# MERGED - "About Edition Wars" threads x9



## Diamond Cross (Sep 19, 2010)

When you really think about it, technically, 4th Edition is not truly 4th edition.

The first D&D game was the Gold Box edition.

Technically that would make it the First Edition.

If we actually compared the rules, could we actually say that AD&D 1e  is actually advanced rules or are they just different rules? 

So really, that would make 4e 6e.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 19, 2010)

The guys who own the property get to decide what numbers go on it.

They could start selling 11.7e next week if they wanted. That would make no sense, but they could do it. And they would be right.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Chrono22 (Sep 19, 2010)

Also, the PHB for 3.5 had some corrections and changes in later printings. Technically, that makes 3e at least 3 different editions.

@Nift: Sorry, dictionary definition trumps WotC pseudo-language. What an edition is, and what the word means cannot be copyrighted.


----------



## LuckyAdrastus (Sep 19, 2010)

You know, I think this solves a lot of the nerdrage out there.  If 4e isn't actually 4e, then Essentials cannot be 4.5 (that was, what? "2nd" ed Player's Options?), and the people out there eager to criticize 4e will have to start picking on some version from the late 80s / early 90s.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 19, 2010)

*New Game*

I have an idea for a new game: Count how many editions of D&D there have been. Person with the highest number wins. Person with the lowest numbers gets second place.

I'll start.


White Box
BCMI
AD&D
AD&D 2e
D&D 3e
D&D 3.5
D&D 4e
D&D Essentials

That's 8.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Sep 19, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> When you really think about it, technically, 4th Edition is not truly 4th edition.
> 
> *The first D&D game was the Gold Box edition.*




The Gold Box edition, eh?  Uhh…think about it some more.


----------



## darjr (Sep 19, 2010)

There were two different versions of the Basic and Expert boxed sets. And then there was the Holmes edition boxed set.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Sep 19, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> I have an idea for a new game: Count how many editions of D&D there have been. Person with the highest number wins. Person with the lowest numbers gets second place.
> 
> I'll start.
> 
> ...



Is it cheating to add in Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might as 3.75E? It's not a "separate game" like Pathfinder and Trailblazer.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Sep 19, 2010)

1. ODnD
2. 3.x
3. 4e

So I get to have second place, and whoever lists the most - will be almost last


----------



## JeffB (Sep 19, 2010)

yeah, Gold box? You mean SSI's Pool of Radiance? 


Homes is definitely it's own edition AFAIC- it's got OD&D-isms, AD&D-isms, and it's got plenty of Holmes-isms as well that appeared in neither O or A (the dexterity initiative for example)


----------



## Wicht (Sep 19, 2010)

Nifft said:


> The guys who own the property get to decide what numbers go on it.
> 
> They could start selling 11.7e next week if they wanted. That would make no sense, but they could do it. And they would be right.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




The truth of this is demonstrated by the fact that in the Grimtooth Traps series (of which there were seven total books), the third one is named "Grimtooth's Traps Fore!"  and the fourth one is named "Grimtooth's Traps Ate!" 

Likewise, the current (second IIRC) edition of Hackmaster is published as the 5th edition.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 19, 2010)

JeffB said:


> yeah, Gold box? You mean SSI's Pool of Radiance?
> 
> 
> Homes is definitely it's own edition AFAIC- it's got OD&D-isms, AD&D-isms, and it's got plenty of Holmes-isms as well that appeared in neither O or A (the dexterity initiative for example)




No, there was a Gold Box edition of the 1974 publication.


----------



## Imperialus (Sep 19, 2010)

darjr said:


> There were two different versions of the Basic and Expert boxed sets. And then there was the Holmes edition boxed set.




And the compendium of the BCEMI.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 19, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> No, there was a Gold Box edition of the 1974 publication.




  I think that's typically referred to as the 'Brown Box' or 'Woodgrain Box'.


----------



## Imperialus (Sep 19, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> No, there was a Gold Box edition of the 1974 publication.




You mean white on woodgrain?


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 19, 2010)

OD&D (1974)
Holmes D&D -> AD&D First Edition
Moldvay Cook D&D
Mentzer D&D
AD&D 2nd edition
D&D 3rd edition
D&D 3.5
D&D 4E

i.e. Technically Essentials would be the 9th edition of the D&D game. The 10th, if you count the AD&D2 "Player's Options" as a new edition, which I wouldn't.

BUT I actually DO NOT think this is the case. See here how I put "Holmes -> AD&D First Ed"? Well that's because Holmes gave you the first few levels, a basic understanding of the game and expected you to upgrade to AD&D soon after. Sound familiar? 

Well. That's because *D&D Red Box is the spiritual heir of Holmes D&D, not Mentzer's Red Box.*
It's intended to introduce people to the basics of the game, provides a few levels and such, with the expectation that you'll upgrade to the full Essentials line and the full 4E line later on. 

I'd put Essentials that way in my list:

D&D Essentials -> 4E

I don't think it's a new edition per se.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 19, 2010)

The reason 4E is 4E is that it is technically the 4th edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The dropped "Advanced" with 3E which has seemingly caused some confusion.

Odhanan, don't forget about Pathfinder .


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 19, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> Odhanan, don't forget about Pathfinder .



I'd count Pathfinder on the same line as 4E, in the sense that 4E would be 8th edition possibility #1, and Pathfinder 8th edition #2.


----------



## havard (Sep 19, 2010)

Here's my take:

1. OD&D/Holmes <-> AD&D 1E
2. BX/BECMI/RC <-> AD&D 2E
3. D&D 3E/3.5
4. D&D 4E/Essentials


Yep, its pretty boring, but it takes into account that the Clasic line and the Advanced line ran parallell until the advent of 3E.

-Havard


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 19, 2010)

Cor_Malek said:


> 1. ODnD
> 2. 3.x
> 3. 4e
> 
> So I get to have second place, and whoever lists the most - will be almost last



Sorry, I'm still waiting for Ariosto to post. I belive he's made the argument in the past that there are only two editions of D&D: TSR D&D and WotC D&D.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Sep 19, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> Sorry, I'm still waiting for Ariosto to post. I belive he's made the argument in the past that there are only two editions of D&D: TSR D&D and WotC D&D.




Damn, I had really hoped for that torphy...


----------



## Philosopher (Sep 19, 2010)

When AD&D came it, it was described by TSR as a _different_ game from D&D. The D&D line ended, and the AD&D line dropped the A with 3e. If 3.5 is a different edition than 3.0, then 4e is actually the 5th edition of the game.

Of course, despite what TSR said about them being different games (which was motivated by not wanting to pay royalties to Arneson), AD&D nonetheless grew out of OD&D - they're certainly similar. But given that AD&D split off before B/X and BECMI came about, those latter editions may not count as part of AD&D's lineage... except that once you appeal to similarity and influence, you need to ask about whether B/X and BECMI influenced 3e. While you're on the topic, why not include Pathfinder (it's more similar to 3.5 than 4e is) or Castles & Crusades (it's more similar to 1e, and even 3e, than 4e is)? If you want to appeal to the fact that TSR/WotC owns the D&D brand, and that they're the only ones who get to call something D&D, then if they call 4e the 4th edition, then doesn't that settle the issue?

Very convoluted, isn't it? My point is that D&D does not form some sort of "natural kind". It depends on how you carve things up, and for what purposes. Legally, D&D is what WotC says it is. In terms of similarity, OD&D and 4e aren't really the same game.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 19, 2010)

1. D&D

They're all basically the same. Classes, levels, hit points, armor class, alignment, the six stats, d20 to hit, Vancian (by which I mean daily) magic. Vaguely medieval, vaguely European fantasy setting. Lots and lots of weird monsters, lots and lots of weird PC powers, lots and lots of magic items. PCs go down holes in the ground, kill the weird monsters, find treasure and magic items, get xp, go up levels. 

Classes are defined by their equipment, amount of hit points and abilities. Fighter(ing men) have always been guys in armour with lots of hit points who hit things, wizards (or magic-users) have always been guys not in armor with few hit points who cast powerful spells. Clerics, a peculiar D&D-ism, heal, and always have done. The thief, or rogue has always been a skills guy who, when he's in the right place, deals massive damage.

The two most deviant editions are 2e, which is much more dramatist/world-builder than gamist, and not very dungeon-y, and 3e which gets rather simulationist, and, with its very easy multi-classing, perilously close to doing away with classes, which I consider the #1 most important element of D&D. OD&D, 1e and 4e are undiluted dungeon-bashing, strongly-classed, gamism.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Sep 19, 2010)

Okay, I'll count the editions like one would count textbook editions

1.  Original D&D with hobbits, balrogs, and Ents
2.  Original D&D with halflings, Type VI Demons, and Treants
3.  Holmes D&D
4.  Advanced D&D with a Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual
5.  Advanced D&D with new covers (it could count if you say the transition from Dieties & Demigods to Legends & Lore does because of the elimination of Elric and Cthulhu).
6.  The Original Basic and Expert Sets.  Though this and the next are not part of the direct line instead being an offshoot.
7.  The BECMI edition boxsets
8.  The D&D Compendium and the brown Basic set that went with it, along with the Wrath of the Immortals Set
9.  Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition
10.  Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition with revised books and Skills & Powers (though you could count Skills & Powers separately since you didn't need the core PH to run a game).
11.  Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition
12.  Dungeons and Dragons 3.5
13.  Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition
14.  Dungeons and Dragons Essentials

So, 14 editions, maybe 15.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 19, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> No, there was a Gold Box edition of the 1974 publication.




There was no goldbox of that edition (the original game)- there was a woodgrain box with the white sticker shown, then the later white box (which is what I started with) & OCE whitebox.

The only Goldbox for the table top game would be the Immortals set (the "I" in BECMI)


----------



## Nifft (Sep 19, 2010)

Wicht said:


> The truth of this is demonstrated by the fact that in the Grimtooth Traps series (of which there were seven total books), the third one is named "Grimtooth's Traps Fore!"  and the fourth one is named "Grimtooth's Traps Ate!"
> 
> Likewise, the current (second IIRC) edition of Hackmaster is published as the 5th edition.



 Yep yep. Those may be tongue-in-cheek, but there are companies who pick non-consecutive versions numbers for (allegedly) serious reasons like marketing. For example, Microsoft PowerPoint skipped some version numbers so it could be released at the same version number as the rest of Microsoft Office. Pure marketing move, but the version numbers are official.



fanboy2000 said:


> Sorry, I'm still waiting for Ariosto to post. I belive he's made the argument in the past that there are only two editions of D&D: TSR D&D and WotC D&D.



 I'm happy to out-do that cynicism with idealism.

*There is only one D&D.* All these different "editions" are just window-dressing for the shared joy of hanging out with friends, killing made-up monsters and taking their imaginary stuff.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Xyxox (Sep 19, 2010)

Point of order.

There is no such thing as a "Gold Box Edition of D&D".

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread started by somebody who wasn't there so has no idea of what was and what wasn't.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 19, 2010)

There is more then one edition of D&D?  [/diaglo]


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Sep 19, 2010)

Technically, every roleplaying game out there is an edition of D&D because they all try to fix something the designers though was wrong with D&D.  Whether it is going from a class to a class-less system, emphasizing story over killing things and taking their stuff, getting rid of upward spiralling hit points, utilizing a skill system, using a new and innovative die mechanic (or not using dice at all), doing science fiction or modern day instead of fantasy, playing monsters instead of heroes, whatever.  So I could say every edition of every roleplaying game out there is in some way an Edition of D&D.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 20, 2010)

All right, I guess there was no Gold Box edition for 1974 D&D. Sorry about that.

I could've sworn I had actually held one in my hands though.

Could be the guy who was trying to sell me one for two hundred bucks was messing with me. 

Sorry.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 20, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> All right, I guess there was no Gold Box edition for 1974 D&D. Sorry about that.
> 
> I could've sworn I had actually held one in my hands though.
> 
> ...




No worries-sounds like you were being duped. 

Here is a pic of the gold box Immortals set






The place to go for old D&D product info is The Acaeum you can see everything and check out all the printings there


----------



## TarionzCousin (Sep 20, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> All right, I guess there was no Gold Box edition for 1974 D&D. Sorry about that.
> 
> I could've sworn I had actually held one in my hands though.
> 
> ...



I'll sell you a gold box edition of D&D for only $150. I can get it in the mail tomorrow, if the paint is dry by then....


----------



## Umbran (Sep 20, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> When you really think about it, technically, 4th Edition is not truly 4th edition.




Grape Nuts contains neither grapes, nor nuts.  Discuss.

Little John was not a small man, and Apple Jacks don't taste like apples.  The name of a thing does not have to be technically accurate.  I think that holds especially when what is technically accurate is not clear.  

What is in a name?  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.



Achan hiArusa said:


> Technically, every roleplaying game out there is an edition of D&D because they all try to fix something the designers though was wrong with D&D.




I think you are fundamentally incorrect here.  You conflate, "I want something different," with, "There is something wrong with the original."

Miller's "Death of a Salesman" was not written because there's something that needed fixing in Shakespeare's "Hamlet".  The Beatles didn't record "Yellow Submarine" because Jerry Lee Lewis fundamentally screwed up on "Great Balls of Fire!".  You can want different without thinking earlier things in the genre are flawed.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Sep 20, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You can want different without thinking earlier things in the genre are flawed.



I want a pony.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Sep 20, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> I want a pony.




No fair!  I wanted that pony!


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Sep 20, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I think you are fundamentally incorrect here.  You conflate, "I want something different," with, "There is something wrong with the original."
> 
> Miller's "Death of a Salesman" was not written because there's something that needed fixing in Shakespeare's "Hamlet".  The Beatles didn't record "Yellow Submarine" because Jerry Lee Lewis fundamentally screwed up on "Great Balls of Fire!".  You can want different without thinking earlier things in the genre are flawed.




That is because I dropped the "t" in thought and it came out "though."  It was perceived problems with D&D that lead to other games such as Gurps, Tunnels & Trolls, Palladium, Runequest, etc.  Even if the perceived problem was that you didn't want to play Fantasy, its still a problem and requires you change how you play and what the rule set was.


----------



## Chris Knapp (Sep 20, 2010)

Achan hiArusa said:


> (it could count if you say the transition from Dieties & Demigods to Legends & Lore does because of the elimination of Elric and Cthulhu).



/nitpick

It was still called Deities & Demigods after the removal of the Elric & Cthulhu. (I actually have both copies.) Legends & Lore came later, post purge.


----------



## AngryMojo (Sep 20, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> I want a pony.




And I have the new and improved donkeyhorse.

So mwah!


----------



## Stormonu (Sep 20, 2010)

Eh, if you want to have fun with editions, here's my take

0) Chainmail
1) OD&D
2) Holmes 
3) AD&D (1E)
4) Moldvay/Cook D&D
5) Mentzer D&D (Were there actual changes between the BECMI rules and the Rules Cyclopedia?  Don't remember there being any, just a consolidation)
6) Unearthed Arcana (1E)
7) AD&D 2E
8) Player's Option
9) Dragonlance SAGA
10) D&D 3E
11) D&D 3.5E
12) 4E
13) Essentials 4E

<Edit:> Gah! I've forgotten how to count past 5!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 20, 2010)

Imperialus said:


> You mean white on woodgrain?



Or Beige box. (Mine wasn't white white, but an off white - with woodgrain.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 20, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Eh, if you want to have fun with editions, here's my take
> 
> 0) Chainmail
> 1) OD&D
> ...



 I'd drop Dragonlance Saga - TSR did not even pretend that it was related to D&D. (And customers did not even pretend that it was a good idea....)

I might also label Unearthed Arcana 3a, Player's Option as 5a (since 6 becomes 5), 3.5 becomes 7a, and Essentials 9a.  They are not editions but modifications.

The Auld Grump, who remembers wargame rules with such cheerful chapter titles as 10.7.9... yet still misses Avalon Hill....


----------



## Cor_Malek (Sep 20, 2010)

*1up!*



Doug McCrae said:


> 1. D&D



You've asked for it.

There *is* not DnD.





​ There's a game of imagination, and a bunch of people making stuff up as they go.

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]​


----------



## Umbran (Sep 20, 2010)

Achan hiArusa said:


> It was perceived problems with D&D that lead to other games such as Gurps, Tunnels & Trolls, Palladium, Runequest, etc.  Even if the perceived problem was that you didn't want to play Fantasy, its still a problem and requires you change how you play and what the rule set was.




I'm sorry, but I disagree with the fundamental precept there.  You are conflating "I have a problem" with "I have a problem with X".

I like chocolate ice cream.  I also like strawberry.  

Now, if I have chocolate, but at the moment I want strawberry, I have a problem.  Do I have a problem with the air, for not being strawberry?  No. Is it a flaw in the pencil on my desk that it is not strawberry?  No. Is there something wrong with the next door poodle for not being strawberry?  No.  None of these things is expected to be strawberry.  I still have a problem, but my problem is not with those things.

But the chocolate I do have was never expected to be strawberry, either!  Just because it is the thing most like strawberry ice cream, doesn't mean the chocolate is somehow wrong, broken, flawed, or in need of repair.  If I have a problem with a thing for not being what it was never designed to be, I am not being reasonable.

To this, I would like to add that you are claiming to know what was going on in the heads of several folks who are not you - specifically a whole lot of game designers.  Unless you'd like to claim to be telepathic, you might want to reconsider that assertion.

It is possible to create a new game just to be playful and experiment, without thinking there's anything wrong with games already in existence.


----------



## Stormonu (Sep 20, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I'd drop Dragonlance Saga - TSR did not even pretend that it was related to D&D. (And customers did not even pretend that it was a good idea....)
> 
> I might also label Unearthed Arcana 3a, Player's Option as 5a (since 6 becomes 5), 3.5 becomes 7a, and Essentials 9a.  They are not editions but modifications.
> 
> The Auld Grump, who remembers wargame rules with such cheerful chapter titles as 10.7.9... yet still misses Avalon Hill....




Yeah, I never really counted DL SAGA as "D&D", but I figured I'd better throw it in there.

As for UA and PO, I figure they should be treated as editions or you might at well treat the whole of 2E as a "modification".

Essentials, I haven't really seen enough to know for sure, but with the threads I'm seeing with it requiring some "conversion" to be in line with core book 4E, sounds like it could qualify as a variant/edition.


----------



## Henry (Sep 20, 2010)

Nifft said:


> I'm happy to out-do that cynicism with idealism.
> 
> *There is only one D&D.* All these different "editions" are just window-dressing for the shared joy of hanging out with friends, killing made-up monsters and taking their imaginary stuff.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




If it's all right with you, I'm stealin' this (with attribution) for my new sig!


----------



## Echohawk (Sep 20, 2010)

I just stumbled across this text written by Gary Gygax in Dragon #103, and thought it was strangle prescient:


			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> A Second Edition is a major undertaking. There are corrections to be made, parts to be meshed, material to be deleted or shifted, and new rules and information to be included in such a work. [...] When it is finished, we will have fewer, but thicker, tomes for your amusement and edification. It is important to add that this task does not preclude later supplements, changes, and yet new editions (a Third, perhaps a Fourth someday). The AD&D game system is vital. It grows, changes, and develops with continuing play and fresh ideas. One day it might attain the point where the rules can be graven in stone, but I don't see that likelihood for some time.


----------



## Rel (Sep 20, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> I want a pony.










Holy Bovine said:


> No fair!  I wanted that pony!


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 20, 2010)

Achan hiArusa said:


> Okay, I'll count the editions like one would count textbook editions
> 
> 1.  Original D&D with hobbits, balrogs, and Ents
> 2.  Original D&D with halflings, Type VI Demons, and Treants
> ...





You forgot the Really Quite Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Version 2.71828183 Edition that was released on the internet in the early 90s.  It was a set of variant rules, badly edited and combined into a single document.  This edition was released on Usenet, so it can be considered published world wide.  It also received a cease and desist letter from TSR, so it can be considered formally recognized by that company.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 20, 2010)

Henry said:


> If it's all right with you, I'm stealin' this (with attribution) for my new sig!



 Nobody needs my permission to quote me -- but if you want it, you got it.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Sep 21, 2010)

Whatever.

SMBC Theater


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 22, 2010)

*You're all invited inside the Big Tent of D&D*

_This post started as a reply to ShinHakkaider from this thread but it got out of hand and I thought it necessitated its own thread.
_ 
First of all, Shin, I do not think that you are a jerk or a bad person. I _do_ question, however, the assertion that 4E doesn't have a connection to the games before it. I mean, no matter how you look at it, it does. Maybe not to the degree that 2E was like 1E, or even 3E like 2E (although that is debatable), but it is still obviously connected, still part of the same continuum. Sure, there are major stylistic differences, but that doesn't sever the connection. 


_(The rest of the post is not addressed to Shin specifically).
_ 
I've been playing D&D off and on for almost three decades. I grew up on AD&D, played 2E when it came out, went through a hiatus of a few years in the mid to late 90s when I barely gamed at all, then discovered the predecessor to this site in 1999 and got excited about 3E, which I loved when it came out. I played for a few years and then went through another RPG-hiatus from about 2004 to 2008 when I only followed the industry lightly but didn't play. Then I got excited with the arrival of 4E and formed a new group late in '08, which continues to this day.

My group is comprised of 30-and-40-somethings, all of whom--except for myself--haven't played since college or even high school. To the person, our "formative phase" of gaming was 1E or 2E AD&D. Our style of game play could just as easily be 1E as 4E, OD&D or 3.whatever. I've created my own setting that takes much more from Robert E Howard and JRR Tolkien than it does from World of Warcraft or Hong Kong action movies. It is a mixture of sandbox, dungeon crawls, with smatterings of larger story elements, uncovering the true history of the world, exploration of wilderness, etc. I generally don't allow dragonborn or tieflings because I just can't stand either of them, especially dragonborn (although if a player _really_ wanted to play one I'd find a way to make it happen, maybe as a unique creature), and I'm so-so on shifters and goliaths.

And you know what? 4E works for us. My setting and our game style are much more rooted in the gaming traditions of the 70s-90s than the recent CRPG-influenced years. There are things that I don't like about 4E--I feel the magic has been taken out of magic items, I don't like the power structure for all classes (which Essentials seems to be rectifying), I don't like what they did with alignment, and I don't like many of the fluff elements, among other things. But I really like a lot of the innovations, the simplified core mechanic (which was from 3E), the way AC and Defenses are used, powers for most classes, a consolidated skills list, Character Builder, the balance of classes, the de-emphasis on system mastery and the re-emphasis on tactical savvy, etc. It is not perfect, it is not the D&D I grew up on, but I enjoy playing it.

But my key point is that I make the game my own. It is still Dungeons & Dragons because that is how we play it. It is still d20 based, with the six ability scores, armor class, hit points, vorpal sword-wielding githyanki, elves and dwarves, gelatinous cubes and mind flayers. All the tropes are still there, waiting to be configured in a way that I and my players find pleasing. Yes, rules matter but not as much as the way that one uses them, and not as much as the "fluff" (the story, action, narrative, characters and setting) that they are meant to support.

Have you ever noticed how a lot of people stay with the same hair cut and general styles and tastes that they had around the time they were in college? There are various points in our lives when we “crystallize” around something, a kind of imprinting that occurs and something is set within us. I think this is why many long-time gamers stay with D&D; speaking for myself, there are game systems out there that I think are better than D&D, that are more elegantly designed without all the clutter and unnecessary minutiae (Savage Worlds comes to mind). Most of my favorite fantasy settings were not created for D&D – Earthdawn, Talislanta, and Shadow World, for instance. But I always come back to D&D, it just feels right to me. However, the specific form it takes--the edition or variation--is less important than the family of ideas, memes, tropes, and worlds I enter when I crack open a D&D book. And you know what? 4E works just fine for me.

If you say, “4E is not D&D to me,” I can say, fine, that’s your choice and I honor and respect that, and may even be curious about why you prefer another edition. Not only am I okay with your opinion, but I actually _like _the fact that there are people out there with different tastes, styles, and preferences. Unity in diversity!

But if you say that “4E is not real D&D” I can tell you that you are wrong, because for thousands, if not _millions _of people—many of whom have played other editions of D&D—it certain _is _real D&D. Are we all wrong? Are we deluded in thinking that we are playing D&D? Or is it, perhaps, that your perspective is rather limited as to what D&D is and can be? And you know what? It doesn’t take a thing away from you or your preferred version of D&D to open the tent a bit and invite everyone in. We all share (at least) one thing: our love of the greatest game in the world. Let us recognize that fact, at least.


----------



## Henry (Sep 22, 2010)

I've had a thread bumming around for about a year now about all the similarities between 4E and earlier editions, event down to such constructs as "having a 'short rest' at the end of a combat, a la 1st edition AD&D." (Only difference was the AD&D one was 10 minutes, and the 4E one is five minutes) Not sure which subforum it would be in anymore -- everything's been moved around a few times since then. Long story short, even discounting the spiritual similarities, there are quite a few ways mechanically it mimics things that used to be done years ago, but got left behind for 3E.

Back in the height of the "Edition Wars" when people were posting stuff like "RIP D&D 1974-2008" I was tempted to have a sig that said:

_"1E 1977 - 1989
2E 1989-2000
4E 2008-present
Welcome Home, D&D."
_
However, it would have been the height of jackholery, so I decided not to do it. 

I liked Nifft's statement: 


> "*There is only one D&D.* All these different "editions" are just window-dressing for the shared joy of hanging out with friends, killing made-up monsters and taking their imaginary stuff."



It's pretty true, at least for me.


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 22, 2010)

Nice positive post!

I've never understood those who feel the need to crap on my 4e D&D parade.  I'm okay if you've tried and didn't like it.  I'm okay if you didn't try it and have decided not to bother.  I'm okay if you simply prefer an older edition or even some other system, Pathfinder, retro-clone, or what-have-you.

But the need to cry "It's not D&D!" . . . when so clearly it is, doesn't compute for me.

The attitude isn't unique to our fandom, I've had friends who get all riled up when you talk about one of the various Star Trek shows that simply "wasn't Star Trek!"  But it has always puzzled me, and annoyed the holy hell out of me too.

If you don't care for it and wish to share your opinions why . . . okay.  Just don't be a self-entitled jackhole about it.

Tolerance and civility are virtues that we need more of in this hobby (heck, in general I guess).


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Sep 22, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> If you say, “4E is not D&D to me,” I can say, fine, that’s your choice and I honor and respect that, and may even be curious about why you prefer another edition. Not only am I okay with your opinion, but I actually _like _the fact that there are people out there with different tastes, styles, and preferences. Unity in diversity!




Sounds good. But if what you said is true? Then you would have responded with something along the lines of:

"You know what? I disagree, but I respect that you feel that way. Have fun playing whatever you play."

But instead: 



Mercurius said:


> First of all, Shin, I do not think that you are a jerk or a bad person. I _do_ question, however, the assertion that 4E doesn't have a connection to the games before it. I mean, no matter how you look at it, it does. Maybe not to the degree that 2E was like 1E, or even 3E like 2E (although that is debatable), but it is still obviously connected, still part of the same continuum. Sure, there are major stylistic differences, but that doesn't sever the connection.




Now this is what you were responding to:

*Obviously, the brand is Dungeon & Dragons so that's never in dispute. 

But as far as kinder and gentler and inclusive it's a pity that there are too many people who are content to crap all over what other people like. The wounds from the edition wars are very deep for me at least and I'm not even someone who has a hatred for 4E. It's just not my game of choice and NO it doesn't feel like D&D to me. I dont think that it's a terrible or antagonistic thing to say. I'm not even saying "I dont consider it D&D" or "It's not D&D". I'm saying TO ME "It doesn't feel like the game that I've been playing off and on since red box basic" Even 3E felt like it had a connection to the games that came prior to it. 4E FOR ME didn't feel like it had that connection. It does for it's fans. GREAT. For me it didn't. And I dont see why that makes me a bad person or some kind of jerk for saying it.*

You apparently missed the part IN CAPS where I pretty clearly state: 

*I'm saying TO ME "It doesn't feel like the game that I've been playing off and on since red box basic" Even 3E felt like it had a connection to the games that came prior to it. 4E FOR ME didn't feel like it had that connection. It does for it's fans. GREAT. For me it didn't.*

When you say that you respect someone's opinion it's either you do or you don't. You cant say that "if you say x I can respect that" then turn around and 
tell them their opinion is wrong. 

Again: TO ME 4E lacks that connection. To you and other 4E fans it does not. GREAT. Party on D00d's. But dont turn around in the same breath and tell me that I'm wrong for feeling the way that I do. THIS is one of the main reasons why the edition wars keep going. 

"I feel X"

"Well youre wrong about feeling X. Here's why."

"I thought Highlander 2 was a terrible movie" 

"Well youre wrong. Here's why..."

"I think 4E is an amazing system"

"Well youre wrong here's why..."

"I think ENWorld is an amazing, inclusive community for D&D Players of all stripes" 

"Well, youre wrong here's why..."

With any of those examples, do you honestly think by "correcting" the errors of their ways that you are going to convince them to agree with you? By telling them basically "Hey, I dont know you, but that time you spent playing 4E and the impression that you got from it? TOTALLY WRONG. Here's why..."

You can see how that can come off in not so much a positive light right?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2010)

Shin said:
			
		

> When you say that you respect someone's opinion it's either you do or you don't. You cant say that "if you say x I can respect that" then turn around and
> tell them their opinion is wrong.




Really?

AD&D isn't really a role playing game.  It's a proto-roleplaying game still stuck in its wargame roots.  It's a tabletop wargame where players control single figures instead of units.  The game does not presume the assumption of any role, nor does it reward acting in character.  The only thing the game rewards is killing and looting.  It's a good attempt at a role playing game, but, it falls short.*

This is my opinion and you cannot say I'm wrong.​
Really?  No one can say I'm wrong here because I tack "for me" and "IMO" onto things?  

*[sblock]No, I do not really think this.  I think AD&D most certainly is a role playing game.  I do feel it lacks some elements, but, that certainly doesn't stop it from being a role playing game.[/sblock]


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 22, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> First of all, Shin, I do not think that you are a jerk or a bad person. I _do_ question, however, the assertion that 4E doesn't have a connection to the games before it. I mean, no matter how you look at it, it does. Maybe not to the degree that 2E was like 1E, or even 3E like 2E (although that is debatable), but it is still obviously connected, still part of the same continuum. Sure, there are major stylistic differences, but that doesn't sever the connection.



For me, I do question the connections other than to the game immediately before it.

There's a striking parallel, actually, between the 1e-4e interrelation and the current set-up of our gaming crew.

We have 4 campaigns currently on the go, under 4 different DMs; let's call these campaigns A-B-C-D.  A and B are 1e, C and D are 3e.

A and B have 3 players in common.
B and C have 3 players in common.
C and D have 2 players in common.

Of those, 1 player links A-B-C and another links B-C-D.

Yet A and D, despite all these connections, have absolutely no players in common with each other and aren't likely to anytime soon.  So while it's a continuum, that doesn't mean they're all the same.

Now, look what happens when you substitute edition numbers for letters above, A = 1 to D = 4: it works almost exactly the same!  1 has links to 2, 2 has links to 3, 3 has links to 4, but 1 and 4 have no link at all.  So while it's a continuum, that doesn't mean they're all the same.

Lan-"mine is 'A' in the above example"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2010)

But, do they have to be the same in order to fall into the same category?


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 22, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> vorpal sword-wielding githyanki, elves and dwarves, gelatinous cubes and mind flayers. All the tropes are still there, waiting to be configured in a way that I and my players find pleasing.




For some of us though, all of the tropes really aren't there. Enough of them aren't there that it doesn't feel like the connection to 1e/2e/3e is still there to be part of the same continuum, especially where flavor and world detail are concerned. But if it's enough for you, keep playing the game that you like and I wish you all the best.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Sep 22, 2010)

Are OD&D, AD&D, Basic (BX, BECMI, etc.), 3e (& 3.5), and 4e all "Dungeons & Dragons"?  In my opinion, yes, they are... the same way that soccer, rugby, American football, Canadian football, and Australian football are all "football".

I consider the different editions to be related to each other, yet distinct games in their own right.  They all can claim the mantle of "Dungeons & Dragons", even though they are all separate games... the same way that the different games called "football" can all be called "football", yet be separate and distinct games.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Sep 22, 2010)

Mercurius said:


> But if you say that “4E is not real D&D” I can tell you that you are wrong, because for thousands, if not _millions _of people—many of whom have played other editions of D&D—it certain _is _real D&D.




I think the root of this problem is that "real D&D" is a phrase without meaning.

What I can say is that there was a game invented in 1974 called Dungeons & Dragons. Its rules were revised. Its math was cleaned up and occasionally tweaked. New options were added. But its fundamental gameplay remained the same.

Until 2008. When a game with fundamentally different gameplay -- that had been explicitly and specifically designed in order to feature fundamentally different gameplay -- was released with the same trademark on the cover.

That doesn't mean it's not a good game. It doesn't mean it's "not D&D". (It clearly is: It's got the name on the cover and everything.) But it ain't the same game. And it was specifically designed that way, so it _really_ shouldn't be so shocking for some people to discover that this is true.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 22, 2010)

I cut the ropes holding up the tent, then set the collapsed tent on fire.



If I can do that, it's probably _D&D_.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Sep 22, 2010)

*The Shortest List*
1. D&D

*The Longest List (Without Being Crazy About It)*
OD&D
OD&D + Supplements
Holmes Edition
Moldvay Edition
BECMI
Rules Cyclopedia
AD&D1
AD&D1 + Unearthed Arcana
AD&D2
AD&D2 + Player's Options
D&D3
D&D3.5
D&D4
D&D4 Essentials


----------



## BenBrown (Sep 22, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> I think the root of this problem is that "real D&D" is a phrase without meaning.
> 
> What I can say is that there was a game invented in 1974 called Dungeons & Dragons. Its rules were revised. Its math was cleaned up and occasionally tweaked. New options were added. But its fundamental gameplay remained the same.
> 
> ...




From my point of view, the new game produced by WotC and released in 2000 was fundamentally different than the previous games, enough that you could call it "Not the same game."  I don't think this is too shocking, but some people find it so.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Sep 22, 2010)

BenBrown said:


> From my point of view, the new game produced by WotC and released in 2000 was fundamentally different than the previous games, enough that you could call it "Not the same game."  I don't think this is too shocking, but some people find it so.




There are people who think the game fundamentally changed when Supplement I was released in '75. And they're welcome to their opinion. It just that:

(1) It's not based on any truly meaningful and demonstrable alterations to the core gameplay of the game.

(2) Unlike 4E, this was not a stated design goal of the Greyhawk supplement. (Nor 3E.)

So there is a meaningful and objective difference between what you're saying and what I said. What meaning you choose to apply to that objective and meaningful difference, of course, is a matter of personal opinion.

But some people have trouble separating their opinion from reality.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Sep 22, 2010)

Well, I've been in the tent for a long time now. 

I do not play all editions, but I consider them all D&D, and see a lot of similarities between them all, if not rules, then at least the world and the flavor.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 22, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> If I can do that, it's probably _D&D_.



You can certainly _try_. Let me roll to see if someone spots you doing that first.

What's your Stealth check?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 22, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Until 2008. When a game with fundamentally different gameplay -- that had been explicitly and specifically designed in order to feature fundamentally different gameplay -- was released with the same trademark on the cover.




I think 4e gameplay does feel fundamentally different to prior editions, I'm not really sure how that could be seriously disputed.  It's a much bigger change than 3e was (despite reviving rest-after-combat and a few other 
pre-3e elements).   It feels to me much further away from say 0e/1e D&D than many explicitly 'not D&D' games - Runequest or Dragon Warriors, say.  If 4e is mechanically 'D&D', then logically so are many other games that don't have 'D&D' on the cover.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 22, 2010)

To me, the relationship between 4E and older editions is like the relationship between modern English and Middle English (the language used in the following excerpt from The Canterbury Tales):
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote 
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote 
And bathed every veyne in swich licour, 
Of which vertu engendred is the flour; 
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth 
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth 
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne 
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne, 
And smale foweles maken melodye, 
That slepen al the nyght with open eye- 
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages); 
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages 
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes 
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes; 
And specially from every shires ende 
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende, 
The hooly blisful martir for to seke 
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.​They are, on the surface of it, not the same language. But they are fundamentally linked.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Sep 22, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Sounds good. But if what you said is true? Then you would have responded with something along the lines of:
> 
> "You know what? I disagree, but I respect that you feel that way. Have fun playing whatever you play."
> 
> ...



Posting your opinion to a message board though, while I see you do not like it, you can at least expect someone is going to tell you you're wrong. Especially about borderline factual claims.

If I said, "To me, canned Coca-Cola has no connection to bottled coca-cola. It doesn't feel the same at all." I can certainly expect someone to say there's no chemical difference between the two, besides the use of cane sugar. Or whatever. Definitely a connection between the two things, even if it doesn't 'feel' like it to me.

Message boards have an audience; saying such things as 'you're wrong, here's why' is not necessarily to convince the "wrong" party. Sometimes speaking against someone's opinion will effect how borderline 'on the fence' people feel reading it. At least, that's my experience.


----------



## Reigan (Sep 22, 2010)

For me, 3e changed the way D&D was played far more than 4e has. 3e was also a far better game than its predecessors, but for me 4e is better again.

What is D&D is really a personal decision, the problem arises when some people insist it must be a collective one.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 22, 2010)

Same ole same ole.....

There is quite obviously a "big tent" of role playing games, or even just fantasy role playing games.  And all versions of D&D easily qualify.

But when you start trying to substitute "D&D" in place of fantasy roleplaying games then the conversation becomes stupid any way you slice it.

Is GURPS fantasy D&D?
Is Warhammer FRP D&D?

If games not under the brand D&D are D&D for this conversation, then the term is so dilute as to not be useful and the conversation becomes stupid.

If versions within the brand with more differences to each other than some games outside the brand all qualify, but those closely related games outside the brand don't, then, for gaming experience purposes, the definition is so arbitrary and inconsistent that the conversation becomes stupid.

Yes, they are all fantasy roleplaying games.

Some of them are awesome.  Some of them suck.

Going back to the brand, if you can play ODD, 1E, 3E, and 4E and not find a substantial difference in the play experience that goes well beyond justifying some means of acknowledging and describing the distinctions, then your play style is not sophisticated enough to have a meaningful insight into mine.  You may have found the essence of joy in the way you play.  And my style may be way to convoluted and clunky to have any meaningful insight into the perfection you have achieved.  But, again, that brings us back to differences.

If you have two cousins and one is a small business owner with 100 employees and the other is a strung out junky convict, they are both still “cousins”.  There is nothing the business owner can do to make them not cousins.  And there is nothing the junky can do to make them equivalent.

If you want to have a meaningful conversation about their merits and weaknesses, then insisting that they are just simply “cousins” is a dead end start to the discussion.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2010)

BryonD said:


> But when you start trying to substitute "D&D" in place of fantasy roleplaying games then the conversation becomes stupid any way you slice it.
> 
> Is GURPS fantasy D&D?
> Is Warhammer FRP D&D?
> ...




"Could you pass me a kleenex and an aspirin, please?"

Kleenex and Aspirin both started as names of specific brands, that have slipped into colloquial use as words for entire classes of objects.  In the southern United States, you can sometimes run into places where "Coke" is synonymous with any bubbly soft drink.

Now, in certain circles, that's confusing.  Folks who create and design facial tissues would never refer to all tissues as "Kleenex", because they need that term for a specific sub-group of facial tissues.  But the broader public, who don't care so much about the finer points, can get away with such use.

So, context matters.  To folks who don't play RPGs at all, all RPGs can all be D&D - sure, we know there are differences, but to first approximation, it's all sitting at a table with papers and dice and playing pretend.  Someone who didn't know about rules or the conventions of their respective genres of fiction would watch a WoD and a D&D game, and probably not notice the difference.

Back in the 1990s and 2000s, there were folks who played mostly WoD games.  For their purposes, all D&D players could often be lumped into one big bin. The differences between editions of D&D were, to them, far less important than the differences between WoD and D&D.

I think that if you're driven to try to draw a line between what is or isn't D&D, that's an important thing.  What level of detail are you talking about, and what's the purpose of the grouping?  That 4e is different than 3ed is self-evident.  But it still shares a whole lot more of its genre and structure with other flavors of D&D than it does with GURPS and WoD. 

Maybe, sometime down the road, as games evolve, we may see a new general class of games form using 4e as their original inspiration.  But that hasn't happened yet.  We don't yet have a whole new branch of the game, we have a bud.  If it grows, it becomes something we can define as a branch, if it doesn't, then all it'll ever be is a slight lump on the old branch.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2010)

First off, thanks for the invitation to the tent.  However, for trademark reasons, I am not allowed to call my edition "D&D".  



Hussar said:


> Really?  No one can say I'm wrong here because I tack "for me" and "IMO" onto things?




Obviously, people can say that.  But that doesn't make them right.  Although, in this particular case, the information in your "sblock" would tend to convince me that they were.  



If you state, "I think X", you can only be wrong if you do not really think X.

The problem is, some people might be unhappy that you think X!



Mercurius said:


> I mean, no matter how you look at it, it does.




This is, IMHO, the only real thing I disagree with about your post.  Obviously, some people do look at it, and not see that connection.  An inability to accept that they do not does not make them suddenly see it.



BryonD said:


> There is quite obviously a "big tent" of role playing games, or even just fantasy role playing games.  And all versions of D&D easily qualify.
> 
> But when you start trying to substitute "D&D" in place of fantasy roleplaying games then the conversation becomes stupid any way you slice it.




I tend to agree.  Otherwise, how would Kleenex make anything other than facial tissues?  

Also, I do not believe that "Unity Through Intolerance" is an achievable goal -- or desireable were it to be somehow achieved.



Reigan said:


> What is D&D is really a personal decision, the problem arises when some people insist it must be a collective one.




Agree.  Just say no to UTI!


RC


----------



## Nagol (Sep 22, 2010)

I think I'll stay in the big tent known as "Role Playing Games".  You know that one; you walked into to it to set up your tent -- over there under the tent known as "Fantasy Role Playing Games".  Actually, your tent, although somewhat larger than the individual D&D tents, is pretty small -- some people are trying to stretch it over other tents like "Rolemaster", "Chivalry and Sorcery", and "Tunnels and Trolls" since the colours are similar, but I don't think your tent can really fit those inside.  If you do manage to fit them inside, you may want to change your name to be a bit more reflective.


----------



## cthulhudarren (Sep 22, 2010)

I remember when the only way to figure out what a potion was meant taking a sip. Unthinkable these recent editions.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you state, "I think X", you can only be wrong if you do not really think X.
> 
> The problem is, some people might be unhappy that you think X!




Would that it were so simple.

EN World doesn't host statement forums, or assertion forums.  We host _discussion_ forums.  If you say something here, you should expect, and your audience expects, that the content can and will be discussed.  Posting here is an implied invitation for discussion.

If one says, "I think X is true," as you note the fact of the, "I think...," part isn't really up for debate.  So, what is to be discussed?  

Well, certainly, whether X is true is open for examination.  That leads directly to discussing evidence, rational support, and reasons for thinking X to be true.  This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether we like that you think X.  It is simply the assumed point of posting - to be part of examination of ideas.

People forget this - if you don't want your thinking that X is true to be examined, you shouldn't post it on a discussion board.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 22, 2010)

Does 2e Skills and Powers count as a new version, for the purposes of this thread?


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 22, 2010)

I once played a Stargate d20 game with my wife, who otherwise had never played a role playing game.  Asked by someone else if she had ever played D&D, she answered yes, she had played a Stargate D&D game.

From the outside perspective, all these variations which seem massive to those of us who play, go away.  It's all just some form of D&D.  

Anyway, from my perspective, 4e is very much D&D, and has very clear connections to prior editions in both flavor and mechanics.  Gameplay actually "feels" more 1e-like to me than 3e did, with a de-emphasis on "a rule for everything" and a re-emphasis on "keep the gameplay smoothly going forward".  I loved 3e, and would play 3e again if my group wanted to play it.  3e was also D&D.  But it definitely was never "more" D&D for me than 4e.  And for what it is worth, I also think of Pathfinder as D&D, and would play that if it's what my group wanted to play.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 22, 2010)

Saying things like "it's not D&D", "It doesn't feel like D&D" or any of the other myriad sayings is antagonistic and jackhole no matter how many times you try to qualify it with a "to me". The attack has been directed.  

Good: I don't like the feel of the game.
-clearly states a preference.

Bad: It doesn't feel like D&D.
-Says the game is bad and isn't really what it is.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Sep 22, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Saying things like "it's not D&D", "It doesn't feel like D&D" or any of the other myriad sayings is antagonistic and jackhole no matter how many times you try to qualify it with a "to me". The attack has been directed.
> 
> Good: I don't like the feel of the game.
> -clearly states a preference.
> ...




Listen. So that we're clear that I'm talking directly to you. 

What you're saying that I'm saying? IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. I've been very, VERY clear on that point. I'm not attacking ANYONE'S preferences. 

Since youre declaring an attack has been made (when there clearly has not been) if you want to get into this off the board then we can take it there.  

But I'm trying to be very clear about my intent. I'm not attacking anyone's preference so I'd appreciate it if you stop saying that I am. I dont know about anyone else's intent but that's not what I'm doing.


----------



## athos (Sep 22, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Saying things like "it's not D&D", "It doesn't feel like D&D" or any of the other myriad sayings is antagonistic and jackhole no matter how many times you try to qualify it with a "to me". The attack has been directed.




Wow, talk about a jackhole response...  what are you so enraged about?  That someone doesn't like 4.0?  Get used to it, get over it, move on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Would that it were so simple.




Cool, because it is!

Hosting _discussion_ forums, where the content of statements can and will be discussed, in no way requires that the poster of said content must be told to agree with the herd or STFU.  In no way.  At all.  It is that simple.

AFAICT, the point of discussion to examine what other people think and by doing so enlarge your own thoughts, not to prove someone else wrong, not to win.  That is, AFAICT and IMHO, the difference between discussion and argument.  Or do I have that wrong?  Am I misinterpreting The Rules of EN World?

Likewise, going back to the OP, one can easily say "I consider you all X.  Welcome into my big tent!" without having to thereby imply "Thus you must consider me X as well, and I may now force my way into your tent."

Do you really not understand the boundary differences?



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2010)

athos said:


> Wow, talk about a jackhole response...  what are you so enraged about?  That someone doesn't like 4.0?  Get used to it, get over it, move on.




See?  To me, this is the same as telling someone they have to consider 4e D&D or STFU.  So what is someone doesn't consider 4e D&D?  So what if someone considers me a jackhole?  That is what the Ignore feature is for!

No matter how you slice it "4e isn't D&D" isn't a personal attack, and it is not Grandma-unfriendly.  Likewise, "4e is the only D&D".  

(Shrug)

Really, how important is the opinion of some random guy on an InterWeb forum to the health of your ego, anyway?

Again, tolerance is the only non-divisive, mature way to go.  


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 22, 2010)

[dated reference]Can't we all just get along?[/dated reference]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> [dated reference]Can't we all just get along?[/dated reference]




Of course we can, given mutual tolerance and respect.

The only question is, are we able to give mutual tolerance and respect?

My reading of EN World's The Rules makes me believe that mutual tolerance and respect should be a cornerstone of expectations on this site.  But I may be reading The Rules wrong!  


RC


----------



## Herschel (Sep 22, 2010)

athos said:


> Wow, talk about a jackhole response... what are you so enraged about? That someone doesn't like 4.0? Get used to it, get over it, move on.




I don't really care one way or another what anyone likes. You seem to be a bit defensive about it though so maybe you should "get over it".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2010)

As long as the expectation is that _*someone else *_"get over it", no one ever will.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No matter how you slice it "4e isn't D&D" ... Likewise, "4e is the only D&D".




Actually both are equally bad form and marginalize other peoples' preferences. They are indirect personal attacks because they imply someone's preferences are badwrongfun. Saying they're not "grandma unfriendly" doesn't change what they are: passive-aggressive nonsense.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Actually both are equally bad form and marginalize other peoples' preferences. They are indirect personal attacks because they imply someone's preferences are badwrongfun. Saying they're not "grandma unfriendly" doesn't change what they are: passive-aggressive nonsense.




I accept that you feel that way, but I politely disagree.

I have never thought about rpg rules so deeply, or about what makes me identify a thing as D&D, as I have due to the discussions surrounding 4e.  I know that those discussions have had an enormous positive impact on my own ruleset, helping me to craft something that supports exactly what I want to play.  Without those discussions, my ruleset would be less than half as good as it is.

As has been pointed out already, EN World has an Ignore feature to help you avoid reading unwanted opinions.  However, once those opinions are actually removed, there is no feature to restore them to those of us who find them valuable.

I am extremely thankful that EN World has preferred tolerance over intolerance, and not assumed "implied personal attacks" where none exist.  It speaks volumes about the overall quality of moderation.


RC


----------



## Herschel (Sep 22, 2010)

I feel the ignore feature is for chumps. It's a crutch to not be involved in conversation or debate by avoiding constructive discourse.

 We may all have different ideas of what we feel D&D is, but when we present those feelings as "fact" in a way to marginalize someone else's choice then there is the problem.  

D&D really is any edition of the game and any game taken/cloned/copped from said editions. Some just use different brand names for protection from international copy right laws. Which of those you play is your choice.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Sep 22, 2010)

Herschel said:


> I feel the ignore feature is for chumps. It's a crutch to not be involved in conversation or debate by avoiding constructive discourse.




Herschel, your hate-filled screeds of textbook over-reaction may be many things. "Constructive", however, is not on that list.

*Guys, it's time to back off. There's no need for this thread to become so heated, and there's no reason the topic can't be discussed without people being aggressive and confrontative. Relax, please, and take a few deep breathes before hitting "submit." ~ Piratecat*

Someone saying that _Monopoly: Revolution_ isn't the same game as _Monopoly_ isn't a personal attack on everyone who plays _Monopoly: Revolution_. Nor is it a personal attack on people who consider _Monopoly: Revolution_ and _Monopoly_ to be the same game.

It's a statement of opinion and/or fact (depending on how it's phrased). It may or may not be something you think is wrong. It may or may not be an opinion you agree with. But someone saying something that you disagree with is not a personal attack. It is merely someone saying something that you disagree with.

I recommend you learn the difference.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2010)

Herschel said:


> I feel the ignore feature is for chumps. It's a crutch to not be involved in conversation or debate by avoiding constructive discourse.




"STFU"/intolerance is just a bigger Ignore feature!  If one is for chumps, the other is equally or moreso.



> We may all have different ideas of what we feel D&D is, but when we present those feelings as "fact" in a way to marginalize someone else's choice then there is the problem.




Ah, well, when anyone proposes that their opinion on a subjective matter is, in fact, factual, there is likely to be a problem!



> D&D really is any edition of the game and any game taken/cloned/copped from said editions. Some just use different brand names for protection from international copy right laws. Which of those you play is your choice.




That is an opinion I tend to share, but I am as interested in other opinions as the one I happen to hold.  That doesn't mean that someone else's opinion will sway mine, but it certainly has happened in the past, if an opinion is well presented and has obvious benefits over the one I previously held.

In those "But is it D&D?" discussions, lots of posts by people who said No reminded me of things that I definitely wanted to include, and lots of posts by people who said Yes also provided me with plenty of thoughts about different ways to include them.

And it seems that at least someone at WotC was paying attention as well, without being offended.  After all, IMHO as an outsider, it seems that those discussions fuelled changes for Essentials....A version I would be willing to play, if not to run!  That alone indicates to me that there is value in tolerance.

YMMV, of course.


RC


----------



## Herschel (Sep 22, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> It's a statement of opinion and/or fact (depending on how it's phrased). It may or may not be something you think is wrong. It may or may not be an opinion you agree with. But someone saying something that you disagree with is not a personal attack. It is merely someone saying something that you disagree with.
> 
> I recommend you learn the difference.




I suggest you re-read what I wrote. A difference of opinion is fine, and expected. There are many ways to present said differences. I gave a specific example of how presenting a certain perception in two different ways conveys a different message.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hosting _discussion_ forums, where the content of statements can and will be discussed, in no way requires that the poster of said content must be told to agree with the herd or STFU.  In no way.  At all.  It is that simple.




Quite true.  Also, all quite irrelevant to what I was saying.

Sometimes people are told to STFU, and we try hard to deal properly with that rudeness.  But sometimes people mistake critique for being told to STFU - usually not because of the content of the critique, but because of the form of delivery.

People want form to not matter.  In practice, though, it usually matters a great deal.




> AFAICT, the point of discussion to examine what other people think and by doing so enlarge your own thoughts, not to prove someone else wrong, not to win.  That is, AFAICT and IMHO, the difference between discussion and argument.  Or do I have that wrong?  Am I misinterpreting The Rules of EN World?




It seems to me that different people engage in discussion for different reasons, and that "the point" of the activity is not singular for all.  I'm mostly of the mind that dialectic and debate are both forms of discussion, but they have fundamentally different goals.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> "STFU"/intolerance is just a bigger Ignore feature! If one is for chumps, the other is equally or moreso.
> 
> RC




I guess I disagree it's an ignore feature because you have to read at least part of it to respond generally. But that might just be semantics as it could be looked at as active vs. passive.

I do agree it's just as "silly".


----------



## Someone (Sep 22, 2010)

The key to end this discussion, is to remember why Chewbacca lives on Endor.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 22, 2010)

Someone said:


> The key to end this discussion, is to remember why Chewbacca lives on Endor.




Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!  Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 22, 2010)

*And hey, Endor isn't even a proper planet. It's a moon.

Tone the rhetoric down, everyone. The "edition arguments annoy the crap out of us" guideline hasn't mysteriously vanished.*


----------



## billd91 (Sep 22, 2010)

Herschel said:


> I suggest you re-read what I wrote. A difference of opinion is fine, and expected. There are many ways to present said differences. I gave a specific example of how presenting a certain perception in two different ways conveys a different message.




So are you saying that the poster has to misstate his feelings in order to avoid being dogpiled by people who strongly feel differently? If someone says something critical, even controversial, they should be allowed to do so as long as they aren't violating board rules. If they get hostile, borderline rule-breaking responses that generate a flame war (or edition war), who's the "jackhole"? Not the original OP.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 23, 2010)

A good book once told me it's better to have them urinating on your tent while inside of it instead of having them being outside while doing so.  Of course, the book states it much better then I can but I'm too tired to go fetch it and re-read it.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Sep 23, 2010)

Holy Bovine said:


> No fair!  I wanted that pony!






AngryMojo said:


> And I have the new and improved donkeyhorse.
> 
> So mwah!



I've changed my mind. I want a Zebrahorse. 







P.S. I wonder what [MENTION=99]Rel[/MENTION] was trying to say by quoting my post and Holy Bovine's post without adding anything. Was he referencing his slimy mule bones thread (link in his sig)? IS REL REALLY THAT SUBTLE?


----------



## Rel (Sep 23, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> IS REL REALLY THAT SUBTLE?




It IS what I'm known for.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 23, 2010)

We're done.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 23, 2010)

*Can "edition wars" ever truly be over?*

Most of the big bombs have been dropped, but occasional bullets still fly. It may be more of a “Cold War” situation, but I doubt it will ever really end unless you remove every fan of a previous edition from the internet. 

Most of the big stuff is over, but the passive-aggressive shots still come fast and furious. Just look at http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/294405-so-what-happens-after-d-d-4th-edition.html or any number of threads. The 3E (or older) edition ‘grognards’ still talk about 4E as if it’s “not D&D”, “doesn’t have a connection with older versions (real) D&D”, how a new edition is needed to make it more like said editions. Heck, people who have never played the game complain about it when they’ve never played it because the “read on the internet” it was bad even though their reading choices are obviously biased. I remember in 3E it was a fair amount of the same, just that the internet wasn’t as widely used as it is today, and there’s a lot of people writing about how 2E “ruined the game for them.”

In the end, is there an end? When dealing with people, I don’t think there ever can be just because of the way humans are. 

Thoughts?


----------



## billd91 (Sep 23, 2010)

Well, cease fires aren't cease fires when the other half of the edition wars continues to post their own pot shots at the other side in threads like this one. You want a change? I'd recommend embodying the change you want to see.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 23, 2010)

And see a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's always "the other side's fault. I'm just defending my edition." It's been going on since there has been a change in the game (people still disagree on the box sets).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 23, 2010)

Herschel said:


> And see a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's always "the other side's fault. I'm just defending my edition." It's been going on since there has been a change in the game (people still disagree on the box sets).






Herschel said:


> Most of the big bombs have been dropped, but occasional bullets still fly. It may be more of a “Cold War” situation, but I doubt it will ever really end unless you remove every fan of a previous edition from the internet.




Why stop at previous editions?  You would have the same effect by removing every fan of the current edition.

Or better, remove both.

Or best, accept that people are going to have different opinions, and build your byass around them!

The Zax Bypass: About the Zax


RC


----------



## NewJeffCT (Sep 23, 2010)

Herschel said:


> In the end, is there an end? When dealing with people, I don’t think there ever can be just because of the way humans are.




There will never be an end until you admit your edition sucks and that you now worship the edition I currently play.



But, as long as there are different versions of the game and different ways to play it, there will be disagreements about the versions and how you play.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 23, 2010)

Herschel said:


> In the end, is there an end? When dealing with people, I don’t think there ever can be just because of the way humans are.



 Like war in general, it will end when all men and gods are dead, and no stone stands upon another.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Azgulor (Sep 23, 2010)

I used to think the Edition Wars were a thing of the past, or at least reverting to the "Cold War" paradigm you mentioned.  After all, by 2010, things were much brighter for RPG fans of all stripes than it was, or at least appeared to be, at the launch of 4e.

Rather than the RPG market moving in lock step with 4e & the GSL repeating the environment of 3e, you had 4e (with very limited 3PP support) for the 4e fans, and a series of next-gen OGL games (Pathfinder, FantasyCraft, Trailblazer, etc.) for those who didn't see 4e's appeal.

In effect, from where I was sitting at least, both sides won.

However, the past several months & the last few weeks, in particular, have demonstrated that Edition Wars are not over.  Now, it's no longer an argument over mechanics or play experiences, it's arguments about the publishers.  There's apparently no separating the game from the publisher now.  You can't say "I like 4e but boy did WotC bugger the marketing" or "WotC is running a business & I can understand why the did X but 4e isn't for me" without somebody coming along and ascribing all sorts of malicious motives to you.

Additionally, now we're entering the era of RPG political correctness.  We've apparently entered a stage of hyper-sensitivity where someone saying "4e isn't D&D _to me_", is comparable to questioning the virtue of a 4e fan's mother.  Yes, a lot of the time the "to me" part of that sentence isn't overtly stated.  Y'know what?  Grow a thicker skin.

If someone states "PF is just a well-written set of house-rules" while I think that's insulting to Paizo, it doesn't diminsh my campaign, my players, or my enjoyment of the game.  I may weigh in with an opposing viewpoint, but my internal Offense-o-Meter isn't registering off the charts.

Once upon a time, I came to ENWorld and spent hours reading about campaigns, adventures, GM tips, and well... stuff about RPG sessions.  Now, this forum is glutted with "Will Essentials do X?", "What will 5e be like?", "What would bring you back to 4e?", endless speculation about sales figures, and so on.

Sadly, I don't see a return to the "golden days of EN World" any time soon.

Notes:


If you play & like 4e.  It's D&D to you.
4e is D&D b/c the brand owner put it on the game.
Just b/c the publisher calls it D&D doesn't mean it's a recognizable form of the game to all of the game's previous fans.  While I'm not in that camp, I can understand the viewpoint.  I love the Empire Strikes back but I hate Return of the Jedi.  They both say Star Wars but that doesn't make me wrong.
If my RPG experiences or preferences differ from yours, that doesn't make me wrong and you right.  Conversely, it doesn't make me right and you wrong.  We're talking about frakkin' RPGs, for crying out loud, not moral truths.


----------



## Rel (Sep 23, 2010)

Yeah I just don't see this thread going anywhere good.  *Klunk*


----------



## Azgulor (Sep 23, 2010)

*Can the General Forum be used for General Topics instead of Edition Wars?*

With the recent resurgence in Edition War posts/threads & my recent longing for the "good 'ole days" of EN World, it occurred to me that I spend the majority of my EN World time in either the General Forum or the PF Forum.  I very rarely read, let alone post in the 4e forum.

This led me to take a closer look at the description of the General Forum:

_*General RPG Discussion* Discussion of non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, etc. Specific game discussion belongs in one the forums below _

Given that description, is it unreasonable to ask that we see some stronger enforcement of moving system-specific threads into their appropriate forum?  Specifically, if it's got 4e, PF, or some other name in the title it should probably be in a different forum.  I know "D&D" is a bit trickier but reading the original post should be enough of a clue as to where it's proper home lies.  

A lot of people post in this forum b/c it gets more traffic.  However, more and more it seems like it's the Civil War and the General Forum is a bar where Union & Confederate soldiers are both invited to drink but are allowed to bring weapons.  Is it any wonder that it's fertile ground for Edition War threads?

Just a thought.  It'd be nice if the General forum could once again be used for discussing, y'know, non-system-specific topics.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 23, 2010)

This should be in Meta, not the General forum.

Hah!


----------



## Derulbaskul (Sep 23, 2010)

No we need a penal colony.

I firmly believe that participating in an edition war should be cause for banning. It's boring. It's frustrating. There is never anything new said. The only thing it is good for is generating new content for the asshat thread over at circvsmaximvs.com.


----------



## dm4hire (Sep 23, 2010)

Editions wars aside I've often been puzzled by some of the threads that have sprung up, but then I've on occassion made a thread or two that could easily fit elsewhere.  If it has a general subtext to it I don't see a problem with it being here and most of the mods seem to do a pretty good job of moving really specific threads to the proper place.


----------



## the Jester (Sep 23, 2010)

Derulbaskul said:


> No we need a penal colony.
> 
> I firmly believe that participating in an edition war should be cause for banning. It's boring. It's frustrating. There is never anything new said. The only thing it is good for is generating new content for the asshat thread over at circvsmaximvs.com.




There are two problems with this IMHO.

The first is- Where do you draw the line? For every "Yur edtioin suxxorz" post, there are five "I prefer this to that because of the other" posts. Now, some of those are outrageous and clear examples of edition warring, or worse yet, passive-aggressive edition warring. But a lot of them are borderline; many are reasoned discussions about the differences between (say) od&d and 3.5. Discussion and debate certainly have a place here, and the line is extremely blurry. Not only that, there are some mods here that tend to jump the gun and shut down discussions before they have gone off the rails; if the definition of "off the rails" widens too much, the gun-jumping can only get worse. 

The other problem is that, without edition wars, CM will have a harder time finding asshattery to fill the Asshattery Afoot threads... although I freely admit that is hardly a problem worth considering in this debate.


----------



## Azgulor (Sep 23, 2010)

dm4hire said:


> Editions wars aside I've often been puzzled by some of the threads that have sprung up, but then I've on occassion made a thread or two that could easily fit elsewhere.  If it has a general subtext to it I don't see a problem with it being here and most of the mods seem to do a pretty good job of moving really specific threads to the proper place.




Ok, but then the General description ought to be changed to "_Really_ specific game discussion belongs in..." and general gets opened up to everything else.

If it's clearly a system-specific thread, I don't see why it shouldn't reside in its proper forum, subtext or no subtext.

YMMV.


----------



## jaerdaph (Sep 23, 2010)

Derulbaskul said:


> No we need a penal colony.




We have one - it's called the Ignore List. 

Seriously though, there are only about a dozen people who actively participate in the edition "wars" on both "sides". Add them to your ignore list, and the problem goes away!


----------



## Tortoise (Sep 23, 2010)

No, what's really needed is maturity. People need to remove their heads from their edition biased backsides and stop waging the war.

We're all here because we enjoy gaming. We may have different favorites, but there's no point in trashing anything that is not your favorite except to annoy other users. Maybe the mods can start giving users 3 day vacations when they do so and that might encourage cooler heads.


----------



## Serra (Sep 23, 2010)

Tortoise said:


> We're all here because we enjoy gaming.




(Above is Quoted for Truth) 

I don't know about this edition or that edition as far as which one is  better. I played 2e on and have played 3.0 and 3.5 and I play NWN. 

Everyone has their own reason for playing. For me, I care about the  gaming group as long as the DM is competent I am rather happy. I like  having rules in general as it gives more believability for me with the  game world. 

Truthfully though, I play D&D/NWN in general  to make friends etc. I  want to be challenged as a player and I want the DM to bring the world  to life and I want to interact with that world. I want to be able to  have combat and adventure, but I want be moved. I want the story to be  compelling and to move me. I want the story RP to bring me to tears  anger etc like any good book or movie would.

That's what I want when I game.

I know I am new, so I hope my simplistic view isn't offensive to anyone. The Edition Wars seem like a controversial topic here.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 23, 2010)

HAving a favorite and expressing what one loves about it is fine.

What's not fine are s who think everybody should bow down and play things their way or no way.

And starting endless threads of edition war crap.

If I was a mod I'd automatically ban someone who started a thread like this right off the bat for a week.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Sep 23, 2010)

Um it's segregation that makes people forget how similar all RPG's are which in turn causes a lot of hostility. 4e, PF and DnD legacy forums are important to make things tidy, and because there is a lot of subjects that really can't be taken out of context of system, ie recent bard damage output thread. Nah, scratch that - actually, even that thread has gained because of past experiences of contributors with previous bard versions. So... maybe the UM playtest.
But I see a lot of threads in all of those, that if anything - would *benefit* from insight from more people - regardless of their system - questions about settings, character ideas and quests especially.

I'd still advise to post threads in more specific subforums, else they risk being missed by people who visit them - like the awesome posts of DaveW on mappaking that got lost in too many threads in Generel, or class creation question posted in probably least visited EnWorld subforum - Plots and Places. On the other hand, the aforementioned forum is often ignored and threads that would fit there go to system-specific or General.


----------



## Azgulor (Sep 23, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> If I was a mod I'd automatically ban someone who started a thread like this right off the bat for a week.




"Thread like this" meaning an edition war thread or "thread like this" meaning _this_ thread where I'm simply suggesting that the General Forum be used for General RPG topics?


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 23, 2010)

In addition to threads that become Edition Wars, why are there so many threads like this one, that wants to discuss the Edition Wars at all. I think the best way to forget or put the matter aside is not to bring it up.

I don't think the Edition Wars are a subject worth discussing on this or any forum, it tends to lead to Edition Wars in of itself. When I read the title of this, my eyes rolled and I thought - not again! It seems that if a given thread doesn't become an edition war, its a discussion about 'why', 'how come', or other kind of debate about the wars themselves.

Didn't you see that another EW thread just got shut down this morning and it hadn't even gotten to  EW yet? So stop doing it - discuss something else.

I'm tired of reading about the Edition War at all... grrr.

GP


----------



## nedjer (Sep 23, 2010)

Prison seems a touch Old Testament. Perhaps community service would be good. They could bog off for a while and run a group for new players using a different system from whichever holy book they consider so important. Then they could come back and post entertaining threads with new ideas


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 23, 2010)

> "Thread like this" meaning an edition war thread or



Any edition war thread. I'm incredibly tired of the one true wayism junk.  And it doesn't matter if it starts out with about one's favorite edition because some ass will just derail it with why he thinks it sucks in some way.

They need to be given a moratorium for a few months to a year.


----------



## Azgulor (Sep 23, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> In addition to threads that become Edition Wars, why are there so many threads like this one, that wants to discuss the Edition Wars at all. I think the best way to forget or put the matter aside is not to bring it up.
> 
> I don't think the Edition Wars are a subject worth discussing on this or any forum, it tends to lead to Edition Wars in of itself. When I read the title of this, my eyes rolled and I thought - not again! It seems that if a given thread doesn't become an edition war, its a discussion about 'why', 'how come', or other kind of debate about the wars themselves.
> 
> ...




Allowing for the possibility I've fallen into another dimension or that what I'm typing isn't actually being displayed they way I'm typing it, WTF?!?  I started this thread b/c I'm tired of Edition War threads and thought that if the General Forum was used as intended _*by its description*_, and edition specific topics were _placed in the forums created for them_, we might actually see a decrease in Edition War threads.

If you don't agree with my suggestion, that's cool.  If you rolled your eyes at the title, ok that's cool too.  But spare me the indignation for making a suggestion to reduce the number of edition war threads that didn't include ignore lists, banning users, banning topics, or otherwise stifling discussion on the boards.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Sep 23, 2010)

To be honest, ENWorld IS Switzerland.  The Mods are the Halberd wielders of Helvetia, each of them all owning a Canton.  

This is a strongly moderated forum.  If you want to see what a war really looks like, go to one of the old school forums and see how much they critique the newer editions (and I'd bring up a good example of a new school forum if I knew of one that was 4e only), or go to a forum like RPGSite or someplace where people are allowed a lot more "leeway".

The key thing to stop the edition wars require both sides to do the following.

*  Don't be criticizing the players, stick to what you don't like about the rules, marketing, design style, etc.

*  If you are on the opposite side, don't assume that criticism of the game is criticism of you as a person.  But don't try to suppress actual honest discussion either.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 23, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> The Mods are the Halberd wielders of Helvetia...




Now I so want to see Piratecat, Rel, Umbran, and all the other mods dressed like this:








With Morrus as a Swiss Guard Commander:


----------



## NewJeffCT (Sep 23, 2010)

Every edition of D&D has good things about it and bad things about it, and there is no perfect way to play D&D (except MY way, of course!)  And, what is good and bad about each edition is different from person to person.

I think as long as the discussions are civil and stick to the pros/cons of the games themselves and don't go over into personal attacks, I think it's fine to discuss D&D in its various incarnations.

If there is a "Switzerland" of D&D, I would vote for the original Basic D&D boxed set.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Sep 23, 2010)

Sadly, note that the the existence of Switzerland doesn't actually stop warfighting in the real world.  Likewise here.  Ultimately it's up to the people who keep yammering about it to just drop it already-- and that includes the vocal "edition peaceniks" as much as the hardcore edition warriors themselves.

"_Editions_ don't start edition wars. _People_ start edition wars!"


----------



## Azgulor (Sep 23, 2010)

Dear mods,

Is it possible to change the thread title to "Can the General Forum be used for General Topics?"

Apparently, my choice of thread titles was poor.  It appears that people are reading the title and responding to it as more Edition War fodder rather than the original post which was intended to suggest an alternative that would reduce the # of edition war threads.

Thanks.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 23, 2010)

You can use the report button to request a mod to change the thread title. It's the triangle under your name.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 23, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> ...Is it possible to change the thread title to "Can the General Forum be used for General Topics?"
> 
> Apparently, my choice of thread titles was poor. It appears that people are reading the title and responding to it as more Edition War fodder rather than the original post which was intended to suggest an alternative that would reduce the # of edition war threads...




All you have to do is edit your original post (OP).  You can change the title there.

Honestly though, I don't think it's a bad title, although I'm not convinced that inclusion of some edition specific threads in General is what's causing the current upsurge.  It's a possibility, but I also think that the current release of Essentials may also have something to do with it (not Essentials itself, but Essentials as a catalyst...).

I think the increase of a bit more edition specific stuff in General was in response to people wanting an increase in traffic in General.  It may not be the topics or threads themselves, as much as the increase in traffic may also be contributing.

Of course though, if everyone just followed the forum rules, their really shouldn't be any Edition Wars (but then we wouldn't need mods either, and I kind of dig our mods...).


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> Is it possible to change the thread title to "Can the General Forum be used for General Topics?"





It is possible, and in fact, as the person who started the thread, you can do it yourself.  Just edit the first post in the thread, using the "Advanced" option, and you shoudl be able to edit the title.



El Mahdi said:


> Now I so want to see Piratecat, Rel, Umbran, and all the other mods dressed like this:




I sometimes fight in the SCA, primarily polearm.  While those getups are nice and colorful, I'm thinking I'd prefer to have some actual armor, rather than poofy sleeves.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 23, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> The key thing to stop the edition wars require both sides to do the following.
> 
> *  Don't be criticizing the players, stick to what you don't like about the rules, marketing, design style, etc.
> 
> *  If you are on the opposite side, don't assume that criticism of the game is criticism of you as a person.  But don't try to suppress actual honest discussion either.




I've apparently been too generous with XP in the last 24 hours; I'll catch you tomorrow!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I'm thinking I'd prefer to have some actual armor, rather than poofy sleeves.





Nope.  Sorry.  Gotta be poofy sleeves.  AND you gotta post the pictures!  

(Just imagine the XP that the first post with a group shot of the EN World mods in Swiss Guard Garb will get.......!)


----------



## athos (Sep 23, 2010)

Hmmm, I wonder if Palladium or some other company becomes the Switzerland of gaming?

That would be an interesting marketing strategy, "Tired of 3.5 vs. 4.0, come and play xyz, we promise not to make you buy a new edition every 5 years"


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Sep 23, 2010)

Well we all have something we agree on. We all dislike Lorraine Williams.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 23, 2010)

athos said:


> Hmmm, I wonder if Palladium or some other company becomes the Switzerland of gaming?...




Well, the OP was talking more about a place or forum here on ENWorld as Switzerland, not another game or edition as Switzerland.

But I'd find it amusing to see Kevin Siembieda in the role of a neutral, peace-brokering party in the edition wars.


----------



## Bluenose (Sep 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I sometimes fight in the SCA, primarily polearm.  While those getups are nice and colorful, I'm thinking I'd prefer to have some actual armor, rather than poofy sleeves.




How about armour, and puffy sleeves? It's a compromise, in the spirit of the thread.







And you get a feather for your hat!


----------



## renau1g (Sep 23, 2010)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Well we all have something we agree on. We all dislike Lorraine Williams.




Not me, I love her, this is a personal attack on me and WotC because without her Gary wouldn't have been forced outta TSR and _maybe_ it wouldn't have gone under and let Wizards pick up the D&D license.

You're attacking my favorite editions 3.xe and 4e... everything you like is wrong and everything I like is right.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 23, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> Allowing for the possibility I've fallen into another dimension or that what I'm typing isn't actually being displayed they way I'm typing it, WTF?!?  I started this thread b/c I'm tired of Edition War threads and thought that if the General Forum was used as intended _*by its description*_, and edition specific topics were _placed in the forums created for them_, we might actually see a decrease in Edition War threads.
> 
> If you don't agree with my suggestion, that's cool.  If you rolled your eyes at the title, ok that's cool too.  But spare me the indignation for making a suggestion to reduce the number of edition war threads that didn't include ignore lists, banning users, banning topics, or otherwise stifling discussion on the boards.




Again, if we could stop talking about Edition Wars, it wouldn't be at the top of everyone's head everytime we visit EnWorld. Not only stop doing Edition Wars, but stop talking about it altogether.

It beyond me why there has to be 5 or 10 new threads a day, about "Let's stop talking about the Edition Wars", "Why are there Edition Wars", "What should be do about Edition Wars..."

What we should do is stop starting new threads about it...

Why must we dwell on the subject in every thread?! I know you're trying to be fair and helpful, but talking about isn't fair and helpful.

If the subject doesn't stop getting brought in a new thread, it will never go away.

GP


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 23, 2010)

> It beyond me why there has to be 5 or 10 new threads a day, about "Let's  stop talking about the Edition Wars", "Why are there Edition Wars",  "What should be do about Edition Wars..."




Being right is serious business. Being right is all. A person is nothing if they are not right. Being right means one is a god among men and all must bow down to the person being right.

Ad nauseum.

And NO! We can't get along! Because being right is serious business!

Bow down to the authority!

Ad nauseum. Ad nauseum. AD NAUSEUM!


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 23, 2010)

grrr... double post


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Again, if we could stop talking about Edition Wars, it wouldn't be at the top of everyone's head everytime we visit EnWorld. Not only stop doing Edition Wars, but stop talking about it altogether.




I understand the idea, but to be plain - not talking about a problem doesn't make it go away.  Communities don't correct unwanted behavior by ignoring it - they correct such behavior by making it clear that it isn't tolerable.

The moderating staff takes concerns like this seriously, but we can only do so if folks can talk them through, so we can get a sense of what people want and need.


----------



## Azgulor (Sep 23, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Again, if we could stop talking about Edition Wars, it wouldn't be at the top of everyone's head everytime we visit EnWorld. Not only stop doing Edition Wars, but stop talking about it altogether.
> 
> It beyond me why there has to be 5 or 10 new threads a day, about "Let's stop talking about the Edition Wars", "Why are there Edition Wars", "What should be do about Edition Wars..."
> 
> ...




And THIS is the thread you choose to bring that banner to?  Whatever floats you boat, man.

I'm sure you'll be making the rounds to the threads that have actually become edition war threads to plead this case as well, right?

As to the original question, should I consider you a "Yes" or a "No" vote?  I'm not really clear where you stand on that.  Guess I should have done a poll...


----------



## fanboy2000 (Sep 23, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> To be honest, ENWorld IS Switzerland.  The Mods are the Halberd wielders of Helvetia, each of them all owning a Canton.
> 
> This is a strongly moderated forum.  If you want to see what a war really looks like, go to one of the old school forums and see how much they critique the old games



Personaly, I'd rather send them to Usenet. And that's a mild one. I've seen threads on that topic with over a thousand posts at rec.games.frp.dnd.


----------



## Oryan77 (Sep 23, 2010)

Eh, I find the edition specific forums to be too videogamey. But at the same time, I don't want to be railroaded into posting in the General Forum. 

Now, I don't mean to sound like a ruleslawyer, but if we could optimize the forums into places where powergamers and roleplayers could edition war, then it may make the grognards happy.

Of course, then we'd need houserules for the homebew gamers. And we all know that Monty Haul will go all munchkin on us if we don't. Other than that, I'm all out of ideas.


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 23, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> Given that description, is it unreasonable to ask that we see some stronger enforcement of moving system-specific threads into their appropriate forum?  Specifically, if it's got 4e, PF, or some other name in the title it should probably be in a different forum.
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> Just a thought.  It'd be nice if the General forum could once again be used for discussing, y'know, non-system-specific topics.





It's not unreasonable *and* it would clear up most of the problems.  It would also help to move threads that ask for general advice but then immediately give examples that are edition-specific (because almost all of the time it really does require an edition specific answer, or it wouldn't require an edition-speific example).  I see most of the edition war prodding and poking and outbreaks in threads just like the ones we have just described.


And this thread should be in the Meta-forum.


----------



## gamerprinter (Sep 23, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> And THIS is the thread you choose to bring that banner to?  Whatever floats you boat, man.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be making the rounds to the threads that have actually become edition war threads to plead this case as well, right?
> 
> As to the original question, should I consider you a "Yes" or a "No" vote?  I'm not really clear where you stand on that.  Guess I should have done a poll...




To me its exactly like talking Religion or Politics - people are 'religious' about their preferred edition, and any discussion about it is 'political'.

Although I haven't reviewed the FAQ lately, I am sure there is a "DON'T TALK ABOUT RELIGION OR POLITICS" in the rules here. Discussion of the EW is breaking that rule, IMO.

The problem is that most people that discuss EW, are unreasonable people, or they become unreasonable due to the subject matter. No thread about let's be reasonable is going to work with unreasonable people, so having this discussion brings nothing forward - fixes nothing.

What it does do is keep the EW subject at the top of the forums.

And, yeah, sorry to place this on your EW thread, but I had to pick one, I didn't want to have to post this on all five EW threads - but my feelings on this apply to all of them. And the five new ones that will show up by tomorrow.

Its just exasperating that both EW, and discussion about EW just won't go away. I come to EnWorld to discuss gaming, not editions, but I can't seem to get away from it... meh.

GP

PS: Sorry, I didn't see a poll on this thread - I hadn't realized a 'vote' was involved. Yeah, then put me into a vote where edition is not allowed in the General Forum.

PPS: How about creating an Edition War Forum, and anyone who post's there is automatically put on everyone's ignore list - that's sounds just unreasonable enough to work!


----------



## nedjer (Sep 23, 2010)

The Swiss have us at an advantage. They get pure Grade A chocolate; while the rest of us survive on additive-stuffed vegefat chocolate bars. This is probably why they don't mind wearing shiny granny pants; who would when they go home to this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mfnXSX3qu4&feature=related"]YouTube - Nigella Lawson...Chocolate Mousse...[/ame]


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Sep 23, 2010)

*A meta-meta-edition war thread about the meta edition war threads*

Because it had to be done.



Please discuss meta threads here.

Please do NOT discuss meta-meta threads. You will need to make your own thread about that.



You may, of course, discuss meta-meta-meta threads as this is a theoretical understanding akin to the meaning of life, or what's inside a black hole. 


(In fact, I think that these may in fact be the cause of black holes as well as the antithesis of the meaning of life.)



Two great mysteries solved, but no edition war resolution here. 


Sorry.


(Edit: Oops. In before the lock.)


----------



## jonesy (Sep 23, 2010)

I think this belongs in the meta-meta forum.

What's a meta-meta-edition war anyway? A fight over which RPG's get to have edition wars and which don't? Well, I say D&D doesn't get to have edition wars anymore. It's been meta-naughty.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 23, 2010)

This thread needs more Manilow:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKsVhyiISY8]YouTube - Copacabana - Barry Manilow[/ame]


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 24, 2010)

Then where do the Mega threads go?


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 24, 2010)

What?


----------



## jonesy (Sep 24, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Then where do the Mega threads go?



Wherever they want to, as long as they stay out of Giga thread territories.


Now everybody sit back and relax:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ2MDzgEC_E]YouTube - luther - Jaguar XJ220 (Main theme remix)[/ame]


----------



## lutecius (Sep 24, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Being right is serious business. Being right is all. A person is nothing if they are not right. Being right means one is a god among men and all must bow down to the person being right.
> 
> Ad nauseum.
> 
> ...



yeah, but you're WRONG.

it's ad nause*a*m (feminine, first declension)

now bow down.


----------



## Smoss (Sep 24, 2010)

Personally I'd love to see the general forum get more general.  If I want to discuss 2.5 / pathfinder / any flaws I find therein - I can find that forum.  Same with 4e.

Not that I would, I moved on from 3.5e to my own system and am not a big fan of 4e (I still play with friends once in a while for time to hang with friends and they like it, but...)

But being able to find general topics would be nice.  Not getting buried by edition specific threads (Or war threads - but those are editiony by their evil, evil nature).

Also - Warrers should be drawn and quartered.  That sounds like a good old fashioned fantasy based method of "learning"...  
Smoss


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 24, 2010)

Listen.

You will never be rid of edition wars.

It is like trying to be rid of, I dunno, racists.

Most people think racists are silly and ignorant and hurtful and problematic and I doubt you'll get three people in a crowd to agree to the "we need more racism!" proposition. 

But it is not exactly like one can invent rules to get rid of reactionary emotional lunacy. It exists. It will always exist. You cannot stop it. It is part and parcel of existing. 

You can fight against it.

You don't fight against it by saying "Can't we all just get along?" You fight against it by *not participating in it* and not rewarding it with attention.

See an edition war? Ignore it. Post a positive thread about how awesome something is. Slap the worst offenders on your ignore list. 

But crying about it will get us nowhere, and inventing rules against it will just drive it to be *even more annoying and passive-aggressive than it already is.*

You can't stop it any more than you can stop winter or hurricanes. It is not a rational thing, it is a force of nature. One must weather the storm.


----------



## renau1g (Sep 24, 2010)

Just to add on your post Kamikaze, in addition to ignoring it, report it and then ignore it, that way the mods, who have chosen to deal with these matters for the site, can address it, either with post removal/edit, suspension, or banning.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 24, 2010)

Meh:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR-ixnPtxU8]YouTube - Genesis - That's All[/ame]


----------



## weem (Sep 24, 2010)

*The "Edition Wars" Visualized!*

I made this today really quick and thought I would share. Whenever I hear the phrase "Edition Wars", this is always what I picture...







You can see the full size version here...

Edition Wars Visualized… | d&d done wrong | d&d thoughts and parody


----------



## renau1g (Sep 24, 2010)

2nd edition is fubar'd there, stuck between 1e AD&D and 4e...

My expected winner (besides all of us for the chuckles) is OD&D, I mean AD&D doesn't even bother with it, so it can focus all its efforts on 3.xe/2e and from there...the world! diaglo will be so pleased.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Sep 24, 2010)

Uh oh.  At least one logo is absent.... and someone's bound to be vexed.


----------



## Stormonu (Sep 24, 2010)

OD&D is mercenary; it has no lands of its own, but freely fights any and all editions...


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 24, 2010)

*remember nagasaki!

*


----------



## Saeviomagy (Sep 24, 2010)

So do meta-mega-meta-thread arguments go here?


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 24, 2010)

Meta-threads are ruining the forums. They aren't really threads any more, they're just like threads on the WoW boards! ENWorld is just pushing all these meta-threads to get us to shell out for adventure paths.

Paizo's forums are the future of Intarwebbing.


----------



## Lidgar (Sep 24, 2010)

VILLAGER #1:  We have found an Unfavorable Edition, might we burn her?
  CROWD:  Burn her!  Burn!
  BEDEMIR:  How do you know she is an Unfavorable Edition?
  VILLAGER #2:  She looks like one.
  BEDEMIR:  Bring her forward.
  UNFAVORABLE EDITION:  I'm not an Unfavorable Edition.  I'm not an Unfavorable Edition.
  BEDEMIR:  But you are dressed as one.
  UNFAVORABLE EDITION:  They dressed me up like this.
  CROWD:  No, we didn't... no.
  UNFAVORABLE EDITION:  And this isn't my d20, it's a false one.
  BEDEMIR:  Well?
  VILLAGER #1:  Well, we did do the d20.
  BEDEMIR:  The d20?
  VILLAGER #1:  And the skill system -- but she is an Unfavorable Edition!
  CROWD:  Burn her!  Unfavorable Edition!  Unfavorable Edition!  Burn her!
  BEDEMIR:  Did you dress her up like this?
  CROWD:  No, no... no ... yes.  Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
  VILLAGER #1:  She has got a daily power.
  BEDEMIR:  What makes you think she is an Unfavorable Edition?
  VILLAGER #3:  Well, she turned me into a power gamer.
  BEDEMIR:  A power gamer?
  VILLAGER #3:  I got better.
  VILLAGER #2:  Burn her anyway!
  CROWD:  Burn!  Burn her!
  BEDEMIR:  Quiet, quiet.  Quiet!  There are ways of telling whether
      she is a Unfavorable Edition.
  CROWD:  Are there?  What are they?
  BEDEMIR:  Tell me, what do you do with Unfavorable Editions?
  VILLAGER #2:  Burn!
  CROWD:  Burn, burn them up!
  BEDEMIR:  And what do you burn apart from Unfavorable Editions?
  VILLAGER #1:  More Unfavorable Editions!
  VILLAGER #2:  Paper!
  BEDEMIR:  So, why do Unfavorable Editions burn?
      [pause]
  VILLAGER #3:  B--... 'cause they're made of paper...?
  BEDEMIR:  Good!
  CROWD:  Oh yeah, yeah...
  BEDEMIR:  So, how do we tell whether she is made of paper?
  VILLAGER #1:  Build a character out of her.
  BEDEMIR:  Aah, but can you not also build characters out of dice?
  VILLAGER #2:  Oh, yeah.
  BEDEMIR:  Does paper sink in water?
  VILLAGER #1:  No, no.
  VILLAGER #2:  It floats!  It floats!
  VILLAGER #1:  Throw her into the pond!
  CROWD:  The pond!
  BEDEMIR:  What also floats in water?
  VILLAGER #1:  Bread!
  VILLAGER #2:  Apples!
  VILLAGER #3:  Very small rocks!
  VILLAGER #1:  Wolves hiding in apple piles!
  VILLAGER #2:  Sombreros!
  VILLAGER #1:  Singing guards!
  VILLAGER #2:  Percentile dice!
  VILLAGER #3:  Acrobats!
  VILLAGER #2:  Dryads!
  ARTHUR:  A torphie.
  CROWD:  Oooh.
  BEDEMIR:  Exactly!  So, logically...,
  VILLAGER #1:  If... she.. weighs the same as a torphie, she's made of paper.
  BEDEMIR:  And therefore--?
  VILLAGER #1:  An Unfavorable Edition!
  CROWD:  An Unfavorable Edition!
  BEDEMIR:  We shall use my larger scales!
      [yelling]
  BEDEMIR:  Right, remove the supports!
      [whop]
      [creak]
  CROWD:  An Unfavorable Edition!  An Unfavorable Edition!
  CROWD:  Burn her!  Burn!  [yelling]


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Sep 24, 2010)

Lidgar said:


> VILLAGER #1:  We have found an Unfavorable Edition, might we burn her?
> CROWD:  Burn her!  Burn!
> BEDEMIR:  How do you know she is an Unfavorable Edition?
> VILLAGER #2:  She looks like one.
> ...




You win the thread sir.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 24, 2010)

I'm going to come out and say I'm in favor of lively inter-edition debate. I find it does a lot to broaden my perspective; I've rediscovered things about old editions that I'd forgotten I liked, and learned new things about how other folks play now and used to play back in the day.

Edition wars are an unfortunate but perhaps inevitable consequence of such debates. I think the mods do a solid job of shutting things down before they get out of hand--though I'm sure they wish they didn't have to do so much of it.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 24, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I'm going to come out and say I'm in favor of lively inter-edition debate. I find it does a lot to broaden my perspective; I've rediscovered things about old editions that I'd forgotten I liked, and learned new things about how other folks play now and used to play back in the day.



Plus one to this, and thanks Dausuul for saving me the typing. 

Personally, I'd rather see more stuff in General rather than less.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 24, 2010)

renau1g said:


> 2nd edition is fubar'd there, stuck between 1e AD&D and 4e...
> 
> My expected winner (besides all of us for the chuckles) is OD&D, I mean AD&D doesn't even bother with it, so it can focus all its efforts on 3.xe/2e and from there...the world! diaglo will be so pleased.



Clearly, OD+D and AD+D have an alliance: they're going to kill the others, gain some ExP for the combat, take their stuff, gain loads of ExP for the loot, and head down to the pub for a beer. 

Lan-"notice that OD+D is ignoring AD+D in return..."-efan


----------



## Hussar (Sep 24, 2010)

I get where the OP is coming from, but, there is another issue.  How do you draw the line at game specific?  Say a thread is started asking a general sort of question - a "How do you _____" sort of thing.  

Five posters respond, all giving methods for doing _______ in a specific system.  Next three posters respond, all giving methods in a second system.  On and on.

It's extremely difficult to discuss gaming if we cannot reference specific games.  And even questions that might be based in a specific system can certainly use help from other systems.  If I want to know how to narrate turning undead, that's a game specific question, but, it's not edition specific, where should I put the question?

If we remove all game specific topics from general, it would be a pretty sparce forum and reduced to endless recycling of genre discussions.


----------



## Blackrat (Sep 24, 2010)

Damn Weem, you're so awesome that I can't give you xp anymore.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Uh oh.  At least one logo is absent.... and someone's bound to be vexed.




Like the Romans co-opted and adopted Greek culture, so too did AD&D absorb OD&D...with some cunning alterations.


----------



## Oryan77 (Sep 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It's extremely difficult to discuss gaming if we cannot reference specific games.




I find much insult in that. What edition do you play? I would like to begin bashing you for playing it.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> If we remove all game specific topics from general, it would be a pretty sparce forum



It is anyway.  Sparce, sic, etc., that is.

Compared to only a few years back, when it seemed full of people nearly all the time, full of threads, full of posts, full of enthusiasm. . .

Seems rather cemetery-like (i.e., _post_-war, hur hur) when I check in here nowadays. Well, in comparison, anyhow.


----------



## HealTheSquad (Sep 24, 2010)

Folks, I've been lurking here for around five years and today I created this account to say one thing.

Please don't stop the edition wars.

I always head straight for EW threads and read them avidly. Much in the same way as people slow down when passing car crashes on the motorway I suppose.

In point of fact it was an edition war thread that persuaded me to buy 4E, and they have also convinced me never to play Pathfinder. So they're not entirely useless.

However, I would like to make one suggestion if you are serious in cutting down on EW threads - make it against the rules to put snarky anti-4E quotes in sigs. I have yet to see anyone with sigs dissing previous editions, which for me is pretty convincing evidence where the majority of the blame lies for edition wars in the first place.

Cheers, HealTheSquad


----------



## D'karr (Sep 24, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> It is anyway.  Sparce, sic, etc., that is.
> 
> Compared to only a few years back, when it seemed full of people nearly all the time, full of threads, full of posts, full of enthusiasm. . .
> 
> Seems rather cemetery-like (i.e., _post_-war, hur hur) when I check in here nowadays. Well, in comparison, anyhow.




Maybe, and this is simply a hypothesis based on what I've pretty much done, a lot of people got tired of the constant warring going on and moved on.  They moved to either other forums or endeavors.

Discussing things that make you "enthusiastic" becomes much more of a drag when anything you say about what you like has to be countered with a denigrating remark from those that don't have the same likes.

After trying to read through some threads that did not start as edition wars but ended that way you waste so much time that you reconsider if the entire site is really worth the hassle.

It seems like few people want to take the time to discuss their likes if everytime they do it seems like some asshat needs to jump in and tell them, "yeah, but this other edition does it better and your edition sucks."

My thought process at that time becomes, "yes I understand that you don't like peanut butter, but do you have to jump into every thread about peanut butter and crap on it?"  It's kind of interesting that we are always told to put someone on ignore.  So why can't the guys that "hate" peanut butter just "ignore" threads with that title too?

Oh, that and the endless anti-WotC threads.

The truth is that coming to ENWorld to interact with other gamers has become one major hassle due to the asshatery of a few.  Even if that statement is not entirely true, and I know it isn't, the perception is there.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 24, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Maybe, and this is simply a hypothesis based on what I've pretty much done, a lot of people got tired of the constant warring going on and moved on.  They moved to either other forums or endeavors.



Quite possibly, yeah. Sounds likely enough.

And hey, that's a whole lot *less* depressing than some of the other possibilities. Er, depending on one's PoV, I guess.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I get where the OP is coming from, but, there is another issue.  How do you draw the line at game specific?




Loosely.

Usually, it is determined by the original post - if the question or topic set out there is edition specific (explicitly or implicitly), we tend to move it.  If the OP isn't specific, we tend to leave it in general.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Sep 24, 2010)

Rel said:


> It IS what I'm known for.



Now, what are you alluding to here? Hmmm.... 


Also note that the new "2011" car on the lot was for sale a few months ago in 2010.


----------



## Aurumvorax (Sep 24, 2010)

OD&D was literally called 1st edition in Dragon magazine.  Holmes' Basic was 2e, Moldvay's Basic was 3e, and Mentzer's Basic was 4e.  Eventually they changed the name to Basic Set to differentiate from AD&D and they eventually changed it to Classic D&D and finally D&D Adventure Game.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 24, 2010)

Achan hiArusa said:


> Technically, every roleplaying game out there is an edition of D&D because they all try to fix something the designers though was wrong with D&D.



No.

_Many_ are, sure. All, though? Nope.

Just for starters, there are those RPGs that were created by gamers who've never even _seen_ D&D, let alone played it. And so on. . .


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Sep 24, 2010)

Nice.  The full size version really shows off the blended map styles.


----------



## weem (Sep 24, 2010)

Thanks for the comments everyone!

I have been wanting to make that image for a long time, so I'm glad to have finally gotten it out of my system, hehe.

I myself have no favorite edition - I enjoy all of them for various reasons, so I made no assumptions when deciding placement, or 'tactics' on the map. They don't reflect any opinions I have, for example - not that anyone has said as much, I'm just saying 

Glad you enjoyed it!


----------



## Imperialus (Sep 25, 2010)

Now it just needs NATO unit markers and you could include Board Wargames in the analogy.


----------



## weem (Sep 25, 2010)

Imperialus said:


> Now it just needs NATO unit markers and you could include Board Wargames in the analogy.




Haha, yes!


Hmmm...


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 25, 2010)

*For the love of ENWorld, JUST STOP!*

There’s been a significant increase in Edition Warring lately with a good amount of threads having been closed because of it. Along with the Warring, there has been a large amount of threads about wanting the Edition Wars to end. Despite the anti-Edition War threads, the pleas of fellow ENWorlders, and the admirable efforts of the Mods to stop this behavior, it seems to actually be growing rather than diminishing. There’s a small minority here at ENWorld that just seem dead set on ignoring the rules, causing trouble – and ultimately threatening the quality of ENWorld.

To that minority I say: 

*For the love of ENWorld, JUST STOP!*​ 


The most recent example:




> X-edition is incredibly team-oriented, far moreso than any other RPG I can recall. And my X-edition players always work very much as a team; whereas in Y-edition and earlier I've often seen screw-the-others play.



 
This post was dropped into a thread about team oriented play vs. individual oriented play, and how the OP felt individual oriented play seemed more prevalent with today’s gamers than it was in the past. A small but interesting discussion had grown around it (along with a few completely off-topic but otherwise non-instigating jokes thrown in). But, up until the above post; nobody in the thread (including the OP) had made the thread about editions. Posts like this are exactly what perpetuate the Edition Wars, and end up ruining perfectly good threads.

That post could have just as easily been worded like this…




> My current game and group are incredibly team-oriented, far moreso than any other game or group I've run. My players always work very much as a team; whereas in past games I've often seen screw-the-others play.



…and made practically the exact same point while being constructive, non-instigating, on-topic, and adding to the conversation.


Please, ENWorlders...please...

If you can’t say something nice, respectful, constructive, funny, or otherwise non-derogatory or non-instigating – *then please, just don’t post!*

If you can’t talk about how cool your game, edition, rules, campaign, or group is – without having to denigrate its’ opposite in order to make your point – *then please, just don’t post!*

If you can’t make a post appropriate to the OP and the thread (or at least humorous) – *then please, just don’t post!*


...and for the love of ENWorld, just stop...


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 25, 2010)

You should stop it. You're just making more troll bait.


----------



## Aramax (Sep 25, 2010)

am I agrivating the situation w/my status?(Im very sad this is my 200 post)


----------



## S'mon (Sep 25, 2010)

The post El Mahdi quotes above was mine.  He also sent me a long and unpleasant PM.  Apparently my not replying to his PM has prompted him to take it further.

I don't see anything wrong with my post, which was merely disagreeing with the OP in that threads' claim that modern players were less team-oriented - IME 4e is more team-oriented than prior editions, and players play it that way.  I was not saying that 4e is better or worse than any other edition (FWIW I DM 4e, 3e, and 1e).  AFAICS the problem is entirely in the mind of El Mahdi.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 25, 2010)

When I get a few moments, I'm going to merge the dozens of "about the edition wars" threads and move the combined thread to Meta.  We don't need so many of them, folks.  We know that edition warring is annoying, but the best way to handle it is to report posts rather than start the 400th thread _about_ the edition wars.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Sep 25, 2010)

I would alike to ask everyone who posts about editions to look back and see if your mentioning hte actual edition you like/play/whatever actually adds to the discussion. If it does not, leave that little tidbit of information out.

I have seen a lot of unnecessary mentioning of editions in these war threads.


----------



## Zaukrie (Sep 25, 2010)

I'd love it if every thread about editions was just moved to some folder where they were on their own. They just clutter up the general topic folder like crazy.


----------



## Chainsaw (Sep 25, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I would alike to ask everyone who posts about editions to look back and see if your mentioning hte actual edition you like/play/whatever actually adds to the discussion. If it does not, leave that little tidbit of information out.
> 
> I have seen a lot of unnecessary mentioning of editions in these war threads.



Well, the problem with this approach is that the all the games labeled "Dungeons and Dragons" can have such large differences between them that comparing experiences is kind of tough without mentioning the context.


----------

