# So it's the old "Edition War" excuse to dismiss people?



## ForeverSlayer

So anytime we say anything negative about 4th edition in relevance to a discussion it's labeled as a quick "Edition War" and we are demonized in threads. 

I know the truth isn't always easy to here but sometimes the things that are said is the truth and not "edition warring". 

All I mentioned was the fact that if 4th edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't be play testing 5th edition. The bottom line is this is a fact and I'm sorry if 4th edition is your favorite edition and you want to defend it until the cows come home but slapping the "edition war" tag on everyone who doesn't think so isn't right. 

Careful how you throw around the "Edition War" card.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

You should know better than to discuss moderation in the forums.


----------



## ForeverSlayer

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You should know better than to discuss moderation in the forums.




I'm not but it's not fair that people are hit with the "edition war" card because they say something negative about 4th edition in relation to a thread.


----------



## Morrus

ForeverSlayer said:


> I'm not but it's not fair that people are hit with the "edition war" card because they say something negative about 4th edition in relation to a thread.




This belongs in Meta, so I'm moving it there. And if you have an issue with a moderation decision, there are very clear guidelines on how to approach that and very clear guidelines on exactly what_ not_ to do.  No exceptions, even when you're that one-in-a-million* person who thinks they're right.

*Ooops.  Sorry.  The correct statistic is million-in-a-million.


----------



## Shadeydm

As a 4E player I've seen many of its warts up close and personal. Discussing what one likes or doesn't like about it seems fine to me, however saying 4E isn't an RPG just seems extreme and very much like baiting which I think we would all be better off without. 
While I think there is equal blame on both sides of the issue like that fact that it kept getting referenced and repeated over and over was probably almost as bad since it could have just been ignored and normal debate continued.

And for the record I also believe 4E to be an RPG...


----------



## ForeverSlayer

Shadeydm said:


> As a 4E player I've seen many of its warts up close and personal. Discussing what one likes or doesn't like about it seems fine to me, however saying 4E isn't an RPG just seems extreme and very much like baiting which I think we would all be better off without.
> While I think there is equal blame on both sides of the issue like that fact that it kept getting referenced and repeated over and over was probably almost as bad since it could have just been ignored and normal debate continued.
> 
> And for the record I also believe 4E to be an RPG...




4th edition is labeled as an RPG so technically it is an RPG. I think what a lot of people have problems with is the fact that it is so heavily centered on combat. What this does is it makes people feel like role playing is just tacked on. In all honesty, you can put the label of RPG on any game but when you have a game that actually gives you in-depth rules for things outside of combat then that RPG title seems to hold more water.


----------



## JamesonCourage

ForeverSlayer said:


> I'm not but it's not fair that people are hit with the "edition war" card because they say something negative about 4th edition in relation to a thread.



Well, before anyone starts blaming other people, I'm the one who was reporting posts I found doing nothing but fuel the edition wars. I usually don't say when I report something, but I really don't want people blaming the standard 4e fans for the reports. It was getting out of hand on both sides, in my opinion, but definitely more proactively on the anti-4e side (though the 4e side seemed overly aggressively and defensive... this is understandable, but still wasn't constructive to the thread). The mods obviously agreed.

Listen, I'm not a big 4e guy. I like 3.5 more, but I don't play that, either. But, no matter your feelings on it, saying which edition "failed" and that's why it should be ignored _is not productive_, and is not good for 5e which is _trying to be inclusive_.

As I said on the first page of the thread, now is the time to voice concerns. If a lot of 4e players have the same concerns (which seems likely given the XP that Neonchameleon got for his original post), then voice them. Now is the time to do so, and it's entirely appropriate to do so. Those are valid concerns.

Now _isn't_ the time to dismiss 5e. We've had one play test release so far, and it's been explicitly stated that they're trying to make it as simple as possible. Voice your concerns, say that you're afraid they're going to mess up on X, Y, and Z, and that what you really value is A, B, and C. That's helpful. That's important. Dismissing the edition based on the first go-around isn't any more productive than saying "edition X was a failure." It helps no one, contributes nothing, and shouldn't be anyone's conclusion at this point.

If you have a deal breaker ("if there's Vancian magic, I'm not playing"), then no, this edition isn't for you. You can't reasonably contribute to an inclusive edition. The player base would be a lot easier to unite, though, if people tried working on their problems together, stating what they want very clearly (like Neonchameleon's original post), and helped shape the future of the edition, rather than rag on it and dismiss other people.

The more I hear from both "sides" recently, the more I want to go dig up my post on civility. Keep it civil, guys. It's getting out of hand, and there's no need for that. Be an adult. Say what you want. Don't settle if you don't want to, but don't be childish. Really. As always, play what you like


----------



## Shadeydm

ForeverSlayer said:


> 4th edition is labeled as an RPG so technically it is an RPG. I think what a lot of people have problems with is the fact that it is so heavily centered on combat. What this does is it makes people feel like role playing is just tacked on. In all honesty, you can put the label of RPG on any game but when you have a game that actually gives you in-depth rules for things outside of combat then that RPG title seems to hold more water.




I think that combats that average almost 2 hours is certainly one of its bigger warts for me from a playstyle perspective (especially when your weekly session is usually only 4 hours). But thats a far cry from "it's not an RPG".


----------



## ForeverSlayer

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, before anyone starts blaming other people, I'm the one who was reporting posts I found doing nothing but fuel the edition wars. I usually don't say when I report something, but I really don't want people blaming the standard 4e fans for the reports. It was getting out of hand on both sides, in my opinion, but definitely more proactively on the anti-4e side (though the 4e side seemed overly aggressively and defensive... this is understandable, but still wasn't constructive to the thread). The mods obviously agreed.
> 
> Listen, I'm not a big 4e guy. I like 3.5 more, but I don't play that, either. But, no matter your feelings on it, saying which edition "failed" and that's why it should be ignored _is not productive_, and is not good for 5e which is _trying to be inclusive_.
> 
> As I said on the first page of the thread, now is the time to voice concerns. If a lot of 4e players have the same concerns (which seems likely given the XP that Neonchameleon got for his original post), then voice them. Now is the time to do so, and it's entirely appropriate to do so. Those are valid concerns.
> 
> Now _isn't_ the time to dismiss 5e. We've had one play test release so far, and it's been explicitly stated that they're trying to make it as simple as possible. Voice your concerns, say that you're afraid they're going to mess up on X, Y, and Z, and that what you really value is A, B, and C. That's helpful. That's important. Dismissing the edition based on the first go-around isn't any more productive than saying "edition X was a failure." It helps no one, contributes nothing, and shouldn't be anyone's conclusion at this point.
> 
> If you have a deal breaker ("if there's Vancian magic, I'm not playing"), then no, this edition isn't for you. You can't reasonably contribute to an inclusive edition. The player base would be a lot easier to unite, though, if people tried working on their problems together, stating what they want very clearly (like Neonchameleon's original post), and helped shape the future of the edition, rather than rag on it and dismiss other people.
> 
> The more I hear from both "sides" recently, the more I want to go dig up my post on civility. Keep it civil, guys. It's getting out of hand, and there's no need for that. Be an adult. Say what you want. Don't settle if you don't want to, but don't be childish. Really. As always, play what you like




The thing that needs to be looked at here is the fact that we are playtesting a new edition, no one can deny that. Wizards was already looking into a new edition when 4th edition was still a toddler so no matter how much you may like the game, you have to sit back and acknowledge that there is something there that people didn't like enough that they didn't buy it. 

4th edition fans try and dismiss people who don't like the game and they do this by making people feel like the editions they like are inferior because those games may have had rules issues or other problems. 4th edition has it's problems as well and those seem to be ignored. 

The bottom line is a Ferrari works but you have people that just do not like the car. You can sit there and present them with how fast it goes, how well it handles, and how much MPG you get but you aren't going to change their mind. Some 4th edition fans present their arguments like that and just can't seem to understand that just because something may work doesn't mean that it's going to be universally liked.


----------



## ForeverSlayer

Shadeydm said:


> I think that combats that average almost 2 hours is certainly one of its bigger warts for me from a playstyle perspective (especially when your weekly session is usually only 4 hours). But thats a far cry from "it's not an RPG".




The time part of battles is a great point and not what I was really looking at. I was looking more on the aspect of battle being the main focus. 

From my personal perspective, when I played 4th edition I felt like I needed to be doing nothing but combat because that was what my character was based around. All classes were built mainly for combat, even classes that weren't normally considered combat oriented, were made into combat ones. 

People like to look at their character sheets and have an almost equal amount of game mechanics for combat and out of combat stuff.


----------



## JamesonCourage

I've rearranged your post so I can respond to it a better. I hope you don't mind.


ForeverSlayer said:


> 4th edition fans try and dismiss people who don't like the game and they do this by making people feel like the editions they like are inferior because those games may have had rules issues or other problems. 4th edition has it's problems as well and those seem to be ignored.



There are certainly _some_ 4e fans that do what you're describing here. There are definitely fans of other editions who are just as bad ("4e is not an RPG" or "4e was a failure"). Both sides need to stop.


ForeverSlayer said:


> The thing that needs to be looked at here is the fact that we are playtesting a new edition, no one can deny that. Wizards was already looking into a new edition when 4th edition was still a toddler so no matter how much you may like the game, you have to sit back and acknowledge that there is something there that people didn't like enough that they didn't buy it.
> 
> The bottom line is a Ferrari works but you have people that just do not like the car. You can sit there and present them with how fast it goes, how well it handles, and how much MPG you get but you aren't going to change their mind. Some 4th edition fans present their arguments like that and just can't seem to understand that just because something may work doesn't mean that it's going to be universally liked.



No, they usually understand. Some posters don't understand. But, that doesn't mean that 4e fans aren't playing an RPG, or that they're having badwrongfun, or that their edition was a failure and should be ignored. All of those views need to stop being expressed, if nothing else. They really should stop being believed, but I don't think that'll happen. I'd much rather see the mods step in and cut short the edition warring now than after it builds up even more, and I'm glad they did.

So, to the mods: thanks. As always, play what you like


----------



## Cadfan

My point was actually far more nuanced than that, and ultimately completely defensible... but since by order of moderator I'm not permitted to defend it anymore, I'd prefer you not bring it up.


----------



## Shadeydm

There is nothing wrong with wanting more out of combat stuff on your character sheet. Personally I don't find it an obstacle to roleplaying. I don't remember a huge amout of out of combat stuff on 1E sheets yet it remains all things being equal probably my favorite edition and the one in which I have run my best and most compelling campaigns. So I guess i have to disagree on a personal level that there needs be a ton of non combat stuff on the sheet. 
In fact I would take it a step further and say for me some of the most important non combat info that should be on the sheet is the characters view of the world, where he is from, his attitudes and a few of his favorite quotes. (Yes even 4E sheets have a place for this kind of stuff).


----------



## delericho

ForeverSlayer said:


> So anytime we say anything negative about 4th edition in relevance to a discussion it's labeled as a quick "Edition War" and we are demonized in threads.




I am also quite dismayed at how quickly _any_ criticism of 4e can be declared "edition warring", and so interesting threads rendered useless.

However...



> All I mentioned was the fact that if 4th edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't be play testing 5th edition. The bottom line is this is a fact and I'm sorry if 4th edition is your favorite edition and you want to defend it until the cows come home but slapping the "edition war" tag on everyone who doesn't think so isn't right.




IMO, there are 'right' ways and 'wrong' ways to criticise an edition, and this is an example of a 'wrong' way. It's one thing to comment on the rule content of the edition (and in particular, _specific_ rules), it's quite another to make a blanket attack on the edition.

I believe it was Umbran (acting in a non-mod capacity) who pointed out to me that a new edition doesn't _necessarily_ mean WotC consider 4e a failure - they may simply believe that they can do significantly _better_ with a new edition.

(Note to the mods: I haven't seen the mod issue that provoked this thread. It's not my intention here to discuss that decision. Still, if you feel I've crossed a line here, I'll happily withdraw my comments.)


----------



## JamesonCourage

Cadfan said:


> My point was actually far more nuanced than that, and ultimately completely defensible... but since by order of moderator I'm not permitted to defend it anymore, I'd prefer you not bring it up.



Edited that out of my post.


----------



## Odhanan

ForeverSlayer said:


> So anytime we say anything negative about 4th edition in relevance to a discussion it's labeled as a quick "Edition War" and we are demonized in threads.



It's not just 4th ed but yeah, it's basically become an tabletop RPG meme on the internet that as soon as you start to actually have preferences not only in the positive, but especially in the negative (i.e. "this game is great, I like this game because etc etc" or "this game sucks, it's crap because etc etc") you are engaging in "Edition Warring", "OneTrueWay" (which is really just MyOwnWay), and so on, so forth. 

Various message boards, including ENWorld, have opted to embrace this mentality and made it into policy. That's the "keep the peace" attitude. "Don't make waves." You can talk about this this and this, but not that, otherwise it's badwrongposting. We need an "emotionally safe" environment for special snowflakes. Etc etc. 

This is something I personally can no longer stand. 

If you don't stand this sort of thing either, you have a few options and boards around that actually might give you what you want. There is circvsmaximvs, for instance, which is the mirror board of ENWorld with little to no actual moderation. Anything goes there, and if the crap hits the fan well... so be it. You're still posting with some of the very same people who accuse others of being edition warriors here, though, but they aren't the only ones posting there so, maybe that's what you want to check out.

Another alternative is the RPG Site. It's a good forum with a lot of very good posters, but there the moderation is also pretty light, so the crap hits the fans there more often than it does here. It's the price of free speech: when you can tell the other guy he's being dense, then that other guy can say that to your face as well. It's a bit like the Cantina of the RPG world, the hive of scum and villainy of the gaming internets. It's actually a pretty cool place if you want to speak your mind, grow a thick skin and have nothing against a good, honest-to-God flamewar taking over a conversation every once in a while. You should try it.

So, in conclusion, alternatives do exist, make no mistake, but sites like RPGnet and ENWorld have made up their minds about it a long time ago and have chosen the path of the heavy moderation nonsense. Nothing's going to change that now.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Beats me why it's so difficult for people to understand...

A personal opinion about any of the games and is mentioned as such is fine.

A personal opinion that tries to portray itself as absolute fact or a majority opinion is "edition warring".

A dislike of a certain specific rule in any of the games and a desire that it not appear in DDN (and usually helped along by offering an alternative preferable rule) is fine.

A dislike of an entire edition and a stated desire that every single facet of that game should not appear at all (especially with no opinions on possible alternatives) is "edition warring".

Making educated guesses on what Wizards of the Coast might do in the future based upon what has been done in the past is fine.

Attributing (or more to the point _inventing_) reasons, opinions, or attitudes to Wizards of the Coast for anything they have previously done (with no actual inside knowledge on your part) all in an effort to discount some of what they have done is "edition warring".

***

Basically... remember the "brown rule"...

Your poop stinks just as bad as anyone elses, and trying to pass it off as better or more worthwhile is the way to moderation.


----------



## pemerton

My understanding is that 3E has the following social skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Innuendo, Sense Motive, Gather Information.

In 3.5, my understanding is that Innuendo was folded into Bluff and Sense Motive.

4e has the same social skills as 3.5, ony Sense Motive and Gather Information are renamed and expanded in what they cover (Insight also includes recognition of illusions; Streetwise plays like a traditional Streetwise skill from many games, and so goes a bit beyond just picking up rumours).

4e also has a social conflict resolution mechanic: the skill challenge.

So I'm continually puzzled by the implication that 4e is lacking in non-combat resolution options compared to 3E. I don't see the evidence for it in either the rules or in play.

Here's a concrete example: the 3E module Bastion of Broken Souls includes a range of encounters, all of which are described by the module author as combat-only, but which _could_ be resolved as social conflicts: persuading an angel whose body is a gate to a prison plane to let the PCs kill her, so they can access that plane; persuading the exiled god trapped on that prison plane to give the PCs his Soul Totem; persuading a night hag queen of dreams to give the PCs the information they need.

Any of those scenes could be resolved in 4e (as a skill challenge). How would 3E resolve them? And in what way would it be superior? (I can see that it would be different - for some of this, for example, I think it is just a single roll of Diplomacy. I don't see how it's better.)


----------



## Dragoslav

Others have explained it before, but I'll provide an analogy. The release of successive D&D editions has very little to do with how the game stands up on its own right and almost everything to do with business. Here's the analogy:

You would never say, "The video game Madden NFL 2003 failed, so they had to make Madden NFL 2004, which also failed, so they had to make Madden NFL 2004, which was ALSO a disaster, so <...> they made Madden NFL 11, which also failed, so to give the fans what they really wanted, they had to make Madden NFL 12."

I also have a sincere question: What non-combat rules or mechanics does 4e not have that previous editions did have?

Seems like people scoff at the idea of having more rules for adjudicating social encounters, so I don't know what else there could possibly be.

4e even has skill challenges, which were explicitly intended to provide options and challenge outside of combat. And all characters have access to professly non-combat utility powers as they level up, e.g. "reroll a diplomacy check that you dislike once per social encounter" or "use an arcana check in place of a diplomacy check that you have to make once per social encounter." Oh, and there are "rituals" and "martial practices," which provide characters a wide variety of out-of-combat options and versatility.


----------



## n00bdragon

ForeverSlayer said:


> The bottom line is...




Please stop using this phrase in general, but especially if you're going to double post on additional statement.


----------



## Mark CMG

DEFCON 1 said:


> Beats me why it's so difficult for people to understand...
> 
> A personal opinion about any of the games and is mentioned as such is fine.
> 
> A personal opinion that tries to portray itself as absolute fact or a majority opinion is "edition warring".





That's not really anything to do with edition warring, that's just overstating an opinion.

Really, as far as I can tell, folks should keep a focus on the rules in their criticism and off of the fanbase.  And, no, not every criticism of a rule is implicitly a criticism of those who play the game.  Being critical about any specific rule or ruleset does not in and of itself constitute edition warring.  Acting like any criticism of a rule or ruleset is a criticism of your edition or style of play *IS* actually a form of edition warring.

Don't broad-brush a fanbase.

Focus criticism on rules not on players.

Don't act like a rules criticism is specifically about you or your game.


----------



## ForeverSlayer

Skill Challenges were not that great to be honest. They were not a good front for out of combat experience. Having a few powers here and there that could do something out of combat is not my idea of out of combat experience. 

I can promise you that you can run a better out of combat game using 3rd/Pathfinder than you can with 4th edition. Can you run an out of combat game in 4th edition, Absolutely? The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions.


----------



## Dragoslav

ForeverSlayer said:


> I can promise you that you can run a better out of combat game using 3rd/Pathfinder than you can with 4th edition. Can you run an out of combat game in 4th edition, Absolutely? The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions.



Having never played 3e or Pathfinder, I'm curious what it is that these have to offer in the way of out-of-combat features that 4e doesn't. In 4e, even if you don't have any utility powers that are useful outside of combat and no rituals, you will at least have to reference your character sheet to look at your skills for the occasional skill check or a skill challenge.


----------



## DEFCON 1

ForeverSlayer said:


> The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions.




Absolutely correct.  Because those 3rd edition wizards that had those Fireballs, Magic Missiles, Lightning Bolts, and Burning Hands spells on their character sheets had a direct impact on the roleplaying.  And that Turn Undead spell the cleric had?  Direct impact as well.  And all those weapons listed on the 3E Fighter's sheet could be rolled during negotiation as well. 

It's a shame 4E jettisoned all that.


----------



## ForeverSlayer

DEFCON 1 said:


> Absolutely correct.  Because those 3rd edition wizards that had those Fireballs, Magic Missiles, Lightning Bolts, and Burning Hands spells on their character sheets had a direct impact on the roleplaying.  And that Turn Undead spell the cleric had?  Direct impact as well.  And all those weapons listed on the 3E Fighter's sheet could be rolled during negotiation as well.
> 
> It's a shame 4E jettisoned all that.




If you knew you were playing a heavy out of combat game then you wouldn't likely select the fighter class, and your Wizard wouldn't be selecting combat oriented spells, he would be selective all those out of combat utility spells. I'm sure the cleric would love to be using his Turn Undead but if not then he has lots of other things that he can use.


----------



## the Jester

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You should know better than to discuss moderation in the forums.




This.



ForeverSlayer said:


> 4th edition fans try and dismiss people who don't like the game and they do this by making people feel like the editions they like are inferior because those games may have had rules issues or other problems. 4th edition has it's problems as well and those seem to be ignored.




And 3e fans do the same thing. And so do 1e and 2e fans. And GURPS fans. 

This has _nothing to do with 4e_. It's a matter of edition warriors; the edition doesn't matter.



ForeverSlayer said:


> I can promise you that you can run a better out of combat game using 3rd/Pathfinder than you can with 4th edition.




BS. You can promise me that _you_ can run a better out of combat game with 3e/PH than 4e, but I could easily respond, "Guess you just don't know how to dm 4e competently, then!" Either way is the same- "My way is right, you're playing D&D wrong!" Both are BS.



ForeverSlayer said:


> Can you run an out of combat game in 4th edition, Absolutely? The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions.




Just like a 3e party can't use their Power Attacking fighter, their prestige class Supreme Cleave ability, their prepared _fireballs_ and _flame strikes,_ sneak attack or their _staff of fire_ for anything?


----------



## ForeverSlayer

the Jester said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> And 3e fans do the same thing. And so do 1e and 2e fans. And GURPS fans.
> 
> This has _nothing to do with 4e_. It's a matter of edition warriors; the edition doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> BS. You can promise me that _you_ can run a better out of combat game with 3e/PH than 4e, but I could easily respond, "Guess you just don't know how to dm 4e competently, then!" Either way is the same- "My way is right, you're playing D&D wrong!" Both are BS.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a 3e party can't use their Power Attacking fighter, their prestige class Supreme Cleave ability, their prepared _fireballs_ and _flame strikes,_ sneak attack or their _staff of fire_ for anything?




Read the response to DefCon.

It's not BS. I know how to run a 4th edition just as good as anybody else. 

It's not about badwrongfun or not playing it right. The 3rd edition/Pathfinder system is actually designed to handle out of combat games better than 4th edition. Skill Challenges is no a substitute for that and anything outside of that has nothing to do with the actual 4th edition system with regards to out of combat. I can still use more of the 3rd/Pathfinder system for out of combat than I can 4th edition.


----------



## Umbran

ForeverSlayer said:


> So anytime we say anything negative about 4th edition in relevance to a discussion it's labeled as a quick "Edition War" and we are demonized in threads.




No.  Not "anytime".  Sure, some folks whip out that label too lightly.  

But, if you (generic "you", not "you - ForeverSlayer") leave tact and politeness behind, if you slip from constructive criticism to being mean and insensitive to your fellow gamers, when you start getting snarky, then you're no longer just saying something negative.  When you just can't let something go...

For example - this thread was started to discuss how "Edition War" is used to dismiss people.  The guy who owns the boards moved this to meta - the place where we discuss the boards, rather than the games.

But somehow, we are back to discussing how bad 4e is?  Wrong place, wrong time - bulldogging, and being unable to let a topic go, is a sign you're Edition Warring.


----------



## Morrus

Let's make something crystal clear.

1) Any claims that this rules applies only to fans of one side or the other are at worst deliberately disingenuous or at best a classic example of confirmation bias. This is utterly untrue. I get emails claiming we're pro-4E, claiming we're anti-4E, claiming we're pro-3E, claiming we're anti-3E, claiming we're Paizo fanboys, claiming we clearly hate Paizo, claiming we moderate too strongly, claiming we don't moderate enough. We can't be all of 'em. You'll see what you want to see; it's a big board.

2) Everyone who gets moderated thinks we're wrong to do so. Its the default position. They also feel singled out and unfairly treated. It's very rare to find someone on the wrong end of moderation who is able to look at their own behaviour objectively. Yes, we can make mistakes, and have apologised to people and reversed things, but generally speaking evey single person who is moderated disagrees with it. 

3) Edition warring is posts which we mods know will force us to stay up all night babysitting a thread if we don't close it. It's easy to volunteer someone else's time, but we're the ones who have to keep an eye on these threads. That's why we try to end edition warring before it gets too bad.

3a) So, to be more specific about that: you are welcome to any damn opinion you please. I don't give a crap about that. But you are required to express it politely and respectfully, and to avoid certain well-known trigger phrases which 100% of the time launch arguments. One of those is "4E isn't an RPG". Like it or not, agree with it or not, think it's a valid point or not, that phrase has that effect every single time.  And especially an argument that we've had_ time and time and time and time again_.

4) If you really find the moderation too strong here, we have Circvs Maximvs, just for you. Feel free. But don't be surprised if someone is very blunt to you.


----------



## MoonSong

DEFCON 1 said:


> Absolutely correct.  Because those 3rd edition wizards that had those Fireballs, Magic Missiles, Lightning Bolts, and Burning Hands spells on their character sheets had a direct impact on the roleplaying.  And that Turn Undead spell the cleric had?  Direct impact as well.  And all those weapons listed on the 3E Fighter's sheet could be rolled during negotiation as well.
> 
> It's a shame 4E jettisoned all that.



That's a bit of a strawman. Of course combat spells (and specially combat evocations) will sit down during non-combat, but in 3.x you have way more options than just those spells, Ghost sound, message, Dancing lights, Light, Daylight, the +4 to a stat spells, tenser's floating disk, phantom steed, Silent Image, the list of spells with out of combat uses is huge. You can be a sorcerer and know cero combat spells and still be pretty useful. Yet it isn't just those, the druid's wild empathy feature for example, or the bard's Bardic knowledge, not to mention the craft, profession and perform skills. DOn't forget also feats like leadership, nimbus of light, stigmata.... 

Also youu can train animals the mundane way to use as scouts, moneymakers or partners in crime. And familiars can be used in the same way.

There is also the fact that skills don't get in the way to define your character, in 4e every single rogue knows thievery and ever single arcane caster knows arcana and there isn't anything you can do to change that. I've made book-dumb sorcerers than couldn't even read a scroll but were good speaking with people and riding, at least a "showy" rogue that focussed on cheating, lying, counterfeiting, and overtly conning people out of their money but that wouuldn't be able to hide easily or pickpocket. 

The skills-as-means rather than skills-as-results allows for a lot of freedom, in the later if all you have is a hammer then you can only use it to drive a nail and nothing else, no matter how much you roleplay it the result doesn't change, with skills-as-means if all you have is a hammer you can use it to drive nails, but also to break windows, repair stuff, as a lever to open things or even outright sell it.


----------



## El Mahdi

ForeverSlayer said:


> So anytime we say anything negative about 4th edition in relevance to a discussion it's labeled as a quick "Edition War" and we are demonized in threads.
> 
> I know the truth isn't always easy to here but sometimes the things that are said is the truth and not "edition warring".
> 
> All I mentioned was the fact that if 4th edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't be play testing 5th edition. The bottom line is this is a fact and I'm sorry if 4th edition is your favorite edition and you want to defend it until the cows come home but slapping the "edition war" tag on everyone who doesn't think so isn't right.
> 
> Careful how you throw around the "Edition War" card.




I don't think it's true at all that this is happening.  One can provide criticism of 4E in a manner that is not edition warring.  However, the post above does not, and is phrased in a manner consistent with edition warring.

For example: saying _"a common complaint of 4E seems to be..."_, or _"my complaint about 4E is..."_ is not edition warring.  Just as a I think saying _"4E seems to be less focused on "Roleplaying" than other editions..."_ also is not edition warring.  It's discussion about the specific mechanics or attributes of an edition in comparison to others, or simple stating of personal opinion.

However, when one starts saying things like _"4E is not a great edition or we wouldn't now be making 5E"_, that is edition warring.  Likewise saying things like _"4E is not a roleplaying game"_, is also edition warring.

Why?

First and foremost, neither one of those statements are true.  If the defining qualification for an edition being "great" is that it didn't need a successive edition, then no edition of D&D is or has ever been great...and that's simply not true.  Also, there is no official threshold or defining standard for the amount of roleplaying in a system, for it to be called a roleplaying game.  It's a matter of personal taste and opinion, and therefore cannot be stated as "fact" (more below on this).

Secondly, the general blanket statements above are made as if they are statements of fact, when instead they are statements of opinion.  If opinion, they should be stated so_..."I feel that 4E isn't really a roleplaying game because of it's lack of focus on roleplaying..."_, _"In my opinion, 4E was not a great edition..."_, etc.

Whether something is considered edition warring usually has a lot to do with how things are stated.  And it's each and every poster's responsibility for how they post.  A forum doesn't convey inflection or tone, and it's very hard for people to discern intention behind a person's post because of this...and divining intention is something we shouldn't be doing anyways.  This also makes it important for each poster to not be careless in how they state things.  IMO, if that seems too hard, too complicated, or unfair to someone; then those someone's probably shouldn't be posting on forums.

ENWorld quite plainly lays out guidance concerning this in the FAQ:



> *Keep it civil*: Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or *blanket generalizations* in your discussions. *Say how you feel or what you think*, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. *People seeking to engage and discuss will find themselves* asking questions, seeking clarifications, and *describing their own opinion*. People seeking to "win an argument" sometimes end up taking cheap shots, calling people names, and generally trying to indimidate others. My advice: don't try to win.


----------



## Holy Bovine

ForeverSlayer said:


> All I mentioned was the fact that if 3rd edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't have had 4th edition.




or...




ForeverSlayer said:


> All I mentioned was the fact that if 2nd edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't have had 3rd edition.




or...



ForeverSlayer said:


> All I mentioned was the fact that if 1st edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't have had 2nd edition.





or...



ForeverSlayer said:


> All I mentioned was the fact that if the OD&D edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't have had 1st edition.





See what a BS statement that is?  You can apply it to every edition in existence (just wait until Pathfinder 2E comes out...cause it will!).


----------



## ForeverSlayer

Holy Bovine said:


> or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what a BS statement that is?  You can apply it to every edition in existence (just wait until Pathfinder 2E comes out...cause it will!).




Actually no because 4th editions shelf life was supposed to last a lot longer than it did. This didn't happen in other edition or game that was mentioned. 

You are acting like 4th edition has this great long run and the coming of 5th edition was because the old bird was coming in for a landing.


----------



## ForeverSlayer

El Mahdi said:


> I don't think it's true at all that this is happening.  One can provide criticism of 4E in a manner that is not edition warring.  However, the post above does not, and is phrased in a manner consistent with edition warring.
> 
> For example: saying _"a common complaint of 4E seems to be..."_, or _"my complaint about 4E is..."_ is not edition warring.  Just as a I think saying _"4E seems to be less focused on "Roleplaying" than other editions..."_ also is not edition warring.  It's discussion about the specific mechanics or attributes of an edition in comparison to others, or simple stating of personal opinion.
> 
> However, when one starts saying things like _"4E is not a great edition or we wouldn't now be making 5E"_, that is edition warring.  Likewise saying things like _"4E is not a roleplaying game"_, is also edition warring.
> 
> Why?
> 
> First and foremost, neither one of those statements are true.  If the defining qualification for an edition being "great" is that it didn't need a successive edition, then no edition of D&D is or has ever been great...and that's simply not true.  Also, there is no official threshold or defining standard for the amount of roleplaying in a system, for it to be called a roleplaying game.  It's a matter of personal taste and opinion, and therefore cannot be stated as "fact" (more below on this).
> 
> Secondly, the general blanket statements above are made as if they are statements of fact, when instead they are statements of opinion.  If opinion, they should be stated so_..."I feel that 4E isn't really a roleplaying game because of it's lack of focus on roleplaying..."_, _"In my opinion, 4E was not a great edition..."_, etc.
> 
> Whether something is considered edition warring usually has a lot to do with how things are stated.  And it's each and every poster's responsibility for how they post.  A forum doesn't convey inflection or tone, and it's very hard for people to discern intention behind a person's post because of this...and divining intention is something we shouldn't be doing anyways.  This also makes it important for each poster to not be careless in how they state things.  IMO, if that seems too hard, too complicated, or unfair to someone; then those someone's probably shouldn't be posting on forums.
> 
> ENWorld quite plainly lays out guidance concerning this in the FAQ:




Like I told Bovine.

The shelf life of 4th edition was supposed to last longer than it has. You don't stop it's shelf life short if it's doing as well as people are claiming. 

If you look at what's going on, the odds are in my opinion's favor.


----------



## Lwaxy

DEFCON 1 said:


> A personal opinion about any of the games and is mentioned as such is fine.
> 
> A personal opinion that tries to portray itself as absolute fact or a majority




That's the old "It's no RPG/D&D" vs "to me it is no RPG/D&D" problem. And to some people, it is obvious they are stating only their opinion even when not always saying "I think" but then others are likely to take it the wrong way. It's a fine line at times.


----------



## rkwoodard

*too much on character sheet*



ForeverSlayer said:


> Skill Challenges were not that great to be honest. They were not a good front for out of combat experience. Having a few powers here and there that could do something out of combat is not my idea of out of combat experience.
> 
> I can promise you that you can run a better out of combat game using 3rd/Pathfinder than you can with 4th edition. Can you run an out of combat game in 4th edition, Absolutely? The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions.





Maybe we view what role-playing is differently.  Having to look at my character sheet for skills/feats/powers kills RPing for me.  When the RPing starts, the character sheet (outside of Attributes) is very secondary.

RK


----------



## El Mahdi

ForeverSlayer said:


> Skill Challenges were not that great to be honest. They were not a good front for out of combat experience. Having a few powers here and there that could do something out of combat is not my idea of out of combat experience.
> 
> I can promise you that you can run a better out of combat game using 3rd/Pathfinder than you can with 4th edition. Can you run an out of combat game in 4th edition, Absolutely? The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions.




This right here is why you keep getting into trouble about edition warring.

1. _"Skill Challenges were not that great to be honest."_ is an opinion stated as a blanket generalization and as if it is fact.  The only "fact" here is that this is your opinion, but it's not a universall one, nor is it objectively true.  State this as _"IMO, Skill Challenges were not that great to be honest."_, and you're good to go.

2. _"They were not a good front for out of combat experience."_ is again, stating opinion as fact.  For you, it may not be a good mechanic for out of combat play, for others it is.  There are certainly fans of skill challenges among the ranks of RPG fans, and many of them post here.  And those skill challenges work quite well for what they want.  State this as _"In my experience, they were not a good front for out of combat experience."_, and again you're good to go.

3. _"Having a few powers here and there that could do something out of combat is not my idea of out of combat experience."_  BINGO!  Well Said!  This is stated as your opinion, and therefore is not refutable...but is an opening for "discussion".  It's not stated as a blanket generalization or as a fact about 4E, but only a fact of your opinion.  Perfect.  

4._ "I can promise you that you can run a better out of combat game using 3rd/Pathfinder than you can with 4th edition."_, and now we go off the rails again.  No, you can't promise this, as what your stating is not an objective fact but only your opinion...and a faulty one at that.  I can guarantee you that this will be true for some, but there are others for which this will not be true, even if they try.  Simple law of averages say so.  And whether you intended this or not, the way many people are likely reading this is as _"what they like isn't as good as what you're promoting, and should switch because what they are doing is bad/wrong/fun"_.  Again, it's not _*what*_ you're saying, as it is _*how*_ you're saying it.

5. _"Can you run an out of combat game in 4th edition, Absolutely? The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions."_ and lastly, this is also stating your opinion as if it is objective fact.  This may be what happened when you tried 4E Skill Challenges, but that does not mean that every such usage of Skill Challenges or 4E game sessions turn out this way.  I'm sure there are many 4E players that have developed interesting, fun, and creative uses for powers in Skill Challenges, and prefer Skill Challenges because of this.  Now if you'd said _"The problem *I've found* is that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions."_, you again would have been good to go.

If you had stated your posts in the manner recommended above, and somebody still took umbrage with it, then it would have been their own problem.  And I'm quite certain you would have had no problems with any of the moderators.   And if someone had violated the forum rules by rudely calling you out or in the manner in which they presented their umbrage, then simply report their posts to moderation, and let them deal with it.


----------



## El Mahdi

ForeverSlayer said:


> Like I told Bovine.
> 
> The shelf life of 4th edition was supposed to last longer than it has. You don't stop it's shelf life short if it's doing as well as people are claiming.
> 
> If you look at what's going on, the odds are in my opinion's favor.




The odds may or may not be in your favor, but that's not what I was discussing.  Your stating of that opinion as fact is where the problem comes in.  You may be sure that this is the truth of the situation, but it is not universally accepted or quantifiably proven, therefore it is opinion only and should be stated as such.


----------



## ForeverSlayer

rkwoodard said:


> Maybe we view what role-playing is differently.  Having to look at my character sheet for skills/feats/powers kills RPing for me.  When the RPing starts, the character sheet (outside of Attributes) is very secondary.
> 
> RK




I'm not viewing role playing on it's on. I've noticed some people doing this to try and say that some of us can't role play unless we have something on our sheets. 

I'm talking about out everything out of combat.


----------



## El Mahdi

Shadeydm said:


> yep the sheet should be very secondary once the RPing gets rolling




Here's another good example from something that just got posted.  This statement is not objectively true, though it is stated as fact because of the _"should"_.  It may be true for the way Shadeydm prefers to play, but it's not the one correct way to play, therefore _"should"_ is not appropriate.

_"yep, the way I like to play, the sheet is very secondary once the RPing gets rolling"_ is accurate and not proclaiming the one true way.

_"yep, I prefer the sheet should be very secondary once the RPing gets rolling"_ also works.

Or just simply _"I Agree"_ works also.


----------



## Lwaxy

ForeverSlayer said:


> Like I told Bovine.
> 
> The shelf life of 4th edition was supposed to last longer than it has. You don't stop it's shelf life short if it's doing as well as people are claiming.
> 
> If you look at what's going on, the odds are in my opinion's favor.




In my opinion, the problem is more along the lines of a split fan base and a reduced probability to find people to play with. So bringing out an edition to unite the fan base makes sense. 

As for the moderation issue - people report different posts. If the moderators don't react on most of them, it would also cause issues. To have a little less moderation it would probably help to not report everything that *might* be seen as edition warring. I have a feeling many readers go by "if not sure, report" when it would be more helpful to go by "if not sure, ignore."


----------



## Shadeydm

El Mahdi said:


> Here's another good example from something that just got posted.  This statement is not objectively true, though it is stated as fact because of the _"should"_.  It may be true for the way Shadeydm prefers to play, but it's not the one correct way to play, therefore _"should"_ is not appropriate.
> 
> _"yep, the way I like to play, the sheet is very secondary once the RPing gets rolling"_ is accurate and not proclaiming the one true way.
> 
> _"yep, I prefer the sheet should be very secondary once the RPing gets rolling"_ also works.
> 
> Or just simply _"I Agree"_ works also.




Sorry it was an XP comment and I was trying to keep it short but you are quite right i could have kept it shorter.


----------



## ForeverSlayer

Lwaxy said:


> I have a feeling many readers go by "if not sure, report" when it would be more helpful to go by "if not sure, ignore."




This right here!


----------



## Morrus

OK, folks. This thread only works if it's a *genera*l thread about moderation. It can't be:

1) A thread about a specific piece of moderation (as per our longstanding rules);

2) A sneaky way to have a discussion that we've asked you not to have elsewhere on the boards. We're not going to discuss whether not 4E "is an RPG" because that is_ the_ _very classic oft-repeated prime poster child_ of edition war statements; it is one of the most loaded statements that exist in this niche hobby of ours, and has - time and time and time again - cause enormous arguments. It's prety much the statement which created the very term "edition war". So let's not do that, OK?

I understand that someone might imagine they're the first to suggest that 4E is not an RPG*. I'm sure they'll therefore appreciate the additional information: they are the 382,237th person to do so and it always ends exactly the same way. 

Thanks, folks.


*Of course, I'm a little incredulous that someone could straight-facedly say that they were genuinely unaware that the prime classic edition war statement is "4E is not an RPG" and were completely oblivious to the inevitable ramifications and effects of that strongly loaded statement, typically followed quickly with protestations which normally include "it can't be edition warring if it's the truth" and "the truth can be hard to hear", but I guess I have to offer the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Herschel

ForeverSlayer said:


> It's not BS. I know how to run a 4th edition just as good as anybody else.



Here's the thing, so many of us run non-combat portions of the game very well and our players (who've even played 3E/3.5E) talk about liking them. Some people may want a more granular skill set up or maybe don't want the spells vs. rituals split but that doesn't change the fact that both work well in the hands of people who actually know how to run them well.

Saying I don't like something because I want more skill subsets or something seems presented too linearly because I like more free-form is different than claiming you know as well as all these people who make it work that they're doing it wrong when obviously they're the ones doing it right is where the line is drawn.


----------



## Harlock

ForeverSlayer said:


> So anytime we say anything negative about 4th edition in relevance to a discussion it's labeled as a quick "Edition War" and we are demonized in threads.
> 
> I know the truth isn't always easy to here but sometimes the things that are said is the truth and not "edition warring".
> 
> All I mentioned was the fact that if 4th edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't be play testing 5th edition. The bottom line is this is a fact and I'm sorry if 4th edition is your favorite edition and you want to defend it until the cows come home but slapping the "edition war" tag on everyone who doesn't think so isn't right.
> 
> Careful how you throw around the "Edition War" card.




For the record, I didn't label you as an edition warrior and I stopped playing 4th ed early on. I simply said your premise was flawed. New editions come about. Period. For better or worse, that is the formula WotC inherited from TSR, and from a business standpoint, it creates a sales spike. We'd be getting a new edition even if Hasbro and WotC were setting sales records.


----------



## Herschel

Morrus said:


> 2) Everyone who gets moderated thinks we're wrong to do so. Its the default position. They also feel singled out and unfairly treated. It's very rare to find someone on the wrong end of moderation who is able to look at their own behaviour objectively. Yes, we can make mistakes, and have apologised to people and reversed things, but generally speaking evey single person who is moderated disagrees with it.




You're wrong.  

I think part of the issue is that when you're moderated, you're perspective is forcibly altered. There's no seeing that others have also been moderated or booted from threads, the only person you see getting moderated is you and if you are responding to someone else's flames then it definitely gives creedence to feelings of bias because you are shown that their posts were "allowed" while yours wasn't.

I don't think there's a better answer for this either outside of a PM listing those moderated in/from a conversation as well and that's likely not very feasible.


----------



## Mercurius

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], I actually think its only two or three people saying that 4E is not an RPG/D&D, they just keep coming back for more . 
 [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION], I think the main issue here is that there is a subtle lack of nuance in your expressed perspective on 4E, which points to a rather simple misunderstanding. As I see it, you are basically saying "I can't get the role-playing experience I want from 4E therefore no one can get the role-playing experience that they want." Can you see how you are absolutizing your own experience and perspective?

I wouldn't go so far as to reduce all perspectives to "Its all just a matter of subjectivity," but that we can't remove our own subjectivity from the discussion. 

"I don't like orange" doesn't automatically lead to or prove "therefore orange is a crappy color."

As for the specifics of your argument against 4E, as someone said above I think there is a fallacy in thinking that more rules for role-playing means better role-playing rules. I would actually argue that role-playing requires simple and flexible rules that don't replace actual role-playing. For instance, which approach do you prefer?

APPROACH A
Player: "I try to convince him to let me through the door."
DM: "OK, roll your Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate score."

APPROACH B
Player: "I try to convince him to let me through the door."
DM: "Go ahead, convince away. What do you say and do?"

To put it another way, rules should only be used when necessary. Reliance on them for role-playing actually takes away the opportunity for role-playing immersion (as is the case in Approach A).

It also should go without saying that any edition supports either approach, although 3.5 and 4E no more or less than the other.


----------



## Harlock

ForeverSlayer said:


> Actually no because 4th editions shelf life was supposed to last a lot longer than it did. This didn't happen in other edition or game that was mentioned.




I'm genuinely curious here: where did you get this information? I've never read anywhere how much mileage WotC was planning to get out of 4th edition. That's usually the sort of information a company would like to keep a "trade secret". Of course, I haven't bought a new 4th ed. book or followed the news too much since the first year 4th came out so I certainly could have missed it! Hence, I ask.


----------



## the Jester

KaiiLurker said:


> That's a bit of a strawman. Of course combat spells (and specially combat evocations) will sit down during non-combat, but in 3.x you have way more options than just those spells, Ghost sound, message, Dancing lights, Light, Daylight, the +4 to a stat spells, tenser's floating disk, phantom steed, Silent Image, the list of spells with out of combat uses is huge.




And 4e has them too. Ghost sound and light are cantrips. The stat buffs deserved to die IMHO, but 4e has them in the Essentials druid anyway. Tenser's floating disc and phantom steed are rituals. And so forth. 4e has a large number of out-of-combat abilities, between skills like Bluff, Diplomacy and Insight, rituals and utility powers. I don't recall any 3e abilities that let you reroll a failed Diplomacy check. 

All this "4e doesn't enable roleplaying" stuff may be true for some of you, but trying to say that it's true for _*me and my group*_ is simply wrong.



ForeverSlayer said:


> Actually no because 4th editions shelf life was supposed to last a lot longer than it did.




Do you have a cite for this? Because I have never heard any kind of "expected shelf life" comment from anyone at WotC, and I can't help but feel like you're making this comment up out of thin air and your own preferences. Which is fine- but in that case it's an opinion, not a fact.


----------



## Tony Vargas

ForeverSlayer said:


> So anytime we say anything negative about 4th edition in relevance to a discussion it's labeled as a quick "Edition War" and we are demonized in threads.



Really?  After 4e has been persecuted to it's grave, you feel criticism of 4e is being persecuted?  



> I know the truth isn't always easy to here but sometimes the things that are said is the truth and not "edition warring".



"The truth is the first casualty of war," it's said, and the edition wars were no exception.  (As an aside, it's worth noting, lying is not against the CoC but calling someone a liar /is/, even if they're demonstrably lying, it's still an insult.)



> All I mentioned was the fact that if 4th edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't be play testing 5th edition. The bottom line is this is a fact



We can speculate about the factors that led to the premature move to 5e.  Quality of 4e could be one of them, except that, in the technical sense of what makes a high-quality game, 4e is the best version of D&D to date, and not by a narrow margin - that's a fact, if you evaluate the various editions dispassionately.  There are many valid, if not exactly logical, reasons to dislike 4e, though, mostly dealing with tone, deviation from tradition (nostalgia), and, of course, the all-important-to-the-individual personal preference - as well as some more emotional rationalizations that don't hold together under scrutiny.  Whatever the reasons, between the rejection of 4e by the so-called "h4ters" and the unrealistic revenue goals set it by Hasbro, 4e was not sufficiently successful in a business sense, and WotC is taking the risk of further fragmenting and alienating the community with yet another rapid rev-roll.  

It's not a great situation, and making the best of it would require rational discourse - not snide pronouncements or other forms of edition warring.  "It didn't sell well" isn't a constructive criticism of 4e that can be used to build a better 5e.  Neither is general dislike, baseless innuendo, personal attacks, unverifiable anecdotal evidence, or general malice, baiting & trolling.  Those may have been useful weapons in the editions wars, but they're of no help in building 5e.  We have to beat those swords into plow-sheers and try to do something constructive.  That's a major change of tone and strategy from the edition wars, and it's all too easy to backslide.  


The "bottom line" is that the edition wars are over, and those who despised 4e have won.  4e is dead.  It will never be supported again (thanks the restrictiveness of the GSL).  Rather than continue to dance and spit on it's grave, try winning gracefully.  Show some dignity and good sportsmanship in victory.





Drowbane: You don't think strident and persistent denouncement of a product couldn't, perhaps, impact sales?


----------



## B.T.

> Really? After 4e has been persecuted to it's grave, you feel criticism of 4e is being persecuted?



I think describing a game as being "persecuted" may be a bit too much.


> We have to beat those swords into plow-sheers and try to do something constructive.



Like what?  I'm curious to see how 5e turns out (and I certainly hope it is a product that I want to play), but at this point, I think it might be better if the brand died out for a few years and was sold to a company who cared about it.


----------



## Tony Vargas

B.T. said:


> I think describing a game as being "persecuted" may be a bit too much.



The topic is a bunch of nerds disagreeing about the relative merits of different editions of the same game in internet discussion forums - and it's a being called a "War."  



> Like what?  I'm curious to see how 5e turns out (and I certainly hope it is a product that I want to play),



Constructive discourse that might touch on past editions would obviously be the merits of those editions -thing that they did 'right' or that delivered desirable gains - like the popular setting of 2e, modular multi-classing of 3e, or class-balance of 4e.  Likewise, the problems that past editions have had are worth examing, to avoid repeating them - such as, classic D&D's 'serial balance' (magic-user unplayably weak at 1st, 'balanced' by being overpowered at higher levles) or it's needlessly diverse and inconsistent subsystems, or 3e actually making casters even more overpowered, or the broader line associated with AD&D being over-extended to the point that TSR actually failed as a going concern, or the 'feat-tax'/math-kludges of 4e, or the proliferation of worthless 'trap feats' in both 3e and 4e, or even the ill-advised use of the GSL to try to bully 3pps into abandoning the d20 OGL, among many others.



> I think it might be better if the brand died out for a few years and was sold to a company who cared about it.



First part of that would be consistent with Hasbro's past actions.  It has often shelved under-performing properties for a time.  The second is not - Hasbro's philosophy on IP seems to be adverse to selling it off are farming it out, something like, if I remember the quote correctly:  "If someone else is willing to pay money for it, we should be able to make money with it, ourselves."


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Mercurius said:


> @Morrus , I actually think its only two or three people saying that 4E is not an RPG/D&D, they just keep coming back for more .




Since this is a meta thread, this is something I've wondered about myself.  I see some of the same people skirting the edge of the rules, usually staying inside them, but managing nonetheless to tear down conversation after conversation.  It seldom quite reaches overt threadcapping, but it manages to derail the thread.  It seldom quite reaches personal attack, but manages rile people up. Not infrequently, it gets a topic closed.   It looks an awful lot like trolling from my perspective, with the apparent aim to stop certain conversations from happening at all.  

I kind of got the impression that it was stuff like that which got the different editions segregated into different forums in the first place.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Tony Vargas said:


> Really?  After 4e has been persecuted to it's grave, you feel criticism of 4e is being persecuted?



He is out of line, in my opinion (and the mods, apparently).


Tony Vargas said:


> "The truth is the first casualty of war," it's said, and the edition wars were no exception.  (As an aside, it's worth noting, lying is not against the CoC but calling someone a liar /is/, even if they're demonstrably lying, it's still an insult.)



I think it's okay to say "you're wrong" though. And show why they're wrong. You can say "you're wrong, my experiences don't hold true to your post. Here's what I experienced." You can say "you're wrong, the mechanics work _this_ way, and the thing you said doesn't exist actually does, and works _this_ way."

The reason you can't call someone a liar is because it falls under the "assigning intentions" part of the CoC, and I'm glad it's there. I have a friend (and a player) who thinks this forum is way out of line for moderating as much as it does (and thus doesn't post here), but I'm very glad the forum takes the stance it does. He's not going to really add much to the discussion by calling people out and insulting them, and calling their opinions [enter vulgar statement here].


Tony Vargas said:


> We can speculate about the factors that led to the premature move to 5e.  Quality of 4e could be one of them, except that, in the technical sense of what makes a high-quality game, 4e is the best version of D&D to date, and not by a narrow margin - that's a fact, if you evaluate the various editions dispassionately.



Well, this is subjective, as much as people hate hearing that. "High quality game" has to be defined somehow, and that's where you can make it more objective. But, I can guarantee you that "high quality" to you will be very different than many others here.

Is it well designed? Yes. I'd say it's closer to accomplishing its goal than any other edition, but I can only state that as my opinion. Saying that you can somehow objectively do it based on a "technical sense" of a "high-quality game" as long as you evaluate it "dispassionately" is pretty off, from where I'm sitting. You can definitely evaluate how well it fulfills certain design goals, but whether or not those goals are "high-quality" in a "technical sense" is up for grabs (same as for 3.X, etc.).


Tony Vargas said:


> There are many valid, if not exactly logical, reasons to dislike 4e, though, mostly dealing with tone, deviation from tradition (nostalgia), and, of course, the all-important-to-the-individual personal preference - as well as some more emotional rationalizations that don't hold together under scrutiny.



Well, this isn't exactly striking me as non-edition warlike. If people dislike 4e, it's "not exactly logical" for them to? It's "emotional rationalizations that don't hold together under scrutiny"? Again, from where I'm sitting, you contribute quite a bit to the war on these boards.


Tony Vargas said:


> It's not a great situation, and making the best of it would require rational discourse - not snide pronouncements or other forms of edition warring.  "It didn't sell well" isn't a constructive criticism of 4e that can be used to build a better 5e.



Agreed, which is why I did report certain posts. Those types of statements aren't productive and they're completely uncalled for.


Tony Vargas said:


> Neither is general dislike, baseless innuendo, personal attacks, unverifiable anecdotal evidence, or general malice, baiting & trolling.  Those may have been useful weapons in the editions wars, but they're of no help in building 5e.  We have to beat those swords into plow-sheers and try to do something constructive.  That's a major change of tone and strategy from the edition wars, and it's all too easy to backslide.



I'd say that general dislike is valid to voice, but not really productive. Saying "it just didn't click with me" is fine. But, where do you go from there? Sometimes that's all there is to it, and there's nowhere to go, and saying so is valid. It's a feeling. But, no, it's not productive. Unverifiable anecdotal evidence is extremely valid in my opinion, though, and also productive. Talking about house rules (especially common ones), how your group(s) have played the game, etc. all help us see bits and pieces of the community. I wish they didn't get such a bad rap on these boards.

But, the baseless innuendo, personal attacks, general malice, baiting, and trolling needs to stop. Civility needs to be paramount here, if we're to be productive and escape any edition warring. I hope we can get there, and I hope the mods stay on top of it. As always, play what you like


----------



## B.T.

Tony Vargas said:


> The topic is a bunch of nerds disagreeing about the relative merits of different editions of the same game in internet discussion forums - and it's a being called a "War."



Well, that certainly sounds better than "edition slapfight."


> Constructive discourse that might touch on past editions would obviously be the merits of those editions -thing that they did 'right' or that delivered desirable gains - like the popular setting of 2e, modular multi-classing of 3e, or class-balance of 4e. Likewise, the problems that past editions have had are worth examing, to avoid repeating them - such as, classic D&D's 'serial balance' (magic-user unplayably weak at 1st, 'balanced' by being overpowered at higher levles) or it's needlessly diverse and inconsistent subsystems, or 3e actually making casters even more overpowered, or the broader line associated with AD&D being over-extended to the point that TSR actually failed as a going concern, or the 'feat-tax'/math-kludges of 4e, or the proliferation of worthless 'trap feats' in both 3e and 4e, or even the ill-advised use of the GSL to try to bully 3pps into abandoning the d20 OGL, among many others.



That's fair enough, but I'm not sure we'd be covering new ground.  Most of the flaws of 3e and 4e are well-known; it's just that people are unwilling to admit flaws in the system.

I mean, you have people on the Paizo boards who _still_ don't acknowledge the fighter-wizard imbalance.  No point in arguing with them, since their arguments come down to "I haven't seen it, so it doesn't exist" and "the DM should change the rules anyhow."


----------



## Harlock

Tony Vargas said:


> [snip]... in the technical sense of what makes a high-quality game, 4e is the best version of D&D to date, and not by a narrow margin - that's a fact, if you evaluate the various editions dispassionately...




I have seen this said before, perhaps even by you, and it surprises me that you feel what makes a high quality game is objective and not subjective. What's more, it's made even more ironic by the fact that you use that to prop up your own subjective bias for a particular edition. Merely an observation from someone fairly dispassionate about D&D, but at least hopeful that WotC can achieve its stated goal of unifying the fan base, though at this point I am not certain I would play it as I am enjoying a different system thoroughly.


----------



## Fifth Element

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e is dead.  It will never be supported again (thanks the restrictiveness of the GSL)



This is only true to the extent that 1E , 2E, OD&D etc. are "dead". And yet these games are still supported by fans and third-party publishers alike. 4E will not die. There's at least one "retro"clone in the works already.

On topic, the OP's premise is false. Some criticisms of 4E are met with "please no edition warring", but those are the ones with posts like, well, the OP's. It takes a biased eye to see only those, and none of the legitimate discussions of the edition in which no claims of edition wars are made.


----------



## Someone

Dragoslav said:


> I also have a sincere question: What non-combat rules or mechanics does 4e not have that previous editions did have?




As a matter of fact, as a compliment to the above quote, do the following excercise: Take a character sheet of any edition. Now pick a black marker and cross out anything that has to do more or less directly with:

a) killing things
b) taking those thing's stuff.

You'll end with a black sheet with only your name perhaps your Diplomacy score and maybe your aligment (but only if it's 4e because in other editions it determined what spells could affect you). People forget what kind of game we're talking about*. It's not like D&D has even been designed as a narrative game.



*I say this without decrying it. D&D is what it is. And it's very good at it.


----------



## Lwaxy

Back to topic, please, this is not about 4e, this is about edition warring perception.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Harlock said:


> I have seen this said before, perhaps even by you, and it surprises me that you feel what makes a high quality game is objective and not subjective.



I'm a data analyst, by profession, so do I tend to look at things analytically, and, yes, as 'objectively' as I can (philosophical points about perception determining reality notwithstanding).  

I also pay a lot of attention to how people debate, some of that started with critical thinking in school, but a lot of it is from a modest interest in politics.  My observation is that once one side of a debate has failed to prove their assertion logically or 'objectively,' they turn to the defense that the issue is 'all subjective.'

So, yes, 4e is, as I said, on a /technical level/ (which is just a limited part of what makes a game great), objectively higher-quality than prior eds.  That doesn't require anyone to like it, though, nor am I - especially at this late date, with 4e /dead/ - trying to ruin anyone's enjoyment of the hobby by converting them to the losing side of the edition war.  



> What's more, it's made even more ironic by the fact that you use that to prop up your own subjective bias for a particular edition.



D&D had lost me by 1995.  I don't have the subjective bias for the game that I did when I defended AD&D's quirks to aficionados of different systems in the 80s.  I don't have any fetish for the new or anything, either.  I liked 3.0 for the things it did better than classic D&D, enough so that it brought me back to the game, though with only modest enthusiasm.  I was unimpressed with 3.5's change-for-the-sake-of-change (and selling the core books again), but it wasn't any worse than 3e, so I kept playing it, even if I didn't buy many of those books.   Like 3.0, 4e improved on prior eds, this time with a bit more innovation, so I was happy to adopt it - I'd've been happier if 3e had gotten the full 10 year run that both eds of AD&D had, but 8 was pretty close.  Unlike 3.0 or 4e or even 3.5, Essentials actually managed to make the game worse, so I didn't adopt it, though I've had to play with a lot of it in organized play, which has degraded that experience a bit.

I take D&D like I do other games, on their merits.  I /do/ tend to be cynical, and to judge a game very critically at first, so 3.0 and 4e both had to be real improvements for me to take them up, and they were.  5e will have to pass the same test.  It'll have to be better than 4e.  So far, in my cynical/critical mode I see almost nothing in the actual playtest to make me think that might be the case, and, of course, I discount the voluminous 'vaporware' that's the only other thing we have to go on.


----------



## Harlock

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm a data analyst, by profession, so do I tend to look at things analytically, and, yes, as 'objectively' as I can (philosophical points about perception determining reality notwithstanding).
> 
> I also pay a lot of attention to how people debate, some of that started with critical thinking in school, but a lot of it is from a modest interest in politics.  My observation is that once one side of a debate has failed to prove their assertion logically or 'objectively,' they turn to the defense that the issue is 'all subjective.'
> 
> So, yes, 4e is, as I said, on a /technical level/ (which is just a limited part of what makes a game great), objectively higher-quality than prior eds.  That doesn't require anyone to like it, though, nor am I - especially at this late date, with 4e /dead/ - trying to ruin anyone's enjoyment of the hobby by converting them to the losing side of the edition war.
> 
> D&D had lost me by 1995.  I don't have the subjective bias for the game that I did when I defended AD&D's quirks to aficionados of different systems in the 80s.  I don't have any fetish for the new or anything, either.  I liked 3.0 for the things it did better than classic D&D, enough so that it brought me back to the game, though with only modest enthusiasm.  I was unimpressed with 3.5's change-for-the-sake-of-change (and selling the core books again), but it wasn't any worse than 3e, so I kept playing it, even if I didn't buy many of those books.   Like 3.0, 4e improved on prior eds, this time with a bit more innovation, so I was happy to adopt it - I'd've been happier if 3e had gotten the full 10 year run that both eds of AD&D had, but 8 was pretty close.  Unlike 3.0 or 4e or even 3.5, Essentials actually managed to make the game worse, so I didn't adopt it, though I've had to play with a lot of it in organized play, which has degraded that experience a bit.
> 
> I take D&D like I do other games, on their merits.  I /do/ tend to be cynical, and to judge a game very critically at first, so 3.0 and 4e both had to be real improvements for me to take them up, and they were.  5e will have to pass the same test.  It'll have to be better than 4e.  So far, in my cynical/critical mode I see almost nothing in the actual playtest to make me think that might be the case, and, of course, I discount the voluminous 'vaporware' that's the only other thing we have to go on.




Thanks for explaining your position. I now understand where you are coming from, and that is helpful in any discussion!


----------



## Tony Vargas

Fifth Element said:


> This is only true to the extent that 1E , 2E, OD&D etc. are "dead". And yet these games are still supported by fans and third-party publishers alike. 4E will not die. There's at least one "retro"clone in the works already.



The GSL is a lot less permissive than the OGL was, a 'retro-clone' is not going to be easy, and, even if one that could stand the legal test were brought out, Hasbro has the resources to legally harass it into oblivion, whether it's in the right or not.  And, Hasbro is fairly litigious, even for a big corporation.  Likely mere cheap-lawyer C&Ds will be enough to snuff any 4e clones that threaten to see the light of day. 

The "loss of revenue to Pathfinder," which, under the OGL, had a /much/ easier time avoiding any slightest legal issue, is more than adequate motive to take such action.

4e is likely to be the deadest edition of D&D ever.  I doubt there'll be WotC ninjas stealing your books, but future support strikes me as vanishingly unlikely.

As always, my outlook is cynical and pessimistic in the extreme, and I'll admit that I often find myself being pleasantly surprised...




> On topic, the OP's premise is false. Some criticisms of 4E are met with "please no edition warring", but those are the ones with posts like, well, the OP's. It takes a biased eye to see only those, and none of the legitimate discussions of the edition in which no claims of edition wars are made.



Nod.  There are many valid criticism of 4e.  Why the most strident critics of it rarely manage to articulate them is a mystery.


----------



## Tony Vargas

B.T. said:


> I'm not sure we'd be covering new ground.  Most of the flaws of 3e and 4e are well-known; it's just that people are unwilling to admit flaws in the system.
> 
> I mean, you have people on the Paizo boards who _still_ don't acknowledge the fighter-wizard imbalance.  No point in arguing with them, since their arguments come down to "I haven't seen it, so it doesn't exist" and "the DM should change the rules anyhow."



Exactly.  There are a lot of known problems with all editions of D&D, but some of them aren't valid problems - being matters of perception or bias - and some of them are valid problems that are vociferously denied.

It'd be valuable to winnow out the valid strengths and weaknesses of each ed, in order to build a stronger 5e.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I doubt there'll be WotC ninjas stealing your books...




Not for all of us, but for the subset of players who went paperless with 4Ed, unless DDI support of 4Ed is continued, it will be as if they had.

(And if the paperless players start printing up the stuff they want to keep to avoid this, they'll have paid for it twice...)


----------



## Harlock

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not for all of us, but for the subset of players who went paperless with 4Ed, unless DDI support of 4Ed is continued, it will be as if they had.
> 
> (And if the paperless players start printing up the stuff they want to keep to avoid this, they'll have paid for it twice...)




Not that this isn't an entirely valid concern, but couldn't they have seen this coming? Maybe now is sooner than expected by some (perhaps many!) but there was always going to be a D&D Next, no matter what it was called. Can DDI stuff be saved as a pdf or saved to file? I ask because I never bothered with it more than for character sheets and that was several years and many nights' sleep ago.


----------



## nightwyrm

Harlock said:


> Not that this isn't an entirely valid concern, but couldn't they have seen this coming? Maybe now is sooner than expected by some (perhaps many!) but there was always going to be a D&D Next, no matter what it was called. Can DDI stuff be saved as a pdf or saved to file? I ask because I never bothered with it more than for character sheets and that was several years and many nights' sleep ago.




The most important parts of DDI (the stuff ppl are paying for) is not the pdfs but the online tools such as the character builder.


----------



## Umbran

Tony Vargas said:


> So, yes, 4e is, as I said, on a /technical level/ (which is just a limited part of what makes a game great), objectively higher-quality than prior eds.




"Quality", in that sense, is a human-subjective value, not an objective one.

Assume, for a moment, we live in a Newtonian universe, and I have a piece of string.  I can tell you several objective things about that string - its length, its mass, its tensile strength, its chemical composition....

I can compare that first string (String A) to another (String B).  I can tell you which is longer, which is heavier, which has higher tensile strength.  But, I cannot tell you which is technically a "better" string, because that depends upon what you're going to use the string for.  You and your neighbor may have different string-needs, and thus require different qualities in your string. Your need for a string to use as a laundry line calls for a string with different attributes than your neighbor who wants to tie up a roast he's cooking for dinner.


----------



## Fifth Element

Hey Benoist! Did you really just come by to post about how you don't like to post here?



Odhanan said:


> It's not just 4th ed but yeah, it's basically become an tabletop RPG meme on the internet that as soon as you start to actually have preferences not only in the positive, but especially in the negative (i.e. "this game is great, I like this game because etc etc" or "this game sucks, it's crap because etc etc") you are engaging in "Edition Warring", "OneTrueWay" (which is really just MyOwnWay), and so on, so forth.



I'd suggest this is the meme, actually. Just because you and the OP see every response to some non-productive, broad-brush, insulting comment about an edition as an attempt to shut down discussion, that doesn't mean it's true. It's selective perception (which is an extremely common human trait). It's people wanting to be able to insult other people's tastes, then claiming oppression when they're called on it. "It's _my opinion_ that you're an idiot. It's an _opinion_!" does not make calling someone an idiot any better. It doesn't even fly on the other site you mentioned - it doesn't get moderated, it just gets called out by other posters.

There have been many productive discussions about the flaws of 4E and other editions, on this board and others (want to have one? I'd be happy to contribute), though such productive discussion tends to grind to a halt when someone comes in with their "4E is not an RPG" or similar claptrap. If you have something real to say, then say it.

And finally, I should point out that something being a meme does not make it inaccurate. So even if this is a meme, as you claim, that does not mean it's not a valid point.


----------



## Fifth Element

Tony Vargas said:


> So, yes, 4e is, as I said, on a /technical level/ (which is just a limited part of what makes a game great), objectively higher-quality than prior eds.



I'm very analytical by nature, but I remain extremely skeptical of a claim that an RPG can be objectively better than another.

It's more specifically designed, if you understand me, but I don't think even that could be called higher quality. It's so much more art than science that claims of objectivity ring hollow.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Umbran said:


> But, I cannot tell you which is technically a "better" string, because that depends upon what you're going to use the string for.  You and your neighbor may have different string-needs, and thus require different qualities in your string. Your need for a string to use as a laundry line calls for a string with different attributes than your neighbor who wants to tie up a roast he's cooking for dinner.




Wapcaplet: ONLY STRING?! It's everything! It's...it's waterproof!

Simpson: No it isn't!

Wapcaplet: All right, it's water resistant then!

Simpson: It isn't!

Wapcaplet: All right, it's water absorbent! It's...Super Absorbent String! "ABSORB WATER TODAY WITH SIMPSON'S INDIVIDUAL WATER ABSORB-A-TEX STRINGETTES! AWAY WITH FLOODS!"

Simpson: You just said it was waterproof!

Wapcaplet: "AWAY WITH THE DULL DRUDGERY OF WORKADAY TIDAL WAVES! USE SIMPSON'S INDIVIDUAL FLOOD PREVENTERS!"

Simpson: You're mad!


----------



## TrippyHippy

From an outside perspective, 'warring' must be hilarious. 

If you take this whole thread as being a response to another thread whose OP was effectively writing a manifesto, I'm not entirely sure where the boundaries are for what is warring and what is not.

Oh, and for the record I think 4e was a poorly designed game, written at a time when the whole 'system matters' mantra was at it's zenith. 4e was the logical conclusion to what people were erroneously claiming were the fundamentals of good design at the time. The result was division and factionalizing. 

Am I a warrior!?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I'm very analytical by nature, but I remain extremely skeptical of a claim that an RPG can be objectively better than another.




F.A.T.A.L., Spawn of Fashan, World of Synnibarr & RaHoWa spring to mind as being _conspicuously and legendarily_ bad, each for a variety of reasons.

RIFTS, while not in the same league as those, is notorious for having wonky mechanics and a lack of play testing, noted not just by haters, but fans and even game designers who contributed to it.  Some of those designers have even alleged that its mastermind, K. Siembieda does not playtest new material.

And that's the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Herschel

Fifth Element said:


> I'm very analytical by nature, but I remain extremely skeptical of a claim that an RPG can be objectively better than another.



The thing to keep in mind is that under Tony's context "better" (objective) =/= more fun (subjective). In that context, from a mathematical and design standpoint 4E is better, just like each previous edition has been "better" than what came before it. In other words, it works a lot broader and longer without "breaking".

But personal preference still decides what's fun for someone. Some people don't care one bit about the math, and others specifically like the goofy quirks inherent in different systems because it evokes the feelings they find fun. 

From another angle, take broccoli. It's objectively better for a human body than Fritos. It has more vitamins, minerals, fiber and nutrients and isn't a starchy, deep-fried oil sponge. But that doesn't mean everyone prefers broccoli to Fritos. Depending on your bodily reactions, one or the other may even be more prone to giving you gas. 

Of course another issue is the English language itself with multiple words having multiple meanings and the boatload of exceptions.


----------



## Dannager

Fifth Element said:


> I'm very analytical by nature, but I remain extremely skeptical of a claim that an RPG can be objectively better than another.




It's easy to pick at the idea that games can be judged objectively, because from a very real standpoint, it cannot be definitively said that something is better than something else; good and bad have mutable definitions.

However, these criticisms are little more than academic. For nearly all practical purposes, it's *absolutely* possible to judge whether one game is better than another.

For instance, professional video game reviewers do exactly that for a living. And, collectively and in aggregate, they set the nominative standard for what makes a game good. It's certainly possible to disagree with a particular review, but what this tells everyone _else_ is that your opinions regarding video games are probably fairly far-removed from what most appreciate. Could one claim that Superman 64 is a better game than Super Metroid? Sure, they could, but that places them so far outside the norm that everyone listening might as well disregard anything they have to say on the topic.

The same can be applied, quite readily, to roleplaying game systems. Some are designed with care and well-considered principles, and others are slapped together haphazardly by amateurs. The former tend to play better than the latter.

We need to stop walking on eggshells when it comes to words like "better" or "worse", and the whole argument of, "You can't say that something is objectively better than something else!" really ought to be permanently retired from discussions of game editions, since that's a fundamentally non-productive statement and a great way to shut down an otherwise fruitful discussion.


----------



## Lanefan

Tony Vargas said:


> The "bottom line" is that the edition wars are over, and those who despised 4e have won.  4e is dead.  It will never be supported again (thanks the restrictiveness of the GSL).  Rather than continue to dance and spit on it's grave, try winning gracefully.  Show some dignity and good sportsmanship in victory.



Several things leap to mind on reading this:

1. Suggesting the edition wars are over merely because 4e's had to surrender takes a rather narrow view of the wars; as there's way more fights out there than just the pro-anti 4e battle.  Believe me; in the last few years I've had some rather loud edition arguments (both in person and online) in which 4e was never mentioned!.

2. Saying 4e will never be supported again may be premature, in that 4e has something going for it no other edition really had: WotC has poured a pile of money into online support for it and it's hard to imagine them simply throwing all that away.  Sure they may not add (much) to it going forward in the short term, but if 4e hangs around to any great extent in the community it wouldn't be that difficult to resume online support later.

2a. There's also the possibility that Hasbro will sell off (or farm out) the D&D franchise, at which point anything can happen depending largely on who buys it and what they want to do with it.

3. No edition is dead as long as someone keeps playing it.  Just ask [MENTION=2885]diaglo[/MENTION] 

Lan-"if the armistice has been signed why hasn't someone told the troops?"-efan


----------



## Fifth Element

Herschel said:


> The thing to keep in mind is that under Tony's context "better" (objective) =/= more fun (subjective). In that context, from a mathematical and design standpoint 4E is better, just like each previous edition has been "better" than what came before it. In other words, it works a lot broader and longer without "breaking".
> 
> But personal preference still decides what's fun for someone. Some people don't care one bit about the math, and others specifically like the goofy quirks inherent in different systems because it evokes the feelings they find fun.



That makes it entirely academic, though, doesn't it? The point of an RPG is not to have a mathematically "better" RPG, it's to play it and have fun. What's the point of calling an RPG "better" if said definition does not mean it's any better at doing what it's designed to do?

What I'm saying is, I reject any definition of a "better" RPG that does not take into consideration what an RPG is for.


----------



## Fifth Element

Dannager said:


> However, these criticisms are little more than academic. For nearly all practical purposes, it's *absolutely* possible to judge whether one game is better than another.
> 
> For instance, professional video game reviewers do exactly that for a living. And, collectively and in aggregate, they set the nominative standard for what makes a game good.



And once we have full agreement among reviewers about which games are best, we can say that games can be judged objectively. If it's absolutely possible to judge whether one game is better than another, objectively, then we would only need one game reviewer. He would do the checklist or whatever, and figure out which game is best. But instead we have many reviewers, each with their own preferences and biases, each rating games differently.

Just because most people prefer a particular game does not mean it is objectively better than other games. That's not what objectively means.


----------



## Fifth Element

Lanefan said:


> 1. Suggesting the edition wars are over merely because 4e's had to surrender takes a rather narrow view of the wars; as there's way more fights out there than just the pro-anti 4e battle.  Believe me; in the last few years I've had some rather loud edition arguments (both in person and online) in which 4e was never mentioned!.



Absolutely. Edition wars aren't just 4E vs. whoever, they exist for every edition. And as these threads show, there are still those engaging in warring behaviour about 4E, even though said war has been "won".



Lanefan said:


> 2. Saying 4e will never be supported again may be premature, in that 4e has something going for it no other edition really had: WotC has poured a pile of money into online support for it and it's hard to imagine them simply throwing all that away.  Sure they may not add (much) to it going forward in the short term, but if 4e hangs around to any great extent in the community it wouldn't be that difficult to resume online support later.



That's a good point. Are they going to "turn off" 4E subscriptions? That would seem like throwing money away. Who knows?


----------



## JamesonCourage

Dannager said:


> ...the whole argument of, "You can't say that something is objectively better than something else!" really ought to be permanently retired from discussions of game editions, since that's a fundamentally non-productive statement and a great way to shut down an otherwise fruitful discussion.



Well, it's usually in response to "_X_ is objectively better than _Y_" which is also pretty much completely unproductive. Besides people like me, Umbran, and Fifth Element disagreeing on the objectivity of it, we have people that object to it being "better" than their preferred edition, and people who already believe that it is "better" and so adds nothing to their opinion.

So, basically, when you say "you can't say that something is objectively better than something else" within the context of "edition X is objectively better [designed, from a technical point, whatever]", it's not productive, _but neither is the claim that they're replying to_. Saying something is "objectively better" is pretty much any regard to something else will get people who dislike the label and disagree with your "mischaracterization" of what they like, people who like your label and give support against the first group, and people who think objectively defining "better" in regards to something like "high quality" in RPG design to be a moving target, and unproductive from the start.

So, sure, let's ban "you can't say that something is objectively better than something else." But, let's ban it by never bringing up that Something is objectively "better" or "higher quality" or etc. than Something Else. Because, really, that's not at all productive either.

Instead, let's say what we like, what we dislike, and _why_ we think something is better at doing what it intends to do. Saying "X is better" and leaving it at that just doesn't help the conversation. As always, play what you like


----------



## Lanefan

Fifth Element said:


> What I'm saying is, I reject any definition of a "better" RPG that does not take into consideration what an RPG is for.



Agreed; and further:

A bus is designed for hauling people.  A trailer truck, for hauling freight.  A snowplow, for clearing snow.

With no surrounding context, which is the better vehicle?

Lanefan


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Fifth Element said:


> That makes it entirely academic, though, doesn't it? The point of an RPG is not to have a mathematically "better" RPG, it's to play it and have fun. What's the point of calling an RPG "better" if said definition does not mean it's any better at doing what it's designed to do?
> 
> What I'm saying is, I reject any definition of a "better" RPG that does not take into consideration what an RPG is for.




Well, that brings us back to Umbran's point, from the other angle. Is 2d10 or 3d6 as a resolution mechanic better than 1d20? Impossible to say. Does 2d10 or 3d6 produce a bell curve of probable options while d20 is linear? Yes, most definitely. Ergo, if we want a curve in the main resolution, 2d10 or 3d6 or some other such variant are highly likely to be better than d20. If we want linear, the opposite.

That doesn't say anything about perfection, either. Just because we want linear, doesn't mean that 1d20 trumps percentage dice or even d12 or something, at least not on that basis alone. It does pretty much trump 2d10 or 3d6.   A is better than B doesn't say anything about C, D, etc.

Moreover, and this is where the point becomes really relevant, one of the multiple dice curves are likely to be much better than d20 + (bunch of stuff to fake a curve). And for that matter, d20 by itself is likely to be a lot better than d20 + (bunch of stuff to fake a curve), even with the curve being now missing. So the only way this won't be true is if the "bunch of stuff" add something important to the game, that you couldn't get more cleanly by using one of the more straight-forward options. Thus, once we know if we want, generally, a curve or linear, and what else we want on top of it, we can examine the main die resolution *and* the supporting materials objectively to see if they do that. 

Sometimes when you do that examination you find out that the analysis of the desires is somewhat incomplete. (This is what happens someti9mes when people, for example, disparage hit point or Armor as AC without reallying considering the full range of what they are intended to do.)

It's impossible to be in any way objective about pieces of game design without clear analysis of the design. Once having arrived at the clear analysis, the critique of the design is likely to be less controversial, because it will be couched in terms of the analysis. Or on the flip side, it's not so much that people are arguing with bad logic, as that they are assuming premises that aren't shared or even articulated.


----------



## Dausuul

One can certainly point out that 4E split the fanbase. A lot of people deeply dislike 4E and jumped ship for Pathfinder. This means any would-be reunification edition must consider the desires of those people.

One can also point out that 4E split the fanbase rather than driving the whole thing away. A lot of people love 4E and stuck with it. This means any would-be reunification edition must _also_ consider the desires of those people.

I am slightly boggled by the number of people who seem to think that the thing to do is completely ignore one of these two groups.


----------



## Fifth Element

JamesonCourage said:


> So, sure, let's ban "you can't say that something is objectively better than something else." But, let's ban it by never bringing up that Something is objectively "better" or "higher quality" or etc. than Something Else. Because, really, that's not at all productive either.
> 
> Instead, let's say what we like, what we dislike, and _why_ we think something is better at doing what it intends to do. Saying "X is better" and leaving it at that just doesn't help the conversation. As always, play what you like



Excellent point. X is _objectively_ better than Y does nothing for conversation. If you're claiming objectivity, it means you think there is no discussion to be had. If someone disagrees with you, that means they don't see the truth.


----------



## Harlock

Dannager said:


> It's easy to pick at the idea that games can be judged objectively, because from a very real standpoint, it cannot be definitively said that something is better than something else; good and bad have mutable definitions.
> 
> However, these criticisms are little more than academic. For nearly all practical purposes, it's *absolutely* possible to judge whether one game is better than another.
> 
> For instance, professional video game reviewers do exactly that for a living. And, collectively and in aggregate, they set the nominative standard for what makes a game good. It's certainly possible to disagree with a particular review, but what this tells everyone _else_ is that your opinions regarding video games are probably fairly far-removed from what most appreciate. Could one claim that Superman 64 is a better game than Super Metroid? Sure, they could, but that places them so far outside the norm that everyone listening might as well disregard anything they have to say on the topic.
> 
> The same can be applied, quite readily, to roleplaying game systems. Some are designed with care and well-considered principles, and others are slapped together haphazardly by amateurs. The former tend to play better than the latter.
> 
> We need to stop walking on eggshells when it comes to words like "better" or "worse", and the whole argument of, "You can't say that something is objectively better than something else!" really ought to be permanently retired from discussions of game editions, since that's a fundamentally non-productive statement and a great way to shut down an otherwise fruitful discussion.




But reviews _are_ subjective by their very nature! You can comment on game mechanics, certainly, but that is not all a game is. Using your video game example, Final Fantasy XIII sucks. It's a simple button masher when it comes to mechanics. Oh sure, you can change paradigms, but they even dumbed that down with automating it completely, if I so choose. Mechanically, it's one of the worst game ever made, but that it STILL my opinion. 

Someone else might think it's fine and dandy because all they want to do is press X. A third person might be a father who bought the game for his kid who is glad the kid can play it by herself. And, if the designers of the game were going for something that could be played by anyone, they hit the ball out of the park and should be commended because they hit their design paradigm goal! Give them a raise and release a sequel! (Oh, look at that...)

Add to the fact that the game is more than its mechanics! Look how beautiful FF13 is. Look at the storyline and how well it unfolds with the flashbacks. I could go on with more *opinions*, but again, mechanics alone do not make a game.

I might add that several game designers disagree with you as well. Most recently and notably, Monte Cook. Specifically, I quote:


			
				Monte Cook said:
			
		

> I will argue that a great game can be designed embracing the idea that the GM and his or her ability to use logic and reasoning. (Of course it can. That’s the way virtually all tabletop games were designed for decades.) *That’s not sloppy game design* (making the GM do all the work), *it’s a design paradigm* that can shape a game designer’s choices.



_emphasis added_.

Reviews are subjective. Mechanics can be and are subjective. Saying otherwise is just plain ignoring the facts.


----------



## Odhanan

Fifth Element said:


> Hey Benoist! Did you really just come by to post about how you don't like to post here?



Not really.

What I saw was someone who felt let down by ENWorld's moderation which basically coopted your view that one has to be "with D&D... all editions", or rather pretend to be on air when posting on the board, in the presence of Eric's grandma in any case, or shut the heck up in order to "keep the peace" and maintain an "emotionally safe environment" for the users of the site.

To him and others like him I say: you actually don't have to get along with that kind of moderation. There are places out there, such as the RPG Site, which actually allow you to speak your mind, as long as you are ready to take a piece of the other posters' minds in return for your opinions.

You should know, since you post on the RPG Site yourself, Iain.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Mechanics can be and are subjective.




Mechanics can also be objective: a FRPG including a weapon called a "greatsword" that, by rule, cannot cut or kill any character in the game, unlike the "butterknife" in the same RPG is an obvious and objective flaw*.  It does not in any way model what it purports to model.





* Unless the game's designers are using non-standard definitions of "greatsword" and "butterknife", of course.


----------



## Fifth Element

Odhanan said:


> What I saw was someone who felt let down by ENWorld's moderation which basically coopted your view that one has to be "with D&D... all editions", or rather pretend to be on air when posting on the board, in the presence of Eric's grandma in any case, or shut the heck up in order to "keep the peace" and maintain an "emotionally safe environment" for the users of the site.



No, you absolutely do not have to like all editions of D&D. Just be respectful when expressing anything - either like or dislike, both things can be expressed in an adult manner without resorting to insults. It's not about a "safe" environment, it's about an environment that's actually conducive to discussion. The idea that you need to be able to curse and degrade others in order to have a discussion is sorely misguided.



Odhanan said:


> You should know, since you post on the RPG Site yourself, Iain.



I do, and that's how I know it's not all you're cracking it up to be. You complain that at ENWorld you can't speak your mind, but at theRPGsite you can't really, either. It's not the mods there that get you, it's the other posters who are only too quick to call you names and dismiss everything you say in the rudest way possible if you happen to disagree with them or dare to like 4E (for example).

All too often there's not much actual discussion at that site, certainly no more than we have here. There's a lot of vitriol and name-calling though. There's lots of talking past each other. But nor much discussion.

That's all I'll say about another board in this thread. I only mention it since you've promoted it twice now, and I thought I'd provide a bit of balance from someone who is not a moderator there.


----------



## Fifth Element

Double post.


----------



## Herschel

Fifth Element said:


> That makes it entirely academic, though, doesn't it?



 Yes, no and everything in-between because....


> The point of an RPG is not to have a mathematically "better" RPG, it's to play it and have fun.



 Yes and no. A mathematically better game facilitates fun for many also. 


> What's the point of calling an RPG "better" if said definition does not mean it's any better at doing what it's designed to do?



 Because it's an accurate word for the meaning intended. Unfortunately it's also an accurate word for other meanings because English is a goofy language or multiple meanings and exceptions. 


> What I'm saying is, I reject any definition of a "better" RPG that does not take into consideration what an RPG is for.



 Again, two different meanings of the word. From my perspective, "tighter" would be a "better" term to use but it just sounds goofy.


----------



## Herschel

Fifth Element said:


> That makes it entirely academic, though, doesn't it?



 Yes, no and everything in-between.


> The point of an RPG is not to have a mathematically "better" RPG, it's to play it and have fun.



 Yes and no. A mathematically better game facilitates fun for many also. 


> What's the point of calling an RPG "better" if said definition does not mean it's any better at doing what it's designed to do?



 Because it's an accurate word for the meaning intended. Unfortunately it's also an accurate word for other meanings because English is a goofy language or multiple meanings and exceptions. 


> What I'm saying is, I reject any definition of a "better" RPG that does not take into consideration what an RPG is for.



 Again, two different meanings of the word. From my perspective, "tighter" would be a "better" term to use but it sounds goofy.


----------



## Harlock

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Mechanics can also be objective: a FRPG including a weapon called a "greatsword" that, by rule, cannot cut or kill any character in the game, unlike the "butterknife" in the same RPG is an obvious and objective flaw*.  It does not in any way model what it purports to model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Unless the game's designers are using non-standard definitions of "greatsword" and "butterknife", of course.




I haven't seen anyone arguing otherwise. And the fact that there needs to be a metric by which to measure, as you mentioned the designer's subjective meaning, sort of proves that some folks may be measuring by a different standard, which is of course, a subjective goalpost if it does have objective measures. That's why people like different games, or editions, for different reasons. Which is why I find all of this so amusing in the first place as people claim superiority over one facet or another that someone else obviously finds subjectively worse by their objective measure.

This got me to thinking a bit, which I know to be a dangerous thing, but I share my thoughts anyway. One can claim that one book is objectively better than another. Book A has no typos. It has a lot of words, characters that do things, a cover with artwork that clearly depicts the feel of the novel. Book B had some editing problems, a typo or two per chapter, and a cover that in no way relates to the story. That said, Book A is pedantic, pedestrian, filled with one dimensional characters, and has a plot that doesn't interest you, but would be loved by 13-year-old cat girls that say "kawaii" all the time. Book B is Tolkein with typos so we forgive it's objective shortcomings. No version of Dungeons and Dragons is quantifiably better than another, unless you introduce some measure or metric, i.e. profits, numbers of copies of core books sold, number of letters sent in by players saying good job, etc.


----------



## Odhanan

It's only fair for you to give your side of the story, Iain. Since you keep on posting on the RPG Site, we must do something right as far as you're concerned, however. We might just be entertaining to you, or you like to get your time away from grandma's earshot. I guess the only way to find that out is to visit the site to see what that whole back-and-forth is about.


----------



## Harlock

Herschel said:


> Again, two different meanings of the word. From my perspective, "*tight*er" would be a "better" term to use but it sounds goofy.




Monte Cook mentioned that term in his rather excellent blog post as well...


----------



## Fifth Element

Herschel said:


> Yes and no. A mathematically better game facilitates fun for many also.



For many, it does. But a game that is better for many is not objectively "better" now, is it? If it was _objectively_ better in a meaningful way, it would be better for everyone.



Herschel said:


> Because it's an accurate word for the meaning intended. Unfortunately it's also an accurate word for other meanings because English is a goofy language or multiple meanings and exceptions.



Absolutely, so it pays to be precise. When someone says "4E is objectively better than 3E" but means only the maths, you'd better say that big and loud up front, because that's not what someone reading it is going to think when they see it.


----------



## Fifth Element

Harlock said:


> Monte Cook mentioned that term in his rather excellent blog post as well...



It's certainly a better term for what is trying to be said.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I haven't seen anyone arguing otherwise.




Fifth Element's statement:


> I'm very analytical by nature, but I remain extremely skeptical of a claim that an RPG can be objectively better than another.




...would seem to indicate a belief that there are no RPGs out there that we can point to that have objectively poor design.

While I chose a silly and nonexistent exaggeration to illustrate my point, the fact remains that the games I pointed out upthread are known to have _objectively_ bad mechanics- some to the point of being offensive.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Lanefan said:


> 1. Suggesting the edition wars are over merely because 4e's had to surrender takes a rather narrow view of the wars;



True.  I was speaking only of the 3.5/4e split.  That's what the 'edition war' is usually describing.  

It's true that there are folks out there who hate 3.x and 4e equally, and as vehemently as the 3.5 warriors hated 4e, and, for them, the war is not over, they still have to destroy/suppress 3.x (good luck on that with the SRD out there, BTW).  

The OP was specifically talking about the 4e side of the war though, how any criticism of 4e, specifically is labeled 'edition warring.'  At this point, it's really not, it's more analogous to ongoing violence by occupying troops after a war has ended.  

'Edition Cleansing,' perhaps?

[quoite]2. Saying 4e will never be supported again may be premature, in that 4e has something going for it no other edition really had: WotC has poured a pile of money into online support for it and it's hard to imagine them simply throwing all that away.[/quote] considering the loss of /one/ programmer shut down the development of the on-line tools for years, I think the amount of money they invested in it was pretty small. 

5e will certainly have on-line support, too.  It might be that the existing on-line tools are adapted to support both, if that's practical.  Otherwise 5e will have to be developed independently, and all available resources will go to that.  It's easy enough for WotC to leave the existing stuff up, but even that requires maintenance, and will have to end eventually.

Of course, practical or not, the goal of 'uniting' the player base around 5e won't be served by keeping an alternative to it available.  



> 2a. There's also the possibility that Hasbro will sell off (or farm out) the D&D franchise, at which point anything can happen depending largely on who buys it and what they want to do with it.



It would be a radical reversal from their past behavior, but, yes, anything is possible.



> 3. No edition is dead as long as someone keeps playing it.



Yeah, an RPG's 'life' is not exactly like an actual life - dead is a matter of degree.  The OGL lets 3.5 be supported indefinitely by 3pps, and has been adapted to do something similar for prior eds via retro-clones.  4e is unlikely to get treatment.  The GSL is much more restrictive, and the nature of 4e design, which is very systematic and balanced, doesn't lend itself to the open-source development environment.  You could retro-clone 4e and get something that 'feels' a bit like it, but it's unlikely to capture 4e's strengths, which were the result of design principles that even WotC found onerous after only two years.  It's not something a few enthused amateurs are going to be able to replicate.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Umbran said:


> "Quality", in that sense, is a human-subjective value, not an objective one.



There is a difference between qualitative and quantitative measures, true, but it doesn't prevent making an informed judgement.



> I can compare that first string (String A) to another (String B).  I can tell you which is longer, which is heavier, which has higher tensile strength.  But, I cannot tell you which is technically a "better" string, because that depends upon what you're going to use the string for.



Precisely.  4e is technically a better mechanical system for use in an RPG.  It would not be as good a tactical board game, and would make a terrible large-scale wargame.  As a physics textbook it would be a big fat 0, and as a geometry text, worse than useless.  You could say the same things about 3.5 - though it'd make a slightly better physics or geometry text book, and, obviously, not quite as good an RPG system. 

That's why I say it's the technical aspects that have been improving with each edition.  Setting, tone, feel, etc... they're much fuzzier.  There are intangibles that that have nothing to do with the game itself, but only with, for instance, its timing in the marketplace.    But whether mechanics work as written and do what they set out to is not nearly so hard to judge.


And, again, I will point out that the assertion of absolute subjectivity renders all discussion moot.  So, if you /really/ believe that, why participate?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> 4e is technically a better mechanical system for use in an RPG.




I respectfully disagree.


----------



## Fifth Element

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...would seem to indicate a belief that there are no RPGs out there that we can point to that have objectively poor design.



To be clear, I am implicitly discussing a subset of all possible RPGs. An RPG written by a 5-year-old could be called objectively poor. But I did assume the context of widely-played RPGs, since the discussion began with D&D.



Tony Vargas said:


> And, again, I will point out that the assertion of absolute subjectivity renders all discussion moot.  So, if you /really/ believe that, why participate?



I'd suggest, as I did above, just the opposite. If you think something is objectively true, then you expect no discussion, because you're proclaiming truth. If someone argues, presumably you say "No, my statement is objectively true."

If you're dealing with subjectivity, you can discuss *why* you prefer one system over another. "Here's why I like to play 4E" is full of subjective judgements, but also full of things to discuss.


----------



## billd91

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...would seem to indicate a belief that there are no RPGs out there that we can point to that have objectively poor design.
> 
> While I chose a silly and nonexistent exaggeration to illustrate my point, the fact remains that the games I pointed out upthread are known to have _objectively_ bad mechanics- some to the point of being offensive.




But wouldn't that imply that *all* games can be objectively judged, ranked, and placed in a hierarchy of quality? Which is a better game: Dread or 4th edition D&D? MegaTraveller or Toon? Call of Cthulhu or Dogs in the Vineyard?


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> But wouldn't that imply that *all* games can be objectively judged, ranked, and placed in a hierarchy of quality? Which is a better game: Dread or 4th edition D&D? MegaTraveller or Toon? Call of Cthulhu or Dogs in the Vineyard?




Well, I do suppose you have to compare like to like and, just like any genre style conversation, there's going to be stuff lying about that doesn't fit quite right.  For example, comparing Dread to D&D (any edition) is pretty difficult since, while they do both fall under the umbrella of RPG, they are very different play experiences.

Now, if you narrow down the criteria, and asked which one objectively has mechanics to produce a better zombie horror game, I think the props really have to go do Dread.  They should, that's what Dread is supposed to do.  However, if your criteria is "Heroic Fantasy" then Dread isn't really a good game for that.  

And I do think that's an objective judgement.  The Dread resolution mechanics, such as they are, don't lend themselves to an ongoing, multi-session campaign where the protagonists are supposed to survive and thrive.  D&D, OTOH, has a number of mechanics - levels for one - which do lend themselves quite well towards that goal.

You're right in a way.  "Game X is objectively better than Game Y" is pretty hard to defend.  As Lanefan said earlier, which is a better truck - a snowplow or a bus?  But, once you actually define some goals and parameters, you can most certainly rank games based on those parameters.  Call of Cthulu would make a terrible system for playing D&D.  The idea that your character gets progressively weaker and eventually dies (or is removed from play somehow) is antithetical to the goals of D&D play.  

Does that mean D&D is better than CoC?  No, of course not.  It IS objectively better at doing heroic fantasy though.  

At the end of the day, it's not unreasonable to discuss game mechanics in objective terms so long as you define the goals that those mechanics are attempting to reach.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> To be clear, I am implicitly discussing a subset of all possible RPGs. An RPG written by a 5-year-old could be called objectively poor. But I did assume the context of widely-played RPGs, since the discussion began with D&D.




While not as bad as the others I mentioned, RIFTS _is_ a widely-played RPG that is noted for having bad mechanics, including some that contributing designers claim were not playtested at all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> But wouldn't that imply that all games can be objectively judged, ranked, and placed in a hierarchy of quality?




No.

There are some creations in the hobby- just like in literature, music, art, poetry, etc.- that are so bad there is nearly universal consensus on their awfulness.*. Ditto the opposite end of the scale.  I may not care for the writings of a particular author or the music of a composer, but I can appreciate and respect the talent and skill involved.

Beyond the extremes, however, the variables of math AND personal taste interactw & branch so much- rules light, max crunch, etc.- that ranking becomes objectively impossible.








* consensus is as good as it gets- we humans are notorious for disagreeing on scientifically verifiable _facts_, much less something as fuzzy as game design.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I respectfully disagree.



If you'd care to discuss how a system that is balanced, consistent and functional at all levels isn't better on a technical level than one that's inconsistent, balanced only at mid single-digit levels, and functional only with careful interpretation, let alone one that's inconsistent, never quite balanced, and functional only with substantial rule changes, I'll listen.

We don't even have to get into edition warring, we could keep on a theoretical/hypothetical level...


----------



## billd91

Tony Vargas said:


> If you'd care to discuss how a system that is balanced, consistent and functional at all levels isn't better on a technical level than one that's inconsistent, balanced only at mid single-digit levels, and functional only with careful interpretation, let alone one that's inconsistent, never quite balanced, and functional only with substantial rule changes, I'll listen.




I find that the consistency takes out some of the dynamism in the earlier editions. The game changes (significantly) over time, in part, because there isn't the same style of consistency driving the numbers.

The way the 4e system is balanced narrows the game's potential applicability to a single band within the fantasy genre while the editions that focus less on mechanical balance are a better fit to a wider variety of fantasy applications.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Tony Vargas said:


> If you'd care to discuss how a system that is balanced, consistent and functional at all levels isn't better on a technical level than one that's inconsistent, balanced only at mid single-digit levels, and functional only with careful interpretation, let alone one that's inconsistent, never quite balanced, and functional only with substantial rule changes, I'll listen.
> 
> We don't even have to get into edition warring, we could keep on a theoretical/hypothetical level...




First, I'd say it depends upon what kind of game you want to run.  If, for example, you intend to run a game simulating an author's novel in which there were characters of vast disparity of power, 4Ed's design would do a spectacularly bad job of emulating that setting.  I have often said that I wished Palladium would get bought up by another company and revised with different rules, but I wouldn't wish a 4Ed style system on that setting.  Mechanically, it simply wouldn't fit.

And there are a LOT of worlds in fantasy literature in which balance simply isn't on the menu.  For those in which balance IS present, I can easily tone down an unbalanced system.  It is much harder- for me, at least- to supercharge certain aspects of a balanced system and still make it fun for everyone.

Second, having played 4Ed and enjoying & respecting it on a certain level, I have to say it reminds me of lessons learned when I tried my own hand at game design, namely, sometimes too much balance is bad.  It can lead to stagnation and stalemates in gameplay.  And one of the consistent complaints levied at 4Ed is its combats can be a boring grind.  As I've played the game over the past few years I've seen it happen in person.  There is something in 4Ed's strict adherence to balance that has made combat less fun for many players.

Part of it (and only part of it- I don't have all the remedies) is that one roll per attack sequence that predominates in 4Ed.  This happens in other games, too, but 4Ed's version just seems to drag for some reason.  I have often posted about a battle against some harpies that took For.  Freakin'. Ever.  Because we couldnt roll for crap.  And it was a low-level encounter, so we were only rolling once per turn.  But despite the combat's length,_ it was a fun battle._**

I have yet to have a combat in 4Ed that was both long AND fun.

Simply put, combat lacks sparkle.*

And it didn't have to be like this.  There are other ways to balance games that are out there.  HERO is my game of choice, for instance.  Despite combats that can be as long as or longer than 4Ed combats, I've _never_ felt a HERO combat was "grindy."  I can say thë same of GURPS, and I don't particularly care for that game at all.  There are definitely things about that game I hate, but boring, drawn-out combat wasn't one of them.

A caveat on that, too: while I have used HERO to run all kinds of genres of games, inluding simulating a cross-edition "D&D" fantasy game, i'd be the first to admit that no toolbox RPG- HERO included- will neccesarily better at running a camapaign for a given setting than a RPG designed from the ground up to run a game in that setting.







* no, adding the vampries from _Twilight_ or certain unicorns wouldn't help.

** see post#2 here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/302413-harpies-what-french-toast.html


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Actually, I just followed my own link back to its origin, and I think I figured one thing out: in 4Ed, it's nearly impossible to surprise yourself and your partymates by simply screwing up.

That first mention of that story is in a thread in which people talk about Delayed Blast Fireballs that were delayed too long and caught the party (me), bouncing lightning bolts that kill as many PCs as NPCs and so forth.  4Ed seems to have excised that bit of chaos.

I mean, even on those occasions when I have seen 4EdmPCs take friendly fire (my bad, again), the same game design decision that made sure casters can't steal melee types' thunder by acing the encounter with a single spell means my unintended targets can also shrug off the occasional mistargeted spell.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, I just followed my own link back to its origin, and I think I figured one thing out: in 4Ed, it's nearly impossible to surprise yourself and your partymates by simply screwing up.



Hah, you'd be surprised. If you haven't seen the party's Striker constantly getting into trouble and attacking random targets instead of focusing on killing one target first - all without NPCs forcing him to do so thanks to their own abilities and tatics!

*sigh*

I'd say for this type of people, D&D 4 isn't the best game, at least not in combat. They're not tactical minded enough.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> the party's Striker constantly getting into trouble and attacking random targets instead of focusing on killing one target first



Well, I think that's a perfectly fine PC to run, AND one that is virtually impossible to system-proof.  LEEEEEROY JENKINS!!!! will not be denied!



> They're not tactical minded enough.




That doesn't describe our group of Sun Tzu Junior Fanclub Members...but we're not _perfect_.  We make the occasional mistake...especially when a melee guy has to use magic, or the magic-users have to get their armor dirty in melee.  But 4Ed is a lot more forgiving than other game systems.

4Ed's design balance is kind of like bowling with the bumpers in place.  It's still possible to send the ball off the lane, but its a lot harder.*





* I've bowled for many decades, and managed to have a peak average of 193 in one league...and as good as I am, I still managed to have a ball jump from my lane onto an adjacent lane in league play.  More than once.  Got strikes each time, too.


----------



## JasonZZ

...after reading this thread, I would like to re-offer my suggestion that we collectively declare war against GURPS instead of fighting amongst each other.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

JasonZZ said:


> ...after reading this thread, I would like to re-offer my suggestion that we collectively declare war against GURPS instead of fighting amongst each other.



I now prefer the name "edition slapfight", but i could deal with a GURPS slapfight as well.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Dannyalcatraz said:


> First, I'd say it depends upon what kind of game you want to run.  If, for example, you intend to run a game simulating an author's novel in which there were characters of vast disparity of power, 4Ed's design would do a spectacularly bad job of emulating that setting.



Setting aside the questionable desireability of having /PCs/ of different power-levels (the extreme ends could be NPCs - side kicks and deus ex machina types), if balance isn't desired a balanced system like 4e can be used simply by assigning resources (like levels) asymmetrically.  Getting imbalance out of a balanced system is simplicity itself and you have a good idea of just how great the disparity will be, as well.  



> sometimes too much balance is bad.  It can lead to stagnation and stalemates in gameplay.



Lack of choice can do that, certainly, but that's also a form of imbalance.



> And one of the consistent complaints levied at 4Ed is its combats can be a boring grind.



There are many consistent complaints leveled at 4e that are simply unfounded.  The foundation for this one is the earliest adventures written for the game.  Monsters initially had higher defenses and more hps and lower damage figures - and the early published adventures continued the 3e practice of using significantly overlevelled monsters to represent 'bosses,' rather than using solos.  MM2 adjusted defenses, and MM3 increased damage figures.  So combats became faster.  Another factor with the early reports was relatively low level, 1st level characters have only 1 encounter and 1 daily, and otherwise depend on their at-wills. Any combat over 3 rounds necessarily includes at-wills, so very long combats can get repetitive (unless the DM has placed terrain-based powers for the PCs to utilize, or the players try to improvise, of course).  4e combats can still be long, in rounds, but they aren't often 'boring' - that is, characters all remain involved and are rarely reduced to flailing away with at-wills.  

Compared to the issues other editions had with low-level combat and lack of in-combat options for particular classes, even with what tendency towards the 'grind' it may still have, 4e comes out well ahead.



> As I've played the game over the past few years I've seen it happen in person.  There is something in 4Ed's strict adherence to balance that has made combat less fun for many players.



Again, balance does not cause the grind.  Imbalance in early monster and adventure design did.



> Part of it (and only part of it- I don't have all the remedies) is that one roll per attack sequence that predominates in 4Ed.  This happens in other games, too, but 4Ed's version just seems to drag for some reason.



That reason is called 'confirmation bias.'  The number of rolls needed to resolve 4e powers isn't out of line, at all.  Earlier eds were much more generous with multiple attacks, and rolling damage once and saving throws for each creature in a fireball for half damage is the same number of rolls as to hit each target, with 1/2 damage on a miss, and rolling damage once.



> Simply put, combat lacks sparkle.



Now /that's/ subjective.    And, I'm not going to argue it.  If 4e combat doesn't 'sparkle' for you, and some other game does, by all means, play the sparkly one.  



> And it didn't have to be like this.  There are other ways to balance games that are out there.  HERO is my game of choice, for instance.  Despite combats that can be as long as or longer than 4Ed combats, I've _never_ felt a HERO combat was "grindy."



There's a lot of variation among Hero characters, because they are so customizeable, but, in general, they have a small number of powers that tend to skate close to whatever the campaign maximums are.  You're generally making mechanically very similar attacks each phase.  And, yes, Hero combats take a /long/ time, especially for the amount of time they represent.  

The genius of Hero is just how effects-based it is.  It really goes all the way, power names are just mechanical place-holders, and a given power can have any remotely appropriate 'special effect.'   It can manage just about any concept you can think of.  Playing a character that's so close to your concept of it is exciting, in itself.  No ed of D&D can touch Hero in that regard - including 4e, though it did take a halting step in that direction by divorcing flavor text and mechanics.  But, then, Hero is one of the best systems of all time.  

Or at least, it has been at points in its history (I'm not so familiar with the latest version).  My one major objection to Hero is the open-ended skill list, which as I put it "creates incompetence" (one way this manifests is the point-inflation of skill-heavy packages: when 'professional skills' were introduced way back in Champions! II, 2points in "Lawyer" made you a competent member of that profession, able to earn a living at it - 20 years later, in Hero 5th, being a Lawyer is something like a 60-100pt package deal).  3e suffers from the same issue to a lesser degree, with skills like Craft and Perform that each represent an endless variety of possible skills you could define into being, and thus make everyone who doesn't invest ranks in them bad at.  The 5e playtest also shows signs of the same malady.


----------



## Tony Vargas

billd91 said:


> I find that the consistency takes out some of the dynamism in the earlier editions.



I suppose, if you define dynamism as using different rules, sub-systems, and terminology to accomplish similar things for no particular reason.  

I mean, once you look at what all those inconsistencies actually represent, what's 'dynamic' about every cleric in the world being able to cast Hold Person at 3rd level?  Or about a fighter who chooses "Improved Trip" at low level being locked into tripping things for the rest of his career?



> The way the 4e system is balanced narrows the game's potential applicability to a single band within the fantasy genre while the editions that focus less on mechanical balance are a better fit to a wider variety of fantasy applications.



You think so?  Without any rule variations, how well do various eds of D&D handle a setting without deities, and thus Clerics?  How well do they retain class & encounter balance in a campaign with very few magic items?  How well do they handle campaigns paced towards long periods (days) between combat encounters.  Very low or high wealth?  Variations in the concept of how magic or spells work? The answer is that most editions don't handle any of those variations well, while 4e, with inherent bonuses, leader classes of every power source, and all classes having a balance of at-will, encounter, and daily powers, stay reasonably functional across the board.  What's more, by divorcing flavor and mechanics, 4e can handle quite a lot of variation beyond that, as well.


----------



## TrippyHippy

Tony Vargas said:


> You think so?  Without any rule variations, how well do various eds of D&D handle a setting without deities, and thus Clerics?  How well do they retain class & encounter balance in a campaign with very few magic items?  How well do they handle campaigns paced towards long periods (days) between combat encounters.  Very low or high wealth?  Variations in the concept of how magic or spells work? The answer is that most editions don't handle any of those variations well, while 4e, with inherent bonuses, leader classes of every power source, and all classes having a balance of at-will, encounter, and daily powers, stay reasonably functional across the board.  What's more, by divorcing flavor and mechanics, 4e can handle quite a lot of variation beyond that, as well.




The OGL/D20 system, which had a multitude of different genres and alternative, even non-fantasy settings based off 3rd edition, kinda escaped your part of the world did it? 

The mechanical attentions that 4e has pretty much fixes the notion that you are going to play precisely the way the designers want you to. Even if you don't want to play that way. And no, most fantasy literature doesn't work the way the 4e rules do.


----------



## Lanefan

Tony Vargas said:


> Setting aside the questionable desireability of having /PCs/ of different power-levels (the extreme ends could be NPCs - side kicks and deus ex machina types), if balance isn't desired a balanced system like 4e can be used simply by assigning resources (like levels) asymmetrically.  Getting imbalance out of a balanced system is simplicity itself and you have a good idea of just how great the disparity will be, as well.



A quick way to measure this is to look at one of the great prototypes of the D&D adventuring party and see how well edition x can handle it: the Fellowship of the Ring.

Great disparity in character abilities (levels in D&D), not a Cleric in sight, huge imbalances in individual wealth, and one member with goals (and alignment) signficantly at odds with the rest.

As a 1e party it could work.  I'm not at all sure about whether 3e or 4e could handle it at all.

Lan-"Best. Meta. Thread. Evar."-efan


----------



## ExploderWizard

Can we rename this thread 'Dominos'?  Cause man it sure as heck delivers. 

I would personally like to thank all participants for being so very entertaining. 

We need a popcorn smiley.


----------



## Neonchameleon

TrippyHippy said:


> The mechanical attentions that 4e has pretty much fixes the notion that you are going to play precisely the way the designers want you to. Even if you don't want to play that way. And no, most fantasy literature doesn't work the way the 4e rules do.




For the record, no.  No it doesn't.  The mechanical attentions that 4e has literally do the opposite.  They make it easier to drift the game hard and know you'll still have a workable game at the end of it.

If I'm playing a social intrigue game I need to allow for the Bard and the Warlock being able to crank their diplomacy modifier.  And for the wizard casting minor illusions.  But fundamentally I can run the game as a linked set of skill challenges with a little combat mixed in.

On the other hand if I'm trying to run 3.X as a social intrigue game at 9th level (3.X just being the game I know best), the Bard is going to be spamming ludicrously broken Diplomacy checks to turn anyone helpful, and making the most ridiculous bluffs with Glibness.  A +30 bonus there on top of a good charisma and class skills.   The Cleric's Zone of Truth is going to really upset the intrigue and needs to be written round.  Wizards and Bards can tell most people to do stuff with Suggestion and can appear to be who they want to be with Alter Self.  Or invisibility.  Or one of the image spells.  And a (lesser) Geas is entirely possible from Bard or Wizard. 

If I want to run an overland travel segment at the same level, the Wizard can Teleport to make sure everyone sleeps the night in their own bed.  Overland flight to explore along the route.  Rope Trick. Scrying.  I could go on.

Either way in 4e I can run the sort of game I want to with very little working round the PC abilities but, being generally competent, the PCs can all bring something to the party.  If I were playing a less balanced system I'd have to check through all the abilities (see the spells I've picked out) and work out their effect on the game world.  Because 4e is balanced I can run a game the way I want to without disproportionate work.

And I'm going to come right out and say it.  The 4e mechanical implementation of Dark Sun is better than the 2e one _despite Dark Sun having been written for 2e_.  The absence of clerics doesn't fundamentally alter the game.
  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], I'm not sure how well 1e does handle the Lord of the Rings.  What level would you say Gimli was at at Helm's Deep?  And _how many_ orcs did he kill?  He must have been taking hit point loss but I don't recall significant recovery time.

4e handles Lord of The Rings fine.  It just does it the way DM of the Rings does.  Gandalf's the DMPC.  The hobbits are one party.  And Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, and Boromir are a second.


----------



## TrippyHippy

Neonchameleon said:


> If I'm playing a social intrigue game I need to allow for the Bard and the Warlock being able to crank their diplomacy modifier.  And for the wizard casting minor illusions.  But fundamentally I can run the game as a linked set of skill challenges with a little combat mixed in.



Well, I prefer a freeform style, so what you have exemplified is precisely the approach that wouldn't appeal to me. 

As for Lord of the Rings in 4e: 

Gandalf: This foe is beyond any of you. Run! 
Gimli: That's not balanced! Why are fighters always getting nerfed! Wizards get to do all the cool stuff. 
Aragorn: Yeah, this encounter should be designed for my level! 
Pippin: Oh, I can still use my daily on it! I haven't used it yet. 
Frodo: What is the goal of this encounter anyway? 
Gandalf: Run!!!
Frodo: OK, I run (pushes himself three squares over on grid). What is my XP reward? 
Balrog: >>smashes and burns everyone<<
Whole Adventuring Party: HEALING SURGE, please!


----------



## Nullzone

Honestly, the very notion that this thread started on is inane at best; the development of 5e has precious little to do with any objective value of good or bad in the existing edition(s) and everything to do with the basic concept of _wanting to make money_.

WotC is a business and they are interested in bringing in cash. They are aware that some people dislike their current offerings, and would like to attempt to draw them back somehow; furthermore, new material means that even the people who _do_ like the current offerings are just as likely to buy in again on the notion that they liked the previous one.

As for what defines an edition war, to me it happens the moment a value judgment occurs between two games in an attempt to demonstrate that one is objectively better than the other.  This is a waste of everyone's time, as not only is an objective view impossible, it would be irrelevant since *every single personal experience would be subjectively colored anyway*.

When I look at a game system, I ask two questions:

1) Did I have fun?
2) Do I understand how the mechanics and story meet and create the narrative?

If both are yes, then the game is worth my time and I would play it again. That's _all_ that matters.


----------



## Fifth Element

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While not as bad as the others I mentioned, RIFTS _is_ a widely-played RPG that is noted for having bad mechanics, including some that contributing designers claim were not playtested at all.



True, and its fans often cite the wonky mechanics as one reason they love it. To each their own.



TrippyHippy said:


> Gimli: That's not balanced! Why are fighters always getting nerfed! Wizards get to do all the cool stuff.



I thought that was 3E? Isn't 4E the one where everything is _too_ balanced and samey?



TrippyHippy said:


> Frodo: OK, I run (pushes himself three squares over on grid). What is my XP reward?



Yeah, darn 4E for introducing XP. What?


----------



## Umbran

Tony Vargas said:


> There is a difference between qualitative and quantitative measures, true, but it doesn't prevent making an informed judgement.




If there's "judgement" involved, then it isn't objective.  Objective measures don't require human judgement.



> Precisely.  4e is technically a better mechanical system for use in an RPG.




And again, we return to the string.

Is everyone playing RPGs (and D&D) in the same way?  Same playstyle?  No.  

Maybe for how *YOU* like to play RPGs, it is mechanically superior.  And that's great.  But you're bordering on arrogance to say you can claim it is superior for everyone else's use.  

That, ultimately, is what gets people upset, you know - you claiming you know what is good for them better than they do themselves.  That's pretty darned high-and-mighty.




> That's why I say it's the technical aspects that have been improving with each edition.  Setting, tone, feel, etc... they're much fuzzier.




Back to the string we go.  Or, maybe now we'll talk methods of locomotion....

I put a pair of beat up sneakers in my driveway, next to a 2001 Saturn SL1 and a 2012 Ferrari.  I suspect you'll argue that the Ferrari is the technically superior locomotion solution.  More highly advanced engineering, capable of superior acceleration and greater top speeds than either of the others.

But, I tell you, I want to go jogging!  Am I supposed to strap a pair of Ferraris to my feet?  Or, maybe I want to commute to work - while in your estimation the Ferrari is still technically superior, I can point out its city-street gas-guzzling nature is entirely inappropriate for commuting.

That last isn't an issue of tone or feel.  It isn't intangible.  It is technical, but *you* didn't foresee the value of that technical point.  What technical measures are superior depends upon the desired use!  Since you cannot factor in *all* desired uses, you are not in a position to claim technical superiority for one set of rules over the other.

Or, perhaps I can put it even more clearly:  Which is technically superior - a high-end non-stick skillet, or an orange?  

The thing is, ultimately, an RPG exists to produce a human experience.  All technical qualities of the system exist for that goal.  They have no value except in terms of that goal - the quality, then is subjective, as the desired experiences vary from person to person.


----------



## Dannager

Fifth Element said:


> And once we have full agreement among reviewers about which games are best, we can say that games can be judged objectively. If it's absolutely possible to judge whether one game is better than another, objectively, then we would only need one game reviewer. He would do the checklist or whatever, and figure out which game is best. But instead we have many reviewers, each with their own preferences and biases, each rating games differently.
> 
> Just because most people prefer a particular game does not mean it is objectively better than other games. That's not what objectively means.




Notice that I purposefully avoided the use of the word "objective". I'd prefer to eschew in favor of the words "useful" or "practical". I'm not saying that it's possible to objectively judge whether games are better or worse than each other (though, honestly, you probably could if you came up with an operationalized definition of "better" along with some decent metrics, but some people might take issue with your definition). I'm saying that trying to poke holes in this by saying "But that's not being objective!" is pretty pointless. Who cares if it's objective or not? We don't need to be literally objective in our declarative statements to make useful generalizable judgments.


----------



## B.T.

4e has objectively better production values--it's a much cleaner layout than previous editions of D&D, and its artwork is much higher quality.  Doesn't make it a better game, but what Tony Vargas said is true.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Vernon374
> has no status.
> 
> Registered User
> 
> Join Date: Jul 2012
> Posts: 10
> Novice (Lvl 1)



Reported


----------



## Dannager

Harlock said:


> But reviews _are_ subjective by their very nature!




Of course they are. So?



> I might add that several game designers disagree with you as well. Most recently and notably, Monte Cook. Specifically, I quote:
> _emphasis added_.
> 
> Reviews are subjective. Mechanics can be and are subjective. Saying otherwise is just plain ignoring the facts.




Yes, yes, it's all subjective. As I've pointed out, though, using "It's all subjective!" to try and end a discussion over whether one game is superior to another is just as bad as using "This is objectively better!" to try and do the same.


----------



## Dannager

TrippyHippy said:


> The mechanical attentions that 4e has pretty much fixes the notion that you are going to play precisely the way the designers want you to. Even if you don't want to play that way. And no, most fantasy literature doesn't work the way the 4e rules do.




Most fantasy literature doesn't work the way any edition of D&D does.



> As for Lord of the Rings in 4e:
> 
> Gandalf: This foe is beyond any of you. Run!
> Gimli: That's not balanced! Why are fighters always getting nerfed! Wizards get to do all the cool stuff.
> Aragorn: Yeah, this encounter should be designed for my level!
> Pippin: Oh, I can still use my daily on it! I haven't used it yet.
> Frodo: What is the goal of this encounter anyway?
> Gandalf: Run!!!
> Frodo: OK, I run (pushes himself three squares over on grid). What is my XP reward?
> Balrog: >>smashes and burns everyone<<
> Whole Adventuring Party: HEALING SURGE, please!




Excellent. Now tell me your favorite edition of D&D so that I can similarly and childishly lampoon it.


----------



## Harlock

Umbran said:


> If there's "judgement" involved, then it isn't objective.  Objective measures don't require human judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> And again, we return to the string.
> 
> Is everyone playing RPGs (and D&D) in the same way?  Same playstyle?  No.
> 
> Maybe for how *YOU* like to play RPGs, it is mechanically superior.  And that's great.  But you're bordering on arrogance to say you can claim it is superior for everyone else's use.
> 
> That, ultimately, is what gets people upset, you know - you claiming you know what is good for them better than they do themselves.  That's pretty darned high-and-mighty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the string we go.  Or, maybe now we'll talk methods of locomotion....
> 
> I put a pair of beat up sneakers in my driveway, next to a 2001 Saturn SL1 and a 2012 Ferrari.  I suspect you'll argue that the Ferrari is the technically superior locomotion solution.  More highly advanced engineering, capable of superior acceleration and greater top speeds than either of the others.
> 
> But, I tell you, I want to go jogging!  Am I supposed to strap a pair of Ferraris to my feet?  Or, maybe I want to commute to work - while in your estimation the Ferrari is still technically superior, I can point out its city-street gas-guzzling nature is entirely inappropriate for commuting.
> 
> That last isn't an issue of tone or feel.  It isn't intangible.  It is technical, but *you* didn't foresee the value of that technical point.  What technical measures are superior depends upon the desired use!  Since you cannot factor in *all* desired uses, you are not in a position to claim technical superiority for one set of rules over the other.
> 
> Or, perhaps I can put it even more clearly:  Which is technically superior - a high-end non-stick skillet, or an orange?
> 
> The thing is, ultimately, an RPG exists to produce a human experience.  All technical qualities of the system exist for that goal.  They have no value except in terms of that goal - the quality, then is subjective, as the desired experiences vary from person to person.




I couldn't XP you, so I'll simply quote this in the hopes that others will learn what objective means and stop with the nonsense.


----------



## Harlock

Dannager said:


> Of course they are. So?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, it's all subjective. As I've pointed out, though, using "It's all subjective!" to try and end a discussion over whether one game is superior to another is just as bad as using "This is objectively better!" to try and do the same.




Ignoring the parts where I agree that there are objective measures to make it seem like I said it is _all_ subjective is, well, demonstrably false. One has only to go back and read. I'm certainly not trying to "end a discussion", simply pointing out that there are and can be different points of view.

And, in the end, I have found that the best DMs can make a majority of the editions work for their group once they become familiar enough with the system and if they are willing to work the system (adding, removing) for their PCs' and the game world's benefit.


----------



## Piratecat

Guys, the whole reason this thread was started was problematic, and it's sure as heck not going to change anything. The guideline remains: talk about what you love and don't be a dick about games or editions that you don't. Not too tough. If you don't like it, too bad. I'd much rather see cool enthusiastic conversation than people being negative.

Anyways, everyone knows the _really_ best game was Spawn of Fashan.

Thread closed.


----------

