# Edition wars need to stop.



## B.T.

Hello, folks.  First-time poster, long-time lurker here.  Allow me to begin my post with a request that everyone responding—including the moderators and board administrators—remain civil and snark-free.  I realize that this is virtually impossible on the Internet, especially when discussing a heated topic, but I will make this request nonetheless.

And now, to the meat of things.



			
				William Tecumseh Sherman said:
			
		

> I am tired and sick of edition wars.  Their glory is all moonshine.  It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.   Edition wars are hell.



The fractured D&D community has the potential to kill the hobby.  In some ways, I think that this is a good thing—I think that D&D could use a fresh start from a smaller company, one that cares more about the quality of their product than their profit margins.  (Not that making a profit is bad, mind you, but we have all seen the negative results of WotC’s “book a month” release schedule, particularly those of us who have played 3e.)  On the other hand, this is bad because it threatens the D&D license as a whole, which could mean the death of my favorite game.

Either way, the negativity surrounding the 3e-4e divide causes immeasurable harm to our pastime—when some innocent soul joins the forums, asks a question, and is immediately assaulted by hordes of disgruntled fanboys, it is only natural for him to retreat from us and take up something less volatile, such as knitting or rocket surgery.  Thus, this behavior must stop at once.  The only way that we can make a difference is by changing our attitudes and hoping that others will learn from us, so this is a grassroots project.  That means here, on ENWorld, and on other forums that you visit, _you_ must be the change you want to see others adopt.

I blame no particular side for this, neither 4rry nor 3aboo can be blamed more than the other.  (I use those terms in jest.)  We have all had to fight our share of trolls and threadcrappers, yes?  And like all war, edition wars wear us down to where we are scarcely ourselves anymore.  However, I have noticed that these forums—our beloved haven of RPG discussion—have fallen victim to edition wars.  There are several types of behavior that perpetuate this atmosphere of negativity, and I wish to enlighten you (all) on this, so that we might become better denizens of our forum(s).

_As a final note: The examples that I will be using will involve actual examples of trolling that I have myself witnessed.  Even if the example used portrays one group in a negative manner, rest assured that I am not blaming one group over another.  The example is merely that—an example.  Analogous situations can be drawn for either party._

*EDIT: I should make clear that I am using examples of actual trolling, but they are not word-for-word citations.  Calling out specific posters is bad for the thread itself.  Rather the examples are fictitious examples of the behavior I have seen in action.  If you wish for me to cite specific problem posters and examples, then I welcome you to PM me with your request.*

*Passive-Aggressive Trolling*
This is the single-most destructive type of edition wars trolling that there is.  If you take anything from my post, I would will you to take this.  PAT involves one person making—as the name implies—passive-aggressive digs at other posters that are just civil enough to pass beyond moderator attention.  Generally, PAT results in another poster outright flaming the PAT-er for his behavior, whereby the flamer is reported by the PAT-er and disciplined.  The PAT-er, of course, goes unpunished.

Here are some fine examples:


> *Poster:* Something I dislike about 4e is that the PC mortality has been reduced.  I really enjoyed that thrill of “I might die any second” from having 6 HP at level 1.  I also like save-or-dies—I thought they were really cool effects and it brought a strong atmosphere of “this is a deadly powerful opponent we’re facing.”
> 
> *Troll:* Some of us like having PCs that are _heroes_, not cannon-fodder.
> 
> *Poster:* What?  I like my PCs to be heroes, too, but I like that the risk of death is present around every corner.  One missed trap might kill you, one critical hit from an orc might cleave you in two, one _magic missile_ might drop you.
> 
> *Troll:* That’s fine for your games, but I’m not one of those people who DMs to lord his power over the players, so I guess different strokes for different folks.
> 
> *Poster:* You know what?  Just shut up, you jerk.
> 
> *Moderator:* Poster, this is an official warning—we don’t tolerate that kind of posting here.



PAT is insidious and corrupting, and it’s enough to bring anyone’s blood to a boil, especially if you’ve been the victim of it.  I must reiterate myself: this is the number one form of trolling that I see on these forums and other forums (RPG.net, WotC’s official forums, and so on), and it is one of the things perpetuating the 3e-4e edition war.  (Because one cannot have civil discourse, one cannot make progress in understanding another edition.)

*Threadcrap Trolling*
This one is frustrating but manageable.  What it amounts to is that someone starts an innocuous discussion about a topic and someone makes a post related to the topic that purposely disrupts the thread and agitates the other posters.



> *Poster;* Hey, guys, I was wondering what your common house rules for 4e are.
> 
> *Troll:* Play 3e.
> 
> [Begin mini-edition war.]



TT is fairly easy to deal with—ban the persistent TT-ers.  It does, unfortunately, usually cause the entire thread to break down, which puts a halt to intelligent discourse.

*Ad Hominem Trolling*
This method of trolling is beyond exasperating.  A poster says something and the troll insists on arguing about the poster himself rather than what is being discussed.  A fine example can be found on our very own forums here.


> *Poster:* Hey, guys, FrankTrollman said this.  What do you think?
> 
> *Troll:* FrankTrollman is a jerk.  He’s been banned from many forums.
> 
> *Poster:* What does that have to do anything?
> 
> *Troll:* Are we going to take someone with “Troll” in his name seriously?
> 
> *Poster:* Shut up or debate the point.
> 
> *Troll:* I’m just sayin’ is all!
> 
> *Moderator:* This thread is now closed.



As with PAT, AHT is difficult to root out because it results from a groupthink mentality: “This guy disagrees with us, and we don’t like him!  He’s wrong!  Yeah, he’s wrong and we don’t like him!  Yeah, he’s wrong because we don’t like him!”  Unfortunately, the only way to deal with this problem is a fundamental attitude realignment.  Again, this must start with us.

*Willful Ignorance Trolling*
A misnomer, perhaps, but WIT is infuriating to deal with.  (Much as I’ve noted with all the other forms of trolling.)  One person makes a claim and backs it up with evidence.  The troll denies the evidence.  The original poster explains the evidence.  The troll denies the evidence and restates his claim.


> *Poster:* Skill challenges in 4e are broken.  [Math.]
> 
> *Troll:* Nah, skill challenges are fine.  4e wouldn’t use something broken.
> 
> *Poster:* Did you even read the math?  [Explanation of math.]
> 
> *Troll:* In my groups, we’ve had no problem with skill challenges.
> 
> *Poster:* That’s fine, but the math proves otherwise.
> 
> *Troll:* Skill challenges are fine.
> 
> *Poster:* Debating with you is like talking to a brick wall.
> 
> *Moderator:* Poster, this is an official warning—we don’t tolerate that kind of posting here.



Technically, the troll in question is doing nothing that violates the rules, and that’s the genius of the trolling technique—the WIT-er works to anger his opponents into lashing out and then reports them for rules violations.  There is little that can be done to solve the WIT problem without resorting to drastic measures (such as banning those demonstrating an inability to reason).

This could also be considered a form of PAT.

*Militant Shill Trolling*
MST is most often combined with another form of trolling, usually TT or PAT.  MST involves a person “crusading” for a cause (usually coming off as a shill; hence the name) and disrupting any topics related to the cause.


> *Poster:* Hey, guys, I heard something about this Pathfinder RPG.  What can you tell me about it?
> 
> *Troll:* Pathfinder sucks hardcore.  Its entire design philosophy revolves around “solving the problem” of 4e, and that’s what you can expect from the fanbase—anti-4e sentiments.  Pathfinder keeps fighters in “their place,” kind of like what you’d expect from Jim Crow laws.  Seriously, their devs are morons.  If you want to play Caster Edition all over again, play Pathfinder.



The MST-ers may have their reasons for their petty crusades, but their bottom line goal is to eradicate any discussion of the positive merits on their chosen topic.

Well, folks, those are the most toxic forms of trolling that I’ve seen on ENWorld or other forums.  Again, this is not a critique of our forum; it is a call to _better ourselves_ so that D&D can thrive—even if one does not like 4e, the D&D brand name is important because it is the single-largest name in the RPG industry.  Once people try D&D, they will be more open to trying other RPGs—and that’s what we want, for the RPG community to grow and prosper.

Thanks for your time.


----------



## Carpe DM

An anti-edition-wars edition wars thread. 

That is some zen stuff.

Carpe


----------



## jdrakeh

_Please_ show me where an ENworld poster likened Paizo to Jim Crow.


----------



## B.T.

jdrakeh said:


> _Please_ show me where an ENworld poster likened Paizo to Jim Crow.



I can't.  I'm not quoting actual text, mind you.  Just examples of what I've seen.  Also, I'm not going to name names because that's going to quickly devolve into a flamewar.  If you'd like me to list posters that do this sort of thing, I will be more than happy to tell you via PM.  Send me a message.


----------



## malkav666

You forgot to mention Godwin's Law.

love,

malkav


----------



## Fifth Element

First, I think this belongs in the Meta forum.

Second, if you do think certain posters are trolling, you should report them. The mods can't be everywhere at once.



B.T. said:


> *Ad Hominem Trolling*
> This method of trolling is beyond exasperating.  A poster says something and the troll insists on arguing about the poster himself rather than what is being discussed.  A fine example can be found on our very own forums here.



Third, since I recognize my contribution to that thread in your summary, you should realize that some things are said in jest (as you did when you used certain terms in your OP). Maintaining a sense of humour can be an effective way to interpret a post that can be interpreted in several ways.

Also, I think your skill challenge example is flawed. I don't think you can "prove" that skill challenges are broken using math (even if most people think it's true). It's certainly open to interpretation, and your "Poster" in that example could be taken as the Troll due to his insistence that the math "proves" it.

I probably should know better than to get into this thread. We'll see how it goes.


----------



## B.T.

Fifth Element said:


> Second, if you do think certain posters are trolling, you should report them. The mods can't be everywhere at once.



Indeed.  However, some of the trolling would not be considered trolling because it technically does not violate the rules.  However, it is trolling nonetheless, and the moderators can do little to stop it without becoming modzis.  Thus, we, as a community, must change our behavior.


> Also, I think your skill challenge example is flawed. I don't think you can "prove" that skill challenges are broken using math (even if most people think it's true). It's certainly open to interpretation, and your "Poster" in that example could be taken as the Troll due to his insistence that the math "proves" it.



If the math demonstrates that a mechanic does not work, then the  mechanic does not work.  There is no arguing with factual data.  If players have a 30% chance of success on something, then they have a 70% chance of failure.  That's just how it is.  Certainly, anecdotal evidence can point to skill challenges working, but that is merely anecdotal and is easily dismissed in the face of mathematical analysis.  Furthermore, the troll in that scenario did not actually refute anything the poster said; rather, he insisted on repeating the same thing in an attempt to infuriate the poster.  That is trolling.


----------



## UniversalMonster

I liked the title of the post. I agree with it!

The content seemed like "why can't we have these edition wars related threads without being moderated?" Which I don't agree with. 

The edition wars will actually end (as they did in the 3e days) when the majority simply tunes out the angry guys and the angry guys go off and found their own forum or whatever. And then it's done.


----------



## jdrakeh

B.T. said:


> I can't. I'm not quoting actual text. . .




Then, IMO, you need to: 

A. Not use it as an example. 
B. Redact your previous statement that "_The examples that I will be using will involve actual examples of trolling that I have myself witnessed._" 

I think your cry for reform will be met with a more positive response if it doesn't try to pass off fiction as fact to make a greater impact. That _really_ hurts your credibility. Also, painting certain identifiable parties as "trolls" seems to be counter-productive to your cause.


----------



## Faraer

Fifth Element said:


> Also, I think your skill challenge example is flawed. I don't think you can "prove" that skill challenges are broken using math (even if most people think it's true). It's certainly open to interpretation, and your "Poster" in that example could be taken as the Troll due to his insistence that the math "proves" it.



One of the main things that causes this unfortunate ill will and fractionation (over rulesets, play styles, settings) is the tendency to generalize one's experiences and feelings into universals. I think the term 'broken' itself is a provocation to discord: 'it doesn't work for me, or the numbers are strange, therefore it doesn't work in general'. If I've been using a rule, or a whole ruleset, successfully, that's quite as valid a data point as some calculations that can never tell the whole story about a rule as it's used by different groups of people as just one element of play.

'Fanboy' likewise.


----------



## Fifth Element

B.T. said:


> If the math demonstrates that a mechanic does not work, then the  mechanic does not work.  There is no arguing with factual data.



It's not the data that's the problem, it's the "does not work" part. That's subjective. Some people believe the skill challenges work just fine as originally published, regardless of how the math works. There's no objective definition of "does not work".


----------



## Intense_Interest

Calling other people trolls because they disagree with you in a post calling for the end of Trolling behavior.

Wow.


----------



## B.T.

Fifth Element: You are correct, to some degree.  Perhaps the developers did indeed intend for skill challenges to be impossible to "win" or "lose."  But the troll should explain his point of view rather than purposely goading the poster to post angrily.

Intense_Interest: I am pointing out problematic posting habits.  But you are talking about _me_ rather than the content of my post.  Is there anything in particular that you disagree with?


----------



## jbear

Hmmm, I don't consider I have participated on any side of the edition war.

Actually I've occaisionally expressed my total disgust towards threadcrapping on one side of the fence or the other.

Personally I've enjoyed all editions of dnd that I've played.

I do wonder, however, about the wisdom of your post. You criticise edition wars and different forms of trolling, yet you only post examples of trolling that 4e fans are guilty of. Quite noticibly in each and every example. 

I'm sure you have good intentions... but...you could have thought that one through a little better if you wanted to appear neutral at least.

Personally I think things have improved a lot at Enworld. I can't comment on the other forums. I think the Mods here are pretty reasonable and switched on as well.

I don't think our hobby is in danger of dying. Even if I didn't have books or dice I would still teach my children the best role-playing game I could make up off the top of my head. All I would need would be a piece of paper, a pencil and a deep well of limitless imagination (which I carry with me wherever I go...the imagination that is, not the paper and a pencil...).


----------



## B.T.

jbear said:


> I do wonder, however, about the wisdom of your post. You criticise edition wars and different forms of trolling, yet you only post examples of trolling that 4e fans are guilty of. Quite noticibly in each and every example.





> _Even if the example used portrays one group in a negative manner, rest assured that I am not blaming one group over another. The example is merely that—an example. Analogous situations can be drawn for either party._





> *Poster;* Hey, guys, I was wondering what your common house rules for 4e are.
> 
> *Troll:* Play 3e.
> 
> [Begin mini-edition war.]



And the Frank Trollman example calls out neither party.


----------



## Fifth Element

B.T. said:


> Fifth Element: You are correct, to some degree.  Perhaps the developers did indeed intend for skill challenges to be impossible to "win" or "lose."  But the troll should explain his point of view rather than purposely goading the poster to post angrily.



I recall the thread to which you refer here. As I recall, the "troll"'s position was explained in the thread, basically the same way I have explained it: that "broken" is not an objective term.

Again, this is the problem that jdrakeh pointed out: your recollection of what was posted is used as an example of trolling, regardless of whether or not it was actually said.

I understand your desire to not name names, I suppose, but if you don't have actual quotes then the possibility of misrepresentation creeps in.

I don't disagree that some trolling goes on here. I don't think it's as rampant as you portray it, and I agree with jbear that it's better than it once was. IMHO, It's still the best D&D forum on the net, and is in no danger of losing that status.


----------



## jbear

B.T. said:


> And the Frank Trollman example calls out neither party.



Ok, fair enough.

The very short one at the beginning. 

And I read yur assurance.

And yet I didn't perceive your neutrality. Maybe it is just me.

Anyway I agree with your sentiment. But you're talking to the converted.

I do have certain doubts as to the posiivity or change in attitudes that your post is likely to generate. I'll take it at face value. I agree with the title. Edition wars need to end.


----------



## Ulrick

Since the Edition Wars began, I've had some questions:

What fronts have seen the most fighting? 
What are the crucial military objectives? And have any been destroyed?
Who are the major generals and heroes of the conflict? 
Has new technology been introduced that has given one side an advantage over the other? 
Who are the neutrals?
Has any side been pushed to a wartime economy (rationing, hyperproduction, conscription, etc.)? 
Has there ever been a Edition Cold War with threats of mutually assured destruction? 

Most importantly: *Who's winning?*


If you've answered any or all of these questions with "What hell are you talking about?", then there really isn't any Edition War at all--just a bunch of people arguing about the best edition of a _role playing game!_ I understand that EN World rules forbid people from arguing about politics and religion, but there are far more important things to argue about than D&D. 

Frankly, if I was faced with a choice of not playing D&D and playing an edition I don't like very well, I'd still play the edition I don't like very well. Because I rather _play._ D&D is a game; is meant to be _played_.

I've been booed for even showing the 4e books. When expressing my distaste for 4e, somebody patted me on the back for "seeing the light." Somebody yelled at me for even expressing an interest for playing AD&D: "AD&D sucks! You can get experience buy just dumping boiling water on an anthill! Stick with 3.5e!"  When I announced my 3.5e campaign, a player joined and then began griping about how 4e is better than 3.5e.

So, in response to all those people who have a "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to a certain edition and feel that they must share their viewpoint with ridicule and condemnation, I will quote Bob Newhart from a classic Mad TV skit: 




STOP IT!


----------



## Merlin's Shadow

Can't we all just get along?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whLEFUxxJvg&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - KumBaYa (metal version)[/ame]


----------



## Obryn

Huh.  "Let's stop edition warring.  BTW, WotC sucks and they care more about profits than products, and it might be best if they stopped making D&D."

Interesting take on the subject, firing off some shots and then encouraging everyone to sing kum-ba-yah. 

-O


----------



## B.T.

How on Earth is criticism of WotC "firing off shots"?  It is a faceless company, not an individual or set of beliefs.  It's a company.  If I say, "WotC sucks," there is no reason to become offended.


----------



## Fifth Element

B.T. said:


> How on Earth is criticism of WotC "firing off shots"?  It is a faceless company, not an individual or set of beliefs.  It's a company.  If I say, "WotC sucks," there is no reason to become offended.



It may be a company, but it is by no means faceless. Several devs post here, as does the brand manager for D&D.


----------



## Nagol

[Humour]



Ulrick said:


> Since the Edition Wars began, I've had some questions:




What fronts have seen the most fighting?  Forums mostly, also FLGSs

What are the crucial military objectives? And have any been destroyed? Scorched-earth total annihilation of the opposing side.  Think second Punic war.  Both sides can claim multiple fortresses; neither side has vulnerable targets.

Who are the major generals and heroes of the conflict? Each side knows who the heroes and villains are.  I can't point them out, however due to forum rules.

Has new technology been introduced that has given one side an advantage over the other? Veiled invective and hyperbole has been sharpened to a degree unheard of since the last cataclysmic war.

Who are the neutrals?  There are three types: those who occupy different territories (e.g. gamers using other systems), those bystanders caught in fire zone (neutral forum goers), and those aliens occupying alternate realities (non gamers).

Has any side been pushed to a wartime economy (rationing, hyperproduction, conscription, etc.)? Both sides have ramped up emo and angst production to unheard of levels that cannot be supported without massive sacrifice.

Has there ever been a Edition Cold War with threats of mutually assured destruction? Yes.  This thread has an example:  "The fractured D&D community has the potential to kill the hobby."

Most importantly: *Who's winning?*  At this time it is impossible to say.  Too much propaganda and too little factual reporting exists to properly determine how the sides are faring.  

[/Humour]


----------



## M.L. Martin

No!

Let the Edition Wars rage! Let OD&D, 1E, 3E/Pathfinder and 4E fans strive against each other, giving no quarter, battling until all sides are exhausted, and the hobby lies fallow and scorched by a thousand battles.

Then shall Star Wars Saga Edition sweep down and conquer all, bringing forth a shining New Order of roleplaying.

"Once more the Sith shall rule the galaxy . . . and we shall have peace."--Darth Sidious, who used this same strategy to great effect a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.


----------



## B.T.

Saga Edition almost had it right.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

B.T. said:


> Saga Edition almost had it right.




No, it shredded the skills system, just like 4e and that was a horrible crime against gaming.


----------



## B.T.

Charwoman Gene said:


> No, it shredded the skills system, just like 4e and that was a horrible crime against gaming.



I'm up for discussing that.  Would you care to start a new thread?


----------



## M.L. Martin

Charwoman Gene said:


> No, it shredded the skills system, just like 4e and that was a horrible crime against gaming.




   It created a skill system that generally met the design goals--characters could generally keep up in appropriate challenge situations, but specialists still had a notable edge. It was designed for broadly competent heroes in high-adventure games, so it may not fit well with those schools of gaming that favor high levels of specialization and niche protection.

   And I've run games and created characters with Rolemaster, so I can _handle_ complex skill systems.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Fifth Element said:


> B.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How on Earth is criticism of WotC "firing off shots"? It is a faceless company, not an individual or set of beliefs. It's a company. If I say, "WotC sucks," there is no reason to become offended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be a company, but it is by no means faceless. Several devs post here, as does the brand manager for D&D.
Click to expand...


I agree with F.E. here.

If B.T., you say "WotC sucks/is a faceless company", while I'm not sensitive enough to be offended, it does kind of ruin your position on the whole "no trolling" thing. Compounding this is telling people that they shouldn't be offended which in its own way is as offensive as actually offending them.

As for the whole edition wars thing... the situation has markedly improved to the point where I think there are bigger issues to be fried. However, I appreciate your original sentiments and maybe you would have been wiser just to leave it at that.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Doug McCrae

B.T. said:


> If I say, "WotC sucks," there is no reason to become offended.



Well, a lot of people round here are major fans of WotC and the products they've produced, either in the past or at present, so there is a reason. Even if that's not, in your opinion, a good reason to be offended, the fact is people will be and I think you know they will be. And isn't it trolling to say things you know will offend a lot of people?


----------



## Obryn

B.T. said:


> How on Earth is criticism of WotC "firing off shots"?  It is a faceless company, not an individual or set of beliefs.  It's a company.  If I say, "WotC sucks," there is no reason to become offended.



I'm all for a rational discussion about the pros and cons of WotC/Hasbro running D&D.  That's not what we have, here.

You stated WotC's poor stewardship as an unarguable given, which is yet another part of what causes the very message board arguments you're criticizing.

Would leaving that part out have lessened or diluted your message at all?

-O


----------



## Mistwell

I perceive a number of problems with the OP which distract greatly from your message.

First, I also noticed a bias against 4e as well.  I understand you didn't mean it that way, and that you claim you do not mean to assign blame.  But, it's a big distraction when you don't make an attempt to stay neutral in your examples.  I automatically assume a bias runs through the entire text when I see it happen like that so frequently.

Second, what I perceive to be your bias creeps into what you perceive to be trolling.  I view a lot of your "poster" responses as trolling, not the supposed troll in your examples.  You don't see it that way I assume, but I do.  If you made the examples more neutral, it would be easier to follow your point.  As it reads to me now, you post often two trolls in one example, both responding to each other, and then you take sides with one of the trolls and exaggerate the other to make your point (at least that's how I see it).  It just doesn't work for me.  It dilutes your point.

Third, and I apologize in advance if this is not the case, but you sure seem like someone who used to post here but who does not post here anymore.  You seem like someone who made a new account.  And I am not alone in that guess - others at circvsmaximvs had the same reaction.  So, if it is not a correct guess, it would help if you gave some more background on yourself.  Or if it is true..just come out and say it please.  

As for why this would matter, it's because a persons reputation and experience matter.  If a doctor specializing in disease X tells me how to diagnose disease Y, that person is more credible automatically than an anonymous non-doctor Z on the internet telling me how to diagnose disease X.  And if WOTC author A tells me the intent of a rule he wrote, that person is more credible than Banned-For-Trolling Poster B tells me the intent of that rule.  Reputation and experience matter.

I know you feel that if the argument is the best, then it should win out regardless of the speaker.  But, that's only true in absolutes, where there is a 100% correct viewpoint.  Those arguments are rare, and almost non-existent when discussing RPGs.  Most discussions in this field involve "slightly better position than the contra position".  So, when discussing what is trolling regarding RPGs, there will never be a 100% best answer.  This is why reputation and experience come into play.  

If, say, a mod with a lot of experience in monitoring trolling and reading "bad post reports", who also has the reputation for being a fair and just mod, takes a position on this topic, it has a lot more credibility than "Banned-For-Trolling But Otherwise Anonymous User".

So, did you used to post here under another handle? If not, what is your background?


----------



## jdrakeh

B.T. said:


> If I say, "WotC sucks," there is no reason to become offended.




Well, then, if I tell you that your favorite game sucks, there's no reason for you to be offended! See how that works? When you attack things that people like, they often take offense. In the spirit of your original post, I suggest that if you don't want to offend people, you refrain from attacking things that they may like and/or care about. _This_ the first step toward stopping edition wars — not criticizing WotC.


----------



## Mistwell

B.T. said:
			
		

> Troll: Pathfinder sucks hardcore...





			
				B.T. said:
			
		

> MST is most often combined with another form of trolling, usually TT or PAT. MST involves a person “crusading” for a cause (usually coming off as a shill; hence the name) and disrupting any topics related to the cause...The MST-ers may have their reasons for their petty crusades, but their bottom line goal is to eradicate any discussion of the positive merits on their chosen topic.






B.T. said:


> How on Earth is criticism of WotC "firing off shots"?  It is a faceless company, not an individual or set of beliefs.  It's a company.  If I say, "WotC sucks," there is no reason to become offended.




This is an excellent example of what I was referring to regarding bias in the OP.  You can clearly see that saying "Pathfinder sucks..." is part of a troll, but you cannot clearly see that saying "WOTC sucks..." is part of a troll.  However, it is.  It's OK if it doesn't offend you...but you've got to be able to see it offends others and that you would need to adapt your behavior to accept that if you're going to be credible on a topic like this.  

Right now, from my perspective, you're not credible on this topic.  It looks to me like you have an axe to grind, and you're cloaking it in the aura of neutral objectivity.  Or, to use your terms, you have a petty crusade, and you're shilling neutral objectivity to further your petty crusade.


----------



## B.T.

Doug McCrae said:


> Well, a lot of people round here are major fans of WotC and the products they've produced, either in the past or at present, so there is a reason. Even if that's not, in your opinion, a good reason to be offended, the fact is people will be and I think you know they will be. And isn't it trolling to say things you know will offend a lot of people?



I am absolutely a fan of D&D, particularly 3e.  However, that doesn't stop me from saying things like, "WotC sucks.  They produce a glut of products, releasing material without playtesting, and then making a new system when the old one is faltering."

They are a fine example of corporate greed.  That doesn't mean that D&D is a bad game; it doesn't mean that the writers are bad people; it just means that WotC has to make enough money for Hasbro.  And it's a shame because that "money, money, money" mentality has a negative effect on D&D.  (How many "Dragon" books did we have in 3e?  Races of the Dragon, Draconomicon, Dragon Magic, Dragons of Eberron...argh.)


jdrakeh said:


> Well, then, if I tell you that your favorite game sucks, there's no reason for you to be offended! See how that works? When you attack things that people like, they often take offense.



This is a wonderful example of PAT.  Your condescension is unwelcome, and your point is invalid:

You are equating liking a game to liking a _company_.  Liking a game is a matter of personal taste.  If you said, "Pepsi sucks," I would say, "No, Pepsi is better than Coke."  If you said, "The Pepsi company sucks," I would say, "Probably, but I like their pop anyhow."  The fact that anyone is getting riled up over the criticism of a _company_ is what astounds me.  They are a business.  They are not Mike Mearls or Scott Rouse or anyone else who posts here.

If I said, "Mike Mearls sucks," that'd be one thing--some of you probably like him as a person, and you would rightly be offended (to some extent).  But to become agitated because one criticizes a company is madness.  There is no personal stake in a company.


Mistwell said:


> First, I also noticed a bias against 4e as well.



Do not mistake the bias of 4e with bias against 4e supporters.  It is true that I probably come down harder on the behavior of the 4e-supporters because I have encountered far more of their kind on various messageboards (from here to RPG.net to /tg/ to WotC's forums).  I have rarely encountered the "4e is WoW, it sucks, and you're retarded for liking it" crowd, but I have frequently encountered the "convert to 4e or be assimilated" crowd.

Again, I direct no particular animosity toward one group or another because I know that the rabidly anti-4e/pro-3e crowd exists.  I have had the grave misfortune of speaking with individuals who think that the 3e fighter is not broken (and even those who think that 3e is not broken overall), but even amongst my friends (who have universally rejected 4e or show completely disinterest), I have never met someone who spurns reason.

This, of course, may be due to the fact that I interact with them in person rather than over a relatively-anonymous messageboard. 

But now my words are taking up too much space, and I digress, so let us move on.


> I view a lot of your "poster" responses as trolling, not the supposed troll in your examples.



How do you mean?


> So, did you used to post here under another handle? If not, what is your background?



My ears are thoroughly burning at the thought that this post--this minor post, this drop in the bucket of geekdom--has garnered so much attention.  I certainly understand your sentiments and your desire to know me.  Allow me to assure you that I am not this Bugaboo fellow; beyond that, my identity is irrelevant.  Would I value your opinion any more if you were the President?  Would I value your opinion any less if you were some backwoods cannibal hick?

No, I would not.  I judge a poster by his words, and even Presidents can have bad ideas, just as backwoods cannibal hicks can have good ones.

Your point stands that reputation matters, but embrace my non-identity for what it is.  Let all your preconceptions about my character wash away, and take in my words alone.  Are they true, or are they not?  That is how you must judge my words.

[I also find it amusing how jdrakeh has become so enraged that he is slandering me in another forum.  I take no offense, good sir, and I will not allow it to color my opinion of you here.  You may call me ill names directly if you so desire; my skin is thick.  Send me a private message.  And I assure you, jdrakeh, that I have not intended my post to be so inflammatory, though the notion of people planning "incursions" to ENWorld to troll makes me chuckle.]

I am now departing for bed.  Good evening.


----------



## Mistwell

B.T. said:


> Do not mistake the bias of 4e with bias against 4e supporters.  It is true that I probably come down harder on the behavior of the 4e-supporters because I have encountered far more of their kind on various messageboards (from here to RPG.net to /tg/ to WotC's forums).  I have rarely encountered the "4e is WoW, it sucks, and you're retarded for liking it" crowd, but I have frequently encountered the "convert to 4e or be assimilated" crowd.
> 
> Again, I direct no particular animosity toward one group or another because I know that the rabidly anti-4e/pro-3e crowd exists.  I have had the grave misfortune of speaking with individuals who think that the 3e fighter is not broken (and even those who think that 3e is not broken overall), but even amongst my friends (who have universally rejected 4e or show completely disinterest), I have never met someone who spurns reason.




The fact that several of us immediately could tell you were not a fan of 4e, but were a fan of 3e, should tell you that you failed to portray no particular animosity in your examples, despite your disclaimer.  My point was that your examples would have more merit if you rephrased them more neutrally.  



> My ears are thoroughly burning at the thought that this post--this minor post, this drop in the bucket of geekdom--has garnered so much attention.  I certainly understand your sentiments and your desire to know me.  Allow me to assure you that I am not this Bugaboo fellow; beyond that, my identity is irrelevant.  Would I value your opinion any more if you were the President?  Would I value your opinion any less if you were some backwoods cannibal hick?
> 
> No, I would not.  I judge a poster by his words, and even Presidents can have bad ideas, just as backwoods cannibal hicks can have good ones.




I didn't ask if you were some "Bugaboo fellow".  I asked if you had ever posted under a different name here.  And you avoided answering.



> Your point stands that reputation matters, but embrace my non-identity for what it is.  Let all your preconceptions about my character wash away, and take in my words alone.  Are they true, or are they not?  That is how you must judge my words.




I already explained how both reputation and experience are relevant to assessing your words.  A doctor specializing in Disease X has a more relevant opinion regarding Disease X than a backwoods cannibal hick.

Your words are influence by your biases and experience.  How I perceive them is influence by your reputation and my knowledge of your experience.  If you previously posted on this board under a different name, it is relevant to your reputation and experience.

I asked you if you posted under a prior name, *and if not then tell us about your background*.  You decided to not talk about your background.  You instead gave an odd response about a single specific "Bugaboo fellow" without denying you used to post under a different name.  I think your non-denial makes the answer obvious.  Yes, you used to post under a different name it seems.

So fess up...what is your prior handle? Why the deception? It IS relevant, and I've explained why repeatedly.  If you prefer to PM me the information, that's fine.


----------



## rounser

> I also find it amusing how jdrakeh has become so enraged that he is slandering me in another forum.



Cowardice and slander like this is now a firmly ingrained part of the ENWorld culture, thanks to CM.  Don't expect the rot represented by those cowardly threads to stop, this place is not what it once was.

Hi CM!


----------



## jdrakeh

B.T. said:


> This is a wonderful example of PAT.  Your condescension is unwelcome, and your point is invalid:




You stated that attacking a company is fair play and that nobody has a reason to be offended when you do so. I merely pointed out that attacking a company is no different than attacking a game where fans of that company are concerned. Pointing this out isn't trolling. Further, it's a _perfectly_ valid point. 



> You are equating liking a game to liking a _company_.




Yes, I am. They are, in fact, similar. You seem to want a free pass for attacking WotC, though, so are working very hard to justify it by claiming that attacking one object of fandom (WotC) is different than attacking another object of fandom (D&D 4e). The disingenuine nature of your original post has become clear. 



> I also find it amusing how jdrakeh has become so enraged that he is slandering me in another forum.




I am not "slandering you" in another forum. Everything that I posted at Circvs is fact. In _this_ thread you initially represented your 'examples' as having been culled from actual trolling that you witnessed here and then, when asked to _link_ to one of those examples, stated that you couldn't _because you had made it up_. That's not slander. It's a representation of actual events. 

You deliberately and falsely attributed a _horrible_ bit of behavior (in this case, somebody equating Paizo's design philosophy to racist legislation) to a particular community (in this case, ENWorld). What did you hope to gain by making that admittedly false representation? I can only see one reason for posting such things, and it most assuredly isn't to bring about peace and love. 

Also, I'm not enraged. At best, I'm mildly amused.


----------



## rounser

> I am not "slandering you" in another forum. Everything that I posted at Circvs is fact.



You lack the courage to put your comments to the person, and you slandered him behind his back.  You show nothing but cowardice and the only thing you can hide behind is that you're part of a group where that's the norm.

You're caught red-handed, and have shown your true colours and character.  At least have the honesty to admit it.


----------



## jdrakeh

rounser said:


> You lack the courage to put your comments to the person, and you slandered him behind his back.




I did _not_ slander him. Slander implies misrepresentation when, in fact, none was involved. I also called BT out on _his_ misrepresentation of ENWorld very early in this thread. So much for my lack of courage. 



> You show nothing but cowardice and the only thing you can hide behind is that you're part of a group where that's the norm.
> 
> You're caught red-handed, and have shown your true colours and character.  At least have the honesty to admit it.




Or I could hide behind the truth! Mainly because I _am_ being honest and I _have_ been forthright. I might have used more colorful language at Circvs, but the point and substance of my posts both here and there was the same. I don't use the language that I use at Circvs here because I respect ENWorld's rules for such things.


----------



## Lanefan

Mistwell said:


> I asked you if you posted under a prior name, *and if not then tell us about your background*.  You decided to not talk about your background.  You instead gave an odd response about a single specific "Bugaboo fellow" without denying you used to post under a different name.  I think your non-denial makes the answer obvious.  Yes, you used to post under a different name it seems.
> 
> So fess up...what is your prior handle? Why the deception? It IS relevant, and I've explained why repeatedly.



I too smell a rat, though I'm not sure why.

Then again, I'm a cynical bizotch at the best of times... 

And Mistwell, "used to post", or "still posting"?  Could be either...

Lan-"and how *does* one win an edition war anyway?"-efan


----------



## Lanefan

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Let the Edition Wars rage! Let OD&D, 1E, 3E/Pathfinder and 4E fans strive against each other, giving no quarter, battling until all sides are exhausted, and the hobby lies fallow and scorched by a thousand battles.



What happened to the 2e guys?  Did they get knocked out in the preliminaries and miss the playoffs?

Lanefan


----------



## rounser

> Slander implies misrepresentation when, in fact, none was involved.



In your opinion, but I beg to differ.  Call it malicious gossip then.  And there's no right of reply when you _choose_ to do it in this manner, when you could have added to this thread.  It's malicious, and it's cowardice.


> I am being honest and I have been forthright.



No, you've been cowardly and sneaky, but that's the way of things between the boards.  There's a culture of it, why single out you?


----------



## jdrakeh

rounser said:


> In your opinion, but I beg to differ.




That's your right. 



> And there's no right of reply when you _choose_ to do it in this manner, when you could have added to this thread.




Again, I _did_ bring it up in this thread. Very specifically, in point of fact. Twice. 



> No, you've been cowardly and sneaky, but that's the way of things between the boards.




I think that qualifies as a personal attack per the rules of _this_ forum. 



> There's a culture of it, why single out you?




I don't know, but you certainly _have_ so there must be some reason for it.


----------



## rounser

> I think that qualifies as a personal attack per the rules of this forum.



It's as "factual" as your "facts".  This is priceless - you first hiding over at CM, then hiding behind the skirts of the moderators.  Nothing more need be said, it speaks for itself.

Now run along and abuse me over at CM, there's a good chap.


----------



## Piratecat

Color me exceptionally unimpressed.


----------

