistics. Sometimes you can't win a fight by coming back harder at your opponent. Sadly, a lot of people only choose specific things to listen to, and use those things to support their arguments while ignoring everything else that other people say.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
A good argument does stand on its own. That doesn't matter to the type of person who refuses to see past their own biases and acknowledge such.
Coming back with a stronger counter-argument won't change this type of person's behavior or inability to support their claims.
You cannot have two contradictory arguments and both of them be right. If one argument is proven inferior, incorrect, fallacious, unsupported by evidence, or whatever, and it is pointed out to the person making the argument, it very often results in them digging their heels in and refusing to change their opinion. This almost inevitably results in them becoming the type of person the OP is talking about.
Not sure who you are talking about when you say "just sounds like you want to stifle people without actually addressing their concerns." This isn't an issue of addressing a person's concerns, this is an issue of after concerns and arguments have been made, and the side that is clearly in the wrong refuses to accept that.
Your first sentence is an abusive ad hominem, causing it to fail to support your argument, as it doesn't have any ground to stand on. If you find something in the thread humorous or not serious, all you need to do to see the its necessity is to go read any thread containing the type of troll discussed in this thread.
Your second sentence's claim is a bare assertion fallacy, making an absolute claim without any way of supporting it. You made a statement to attack my position (and then one to attack me) without any evidence to support the claim that "a good argument should stand on its own". Any wall needs a ground to stand on. Is it the fault of the wall for not being able to stand without the ground's existence? No. It's not. Does the reliance on the ground make the wall any weaker? Again, no it does not. In the future, I recommend that you support your claims with any form of evidence.
Your third sentence relies on your bare assertion fallacy from the first post, so its fault is the same as the second. If for you, making a grouping causes an argument to be less convincing, I would recommend that you find a way to change this instinct. The taxonomical groupings of "species" and "genus" are not perfect or absolute, but them being imperfect does not make the terms useless or detrimental to the field of biology. I created the term of "Designer's Advocate" for the purpose of simplicity in speaking of this type of person.
Your first sentence here assumes that a stronger counterargument would actually work. If you have had any experience debating a Designer's Advocate, you would be aware that it isn't the strength of your argument that matters, its the intent of your argument that does. I know from experience that fighting stronger doesn't work against them, so my attempt here is to fight smarter. The fallacy here is claiming that something would work without actually supporting that claim.
Your second sentence also assumes that the site guidelines matter in such a debate. Don't get me wrong, they definitely matter for the posts made and the arguments allowed to be made, but more often than not, that does not stop the posts from being made or read. The posts are made, read, and responded to well before the moderators ever get the opportunity of stopping them from being made. If the moderators decide that a specific post varies enough from the site rules to warrant infraction points, they will silently give them to the person who made the post. This is another argument based on assumption.
Your first sentence here is a presumption fallacy, and also a slight ad hominem. My first post was not merely a complaint about a specific type of person, it also explained why this form of debate is detrimental to the community. As Korbin_Orion said, this is not an issue of addressing someone's concerns, as their position does not have any "concerns". Their side is only concerned with trying to argue against someone else's evidence with their emotions and fallacies.
Your second sentence is another ad hominem and a strawman argument. This is not about superiority, it is about civility. People are bound to disagree with any opinion that I have (and I do mean any), but if one is correct in their opinion, they are already superior in the discussion. A person who believes and argues that the Earth is flat holds less ground in an argument than one that believes that the Earth is round.
My first post assumes that people do have contrary opinions and how to deal with objectively detrimental ones. It is detrimental and inferior to derail a discussion through trolling, and this thread is about how to deal with that for of trolling.
Lastly, you are doing exactly what I said in my first post, using the argument that "If people like the game, no facet of it can be imperfect". We all love this game, but that does not make it or its community perfect.
Less divisive than your post, and certainly more constructive than it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I believe the intent of the thread is not necessarily an attack against disagreement or spirited debate, Brewsky, but an attempt to raise forum awareness against a particular type of dicktroll whose existence is well known amongst gaming forums, but which showcases unusual behavior on this forum specifically due to the nature of D&D.
What Third Sundering refers to as 'Designer's Advocates' would be referred to as 'White Knights' in a video gaming forum - those who defend the decisions of the game's creators/developers and hold those decisions to be obviously correct and beneficial simply because they are the decisions of the developers. White knights are often derided and hated on gaming forums, as their constant blocking of any sort of debate on how to improve the game in question is held as destructive to the fanbase. White knights are better than eternal cynics, but not by much - neither type of argument/stance is of any value in an online discussion.
In this forum in particular, however - and for tabletop pen and paper* games in general - white knights have the ability to demand that anyone who dislikes the game simply change it themselves via homebrew. Often, while also decrying anyone who does incorporate homebrew into their game as doing so to the detriment of the perfect, timeless masterpiece created by the game's developers. In DDB, white knights take the form of players who spend their days trolling the Homebrew forum and telling everyone who posts in it that their ideas are terrible and they should just play by the book like a proper player/DM. Alternatively, and even more destructively, they force their way into discussions held by other players concerning the game's systems, ruleset, development, and overall playability and begin castigating everyone in the thread for trying to "Ruin" their D&D by figuring out ways to address holes or weaknesses in the system.
There's a couple of players I could absolutely name (if I was in the mood for an involuntary nap, anyways) who are notorious for pouncing on any and every thread they can find which discusses shortcomings of 5e and castigating everyone in said thread, demanding that they stop trying to change 5e and instead just homebrew their own shitty inferior rules if they absolutely cannot tolerate playing the flawless, perfect and magical magnum opus of modern game design that is 5e in its pure and unsullied form. Those two or three folks are the ones Third was specifically thinking of when writing this post, I will bet y'all ten bucks. Those of us with a tinker's mindset who like to fix things and want to make our own 5e games better, and perhaps share the results so other people can make their 5e game better, absolutely cannot stand these people. And yet, they never seem to leave us the bloody hell alone @_@.
Nevertheless. Understanding the mindset behind the uniquely belligerent manifestation of white knights in DDB here helps in avoiding getting drawn into their bullshit. Is this thread perhaps spicy? I would assume yes, which is why it's been banished to the Graveyard of Lost and Forgotten Words. Nevertheless, since people seem to be reading it anyways, I simply caution folks against assuming this to be a senseless rant. Heh, if it had been me who'd written it instead? I probably would've linked it via DM to the two or three players who're the real target audience here.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have a better way to address this whole thing instead of the rant I was about to go on. You could literally rename this entire thread "My issue with Trolls", and use nothing about opinions of popularity (argument ad populum) to make your points.
But instead, you choose to add a very specific title to these people in an attempt to discredit - also a fallacious argument.
I mean, who do we see in this thread except people that are VERY outspoken in some threads about how terrible DnD 5e is and how much they've homebrewed it to their liking? Should I make a thread on how to argue with "your kind"? You know... "Those people that come into a thread and immediately browbeat everyone into thinking the way they do, at risk of being lumped in with others?" Or should we stick to arguing LOGICALLY about each subject specifically, ignore the trolls entirely, and accept that others are absolutely, unequivocally, allowed to voice their opinion on a public forum as vociferously as they want?
Edit: For the record, I fit some aspects of your "Designer's Advocate" stereotype - I do put some credence to the designers of the game, and I do value those opinions far higher than anyone else in this thread, but I also try to be objective as well. But, if you catch me in a thread arguing that as my sole reasoning, without logic to back it up, call me out on the logical fallacy and *engage* me. What you're doing here though, is adding a step in between where you get to categorize someone beforehand, and using that as a way to discredit someone before engaging - and I feel that would make anyone a dishonest interlocutor.
There are different groups of trolls, which would be clear to you if you read this thread. Their motivation to troll matters, so then you can deal with them more effectively. A troll who only trolls to make people angry and feel like ants online has a different motive from someone who trolls specifically because they like a specific part of the game, and this requires for them to be dealt with in different ways. Also, my post is in no way an argumentum ad populum. An argumentum ad populum is saying that something is true just because the majority of people believe it, which I did not do. If you want to say that someone did a fallacy, like I said in my first post in this thread, you must provide evidence for them doing so and reasons why it is an incorrect way to argue. Just saying that someone else did a logical fallacy to discredit my post is a "fallacy fallacy" and an "argumentum abusi fallacia".
I explained in my last post why categorizing trolls can be beneficial, even if the system for doing so is imperfect. It's exactly the same thing as taxonomically categorizing the species of the planet. Also, categorizing them is in no way a personal attack or fallacious argument. Please, if you want your argument to be credible, you need to explain what my supposed logical fallacies are and how they're detrimental to the debate (besides you losing). Otherwise, you just appear as if you have no way to disprove my arguments and are just throwing around fancy words hoping they'll stick.
You mean, besides the people like you and Vince who are attacking the premise of the thread, and those like BioWizard and HeironymusZot who are just saying that you should ignore these people, and everyone else who has done nothing in this thread (or any other that I'm aware of) to attack 5e? I'm very outspoken, but I have no hatred of 5e, and neither does anyone else in this thread. If they hated 5e, they wouldn't be playing it and probably wouldn't be on this site. Also, that's both an ad hominem against people who like to use homebrew rules and a huge misinterpretation/strawman of my viewpoint. In my very first post in this thread, I made it a point to not call out any specific person from any other thread in order to keep it civil, as I don't want to make personal attacks and instead just demonstrate why I think that a Designer's Advocate is detrimental to the hobby and community. You have shown no such decency, talking about "my kind" and accusing me of being a troll (which is against site rules, btw).
Please go back and reread this post (read it if you haven't already). I addressed why your assertion that "just arguing logically about each subject" would not work. Trolls derail threads and destroy discussions whether or not logic is involved.
I have never suggested that people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion, but there's a big difference between expressing an opinion and trolling a discussion. Expressing an opinion in most circumstances is harmless and subjective. Trolling is not harmless and it is not subjective. Trolling is objectively bad and detrimental when done on this site (and most other sites, but there are very, very few exceptions, such as this).
I put experience above the opinions of WotC fanboys. I'm not bashing Wizards of the Coast, I respect them and appreciate the work that they've done for creating this awesome game, but I find it extremely detrimental to the hobby and the community for people to accept anything they do mechanically in a heartbeat, praising it as if it were handed down by an angel of the gods. It is beneficial to show why people may act like this and how to deal with it, it's not bashing anyone to explain why a certain type of troll exists and how to respond to them.
P.S. I will make sure to call out all your logical fallacies that I spot in any thread, and explain why they are detrimental to your argument, including in this one.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
There seems to be a presumption in this thread that threads on D&D Beyond, which are non-binding discussions on the internet like almost all other discussions on the internet, are something to be "won" when there's disagreement or conflict. I think it realistically works more like: one says their piece and also ideally says their peace. To me that's best practice. Sure discussion and an exchange of ideas can and should take place, and those threads are fun and enlightening. If someone in those discussions contends with someone in an off based or bad faith way, that will be apparent to readers of the thread. If you post on a thread or start a thread, there is no obligation or expectation to respond to every single post it draws. Yeah, there's some sideshow about cults or whatever on this board, but really what's the point of sustaining an argument if one's opposition is unwilling through whatever communication impasse to see and accept one's thinking as valid. If it persists, as in you feel these poster continue to antagonize you in thread after thread, again if its speech allowed within the standards, either shrug it off when you read it or use the ignore feature.
What specific harm is being done to anyone or the broader hobby that warrants the ... strategy(?) being proposed? Have you tested it? Or is this just rant space couched in productive terms?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
. . . Debates can be won. If people just say things and don't discuss anything to support their opinion and rebut other opinions, that's not a productive discussion. That's just people saying things for no good reason.
The harm that can be done to the community by Designer's Advocates can be making sure nothing about the already written mechanics of the game can be changed. It could make more unbalanced features of the game if parts of UA aren't given constructive criticism. It could prevent mechanical fixes for classes/subclasses/races that need/could use fixing (Sorcerers, Rangers, etc). If a system doesn't receive constructive criticism, that will greatly hurt the game, so the existence of Designer's Advocates is actively detrimental to the game and the community of it.
Yes, I have tested all of the recommended strategies and witnessed others use them. If you read the OP's sections on that, I'm pretty sure I made it clear that I had.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You represent your perspective being some sort of winning tactic, that's different from actually proving your tactic a winner. Show me you "winning" against a designers advocate. If you don't want to call out specific posters, DM a link to the thread or a few threads your greatest hits, I'll respect the anonymity. However, from a survey that's simply my reading of this board including some of the epic disagreements on "the game needs a fix" vs "no it doesn't and your fix is more broken" I see mostly people walking away in disagreement or the thread itself getting locked down when the line is crossed and people are just insulting each other.
People can offer opinions, inspire creative and critical thinking, and agree to disagree. That last part is key.
I think the premise behind this thread greatly overestimates the impact positions put forth on this forum have on people giving feedback to WotC (not to mention how WotC market research and community input fits into their current or _future_ game design philosophy). But hey if you're right and you've perfected rationale discourse on the internet, here's to a happier 2021.
Again, the forum isn't a closed door deliberative body. What people write down is on record. People search out topics on the forum, read what's there and take what they like and maybe contribute a bit too. It's a bit much to presume you can teach or preach people logic and reasoning for a healthy discourse dynamic in one post.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.