# [forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 13, 2011)

Since people can't seem to leave it alone in this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/307167-d-d-edition-into-single-picture.html

What constitutes an edition war?

Is that thread an edition war?

Can variances in editions be discussed without it being an edition war?

What about a "my favorite thing in each edition"?

What about a "my least favorite thing in each edition"?


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 13, 2011)

I personally like the discourse and design discussions that go on in the "edition wars," including finding out what my fellow gamers like and dislike about our shared hobby. However, I don't like insults against individuals at any level. I think editions wars should be possible without attacks on the participants, but with room to lavish praise and dish out criticism _for the game_.

My definition of an edition war is any discussion that includes mention of more than one edition and comparisons between those editions. The thread likely has a possibility to become a battleground, and each edition will have its possible strengths and weaknesses exposed to the core, with vast doses of personal tastes and opinions of course. What other possible purpose could threads like the one mentioned possibly have, except to wage this awesome battle on some level?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 13, 2011)

It must adversarial. It is perfectly possible to compare editions, even to give criticism of editions, without there being any kind of "war" going on. However, this is the Internet, so the ones who want to argue will argue and take over any conversation, derailing it into warring factions. The constructive conversations about editions happen mostly face to face or in a closed group with trusted individuals.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 13, 2011)

What are and are not edition wars are really up to the opinion of the mods.  Are edition wars still a big no no here?  If you see something that you think is inappropriate then report the post.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 13, 2011)

Crothian said:


> What are and are not edition wars are really up to the opinion of the mods.  Are edition wars still a big no no here?  If you see something that you think is inappropriate then report the post.




What's wrong with _Edition Wars_, as long as no one gets hurt (not guaranteed, I know)? It sounds like a TLC program involving fighting robots, or maybe a 1980s science fiction franchise. A little light-heartedness goes a long ways, I think.


----------



## Ulrick (Jun 13, 2011)

The *Edition War* is waged all around us on the Internet and in real life, often at our FLGSs and the game table. At its core, it's all about "gaming purity and the fear of the Other." 

 It started (as far as I know) when 2e came out and gets sparked again and again with each iteration of D&D and spin-offs. The war is fought by those who believe one Edition is clearly superior when compared to another Edition and they believe this notion must be spread to others. Criticisms to a favored Edition are taken personally (declarations of war), and retalitory strikes are made against the opposing ideology. 

Casualties in this war include threads on various messageboard escalating into grudge matches that can be summed up as: "X Edition is clearly better, while Y edition has all kinds of problems that no sane person would want to cope with"  which is often followed by "What are you talking about? Y Edition is cleary better! Only an insane person would pay X edition!" 

Other casualties include: irate moderators of said messageboards, gaming groups getting broken apart because players are split on two or more editions, gaming stores losing money because a purist stands in front of products of a given edition and griping to anybody who'll listen, and lost friendships because of the occasional slap on the head.

Gaming purists are partly justified in their fears. When a new edition comes out, it represent change in the hobby. A conservative response is only natural such as "I don't want to spend money on X Edition, I like W Edition just fine--I have a lot of money invested in it." Hardly anybody wants to see their gaming dollars go to waste on a game nobody might play. This includes the gaming purists who embrace a new edition. 

The Edition War boils down to people absolutely refusing to play a given edition and verbally attacking anybody playing that given edition. It _can_ even get to the point of refusing to play at all, rather than give in to playing said edition. 

Frankly, I'd rather play D&D than not play anything at all... even 4e 

But the fires of the Edition War shall continue to burn as long as Editions of D&D are released. Because there will always exist gamers who view their favored edition as an ideology...


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 13, 2011)

Ulrick said:


> But the fires of the Edition War shall continue to burn as long as Editions of D&D are released. Because there will always exist gamers who view their favored edition as an ideology...




We light sacrificial fires to the spirit of 4e every day and twice on holidays. We shall never go back to primitive heretical days of yore... never. All hail the Wizards of the Coast.

Man, for some reason I feel really playful today. Sorry about that.


----------



## Stoat (Jun 13, 2011)

If I say something you don't like about whatever edition you prefer to play, we are having a simple conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of that particular edition.

If you say something I don't like about whatever edition I prefer to play, it's an edition war.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 13, 2011)

Ulrick said:


> But the fires of the Edition War shall continue to burn as long as Editions of D&D are released. Because there will always exist gamers who view their favored edition as an ideology...




Don't kid yourself in thinking it is just D&D (not that you are I'm just using your post as a springboard to this point).  Vampire, Paranoia, Shadowrun... it seems that almost any game that issues a new edition causes some kind a strife among the fans.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Jun 13, 2011)

You only really need one thing: some j-hole to come along and get all bent out of shape about what some anonymous person said about their preferred edition. It helps, but is not completely necessary, if another (or possibly the same) j-hole comes along and formally clarifies that the offending comment is, in fact, a declaration of war. All this should be done as definitively and authoritatively as possible.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 13, 2011)

Crothian said:


> Don't kid yourself in thinking it is just D&D (not that you are I'm just using your post as a springboard to this point).  Vampire, Paranoia, Shadowrun... it seems that almost any game that issues a new edition causes some kind a strife among the fans.




Not limited to RPGs either.

I'm a huge NBA fan (see my pictures in the edition picture thread, also grats Mavs), and you can see it here as well. I've heard things like they don't have the heart they used to, they're all thugs now, Lebron will never be Jordan, etc. Actually, it kinda hurts the sport as a whole, when we should really just appreciate the game for what it is. Now that I'm getting my dad to watch again, I feel that things are changing for the better, although it might have also been helped by the irresistible drama created by Lebron and the Heat.

Maybe that's why we shouldn't encourage edition wars. Because all it does is hurt this hobby that we all love so much. The more we can be civil and respective of each other and different systems/playstyles, the more we can do what really matters, game.


----------



## AeroDm (Jun 13, 2011)

An edition war begins when the statements describe people instead of rule systems.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 13, 2011)

I think editions usually begin when people go beyond personal preferences and speak in absolute terms. But I don't think they are true edition wars until you get some fire going back and forth. When people start taking things personally, equating peoples value with the edition they play, etc. And I think edition wars go both ways. It is both the person defending his own edition, and telling the other person that his edition is the wrong one.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 13, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Since people can't seem to leave it alone in this thread:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/307167-d-d-edition-into-single-picture.html
> 
> Is that thread an edition war?




Nope, that's not an edition war. It's an intelligent, clever and quite cool way to try and describe editions.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jun 13, 2011)

For me, it becomes an edition war when the same half-dozen people engage in the same slap-fest, and everyone else wanders off to do something more interesting.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 13, 2011)

I agree with just about everything everyone's said here. 

The one thing I don't agree with is that any discussion of editions is an edition war. I think that "edition war" involves taking sides and, well, warring.

Part of the reason I posted the OP is that several people were calling that other thread an edition war, and I think that the term "edition war" is becoming a pejorative term (that thread being more of a case study of a larger phenomenon that I wanted to point out) and an alarmist way of shutting down discussion...if anything I think it creates a hot button that derails threads that aren't edition wars into discussions as to whether or not they are...and that in turn escalates tension and attitude and actually CAUSES a thread to turn into an edition war.



I especially agree with Crothian that it is much more helpful to report a post for edition warring and stay silent in a thread than it is to state within the thread "you're edition warring!"


Because, in the end "you're edition warring" is threadcrapping, even if it's true. It's not like there's no mechanism to alert the moderators to a potentially harmful thread....and there's ALWAYS the option not to read a thread rather than threadcrap.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 13, 2011)

Not sure about "edition war," but this is my general rule of conversation:

​

Admittedly, this might not fly with the "you don't need rules for conversation!" crowd. 

I don't find the thread in question obviously edition warry at all, and I think there is sometimes a race to declare something an edition war that isn't, just to _turn it into one_. 

Advice is always: don't feed the trolls.


----------



## nedjer (Jun 13, 2011)

Edition Wars are the inevitable result of the tyranny of the RPG Tome. In a digital age there is no need for top-down, arbitrary design.

I vote for the democratisation of RPG design, i.e. a move to co-design.


----------



## Nebten (Jun 13, 2011)

A prodrome to an edition war is when somebody starts a thread that says:

"I'm not trying to start an edition war, but . . ."

That and when people start pulling out falsity arguments that they haven't been able to use since college Psych.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 13, 2011)

the thread in question has the potential to be an edition war.

any poster can post any picture they want to the thread. the intent behind their post can be misinterpreted or can be deliberately offensive.

it takes others to keep it in line by reporting what they find offensive to the mods.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 14, 2011)

I think it becomes an edition war when people start making personal attacks.

Or they take any criticism of their preferred system as a personal attack.


----------



## AeroDm (Jun 14, 2011)

Nebten said:


> A prodrome to an edition war is when somebody starts a thread that says:
> 
> "I'm not trying to start an edition war, but . . ."
> 
> That and when people start pulling out falsity arguments that they haven't been able to use since college Psych.



"My brother once told me, nothing a man says before the word but, really counts."


----------



## billd91 (Jun 14, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Or they take any criticism of their preferred system as a personal attack.




I would add a caveat "... and then post based on that." 

It's OK to take criticism of something you like as a personal attack and not do anything about it because you recognize that the offense you've taken is largely under your own control. It's not OK to flame back about it.


----------



## Votan (Jun 14, 2011)

Crothian said:


> Don't kid yourself in thinking it is just D&D (not that you are I'm just using your post as a springboard to this point).  Vampire, Paranoia, Shadowrun... it seems that almost any game that issues a new edition causes some kind a strife among the fans.




I do not know; did this debate happen with Traveller or Call of Cthuluu?

I also remember the BECMI/1st Edition AD&D debate as being a matter of preference rather than something that got personal.  So I think that people can have a positive and constructive attitude towards multiple editions.


----------



## Vespucci (Jun 14, 2011)

nedjer said:


> Edition Wars are the inevitable result of the tyranny of the RPG Tome. In a digital age there is no need for top-down, arbitrary design.
> 
> I vote for the democratisation of RPG design, i.e. a move to co-design.




So, that's a vote for going from Edition War to Edition Revolution?  Rally to the Palace of the Silver Princess, comrades!


----------



## Crothian (Jun 14, 2011)

Votan said:


> I do not know; did this debate happen with Traveller or Call of Cthuluu?




I don't play Traveler so I have no idea there but I've seen it from CoC fans.  We saw it some here when d20 Call of Cthulhu came out.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 14, 2011)

AeroDm said:


> "My brother once told me, nothing a man says before the word but, really counts."




 Somebody 's been watching game of thrones....


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 14, 2011)

While I understand the desire to have a discussion regarding the relative merits of various versions of Dungeons and Dragons (or whatever), I think there's a very, very thin line between "criticisms levied in edition wars" and "edition war posts".

Here's an example from the thread posted in the OP: I'm genuinely curious what the intent of the poster that compared 4e to WoW was exactly. Is there really any new ground to tread in that area of discussion that hasn't been hashed over a million times before in the last four years (in edition wars, no less)?  Seriously, is there really anything interesting or new to discuss there? How about that 4e is for babies and simultaneously too complex? All of these things were implied in that thread very strongly by the images presented.

It seems to me the only possible purpose of the thread is to show the poster's preferred edition in a positive light while implying that the worst of the complaints levied against the non preferred edition are actually true. Only the poster doesn't have to explain anything or back up any arguments because it's only a picture and it's only "my opinion, man!"

Well, guess what? Opinions can be (and often are) wrong and posting this stuff as an image might give you plausible deniability but don't have a hissy fit in a forked thread when people call you out on your shenanigans.


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 14, 2011)

It's an edition war once the thread lasts beyond ten pages.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 14, 2011)

I have a peeve about people who take things so personally that you can't have a discussion with them.

When 4E came out my group tried it and found that there were things that we didn't like. So I went on boards looking for ways to tweak 4E to make it more playable for our group.

I gave up because of the outright hostility I encountered from people who just love 4E and can't see why anyone else would have issues with it.  

In the end mainly from that attitude I basically said screw 4E I will stick to 3E or Pathfinder.

It seems to me that the main cause of edition wars is people going into with the attitude that they have a sacred duty to defend their edition.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 14, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> It seems to me the only possible purpose of the thread is to show the poster's preferred edition in a positive light while implying that the worst of the complaints levied against the non preferred edition are actually true. Only the poster doesn't have to explain anything or back up any arguments because it's only a picture and it's only "my opinion, man!"
> 
> Well, guess what? Opinions can be (and often are) wrong and posting this stuff as an image might give you plausible deniability but don't have a hissy fit in a forked thread when people call you out on your shenanigans.




You see, this is, in my opinion, the sort of attitude and response that really generates edition wars. It's not that someone says 1e is better than 4e (it is), that beer is better than coffee (it is), or that lemurs are cooler than monkeys (they are). It's that someone thinks that someone else's subjective opinion on the matter can be wrong and then feels the need to call shenanigans on it that kicks the thread down the edition war spiral.


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 14, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> What constitutes an edition war?




A thread is defined as an edition war when 4e fans put up too much of a fight.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2011)

I am thinking about calling my fantasy heartbreaker "Edition War" instead of RCFG.  Then lots of people will talk about it, and lots of people will see it, even when it isn't there!


----------



## Maggan (Jun 14, 2011)

Votan said:


> I do not know; did this debate happen with Traveller or Call of Cthuluu?




I seem to recall that Traveller to MegaTraveller created a chasm of divide over which much invective was hurled, from both sides.

Call of Cthulhu hasn't really changed at all, so there's not much to go to war over. But I did see something along the lines regarding Call of Cthulhu BRP and Call of Cthulhu d20. Some fans of CoC BRP were not amused.

As for edition wars, I have learned to try to be very clear when I discuss editions that I speak only for myself, and no one else. To me it seems that when someone loads their arguments with a touch of "I speak for all", people get upset very quickly and edition warring is but a small turn of the page away.

/M


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jun 14, 2011)

Firstly, insofar as THIS forum is concerned, an edition war is what and when the moderators say it is.  In the other thread a mod has already posted a clear and reasonable definition.

Generally an expression of opinion or exercise of comparison/contrast of editions becomes an edition war when opinion is treated as fact or inarguable position, either by the person expressing it or by someone reading/responding to it.  When someone gives an inaccurate statement about an edition, or even makes an inflammatory expression of _opinion_, someone else chooses to cease discussing the topic and instead begins to make personal attacks.  That's where it becomes edition war rather than edition discussion.

The silly part is that this means there is no reason for edition warring to happen.  Every insulting thing said or implied about a given edition can AND SHOULD BE read and treated as mere opinion.  In particular, in a thread where opinions are ASKED FOR, even opinions you might consider ignorant or insulting go with the territory and you have no business taking offense and denigrating an _individual _for their opinion (which was invited), or for making errors of fact.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 14, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> A thread is defined as an edition war when 4e fans put up too much of a fight.




In every edition war thread that I've fought in under the 4e banner, it always seemed that I had a rocket launcher while everyone else was fighting with sponges. And I was sad to see them go down, because I really love _every _edition and aspect of D&D, and I love playing, reading, and talking about it.

That enough fight for you, my comrade? Are we at war now?
(Note: I'm trying to be light-hearted and playful, and respect everyone and the games they play. Just keep playing.)


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 14, 2011)

I sometimes wonder what if ENworld just had an "edition war" tag, so people could get on with their edition warring if they liked, or could see the tag at the outset and ignore the thread.

(No, I don't actually think this is a good idea.)


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 14, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I sometimes wonder what if ENworld just had an "edition war" tag, so people could get on with their edition warring if they liked, or could see the tag at the outset and ignore the thread.
> 
> (No, I don't actually think this is a good idea.)




Why not? It could have its own separate forum and wouldn't have to be limited to D&D. It could be an ENworld sponsored game called _Edition Wars_. It would be like paint ball. And we could have an annual competition where the last one still posting in the thread wins (or loses, in this case).

Rereading this post, it now seems kind of silly, must... not... hit... submit...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2011)

An edition war is what happens when *someone else* (probably willfully) misinterprets your *perfectly innocent* post about how much *cooler* your game is than theirs as some kind of "attack" on their game.

Oddly enough, although many people engage in edition wars, few of them are actually "edition warriors" -- it is always *someone else *who is responsible!


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 14, 2011)

It's more a "know it when I see it" for me, but I don't really mind the "hot" edition war, so much--at least as long it is honest about what it is, and can keep a bit of tongue in cheek. 

No, what irritates me about it is the thing that isn't called out (because it really can't be), and that is the passive/aggressive snark, in the "cold" edition war, that spills over repeatedly into topics where it barely has a plausible deniable reason to even be on topic.

If the hot version seems to flare up more than is reasonable, look to the cold version for maintaining tension and derailing useful conversation whenever it can. It is not that "haters gotta hate." Rather it is, some people just gotta try to score a shot and get off with no consequences.

And while I can't positively identify the boundaries of an edition war, I can positively identify a subset of edition warriors: Anyone that *frequently* comments on a particular edition of a game, but never has *anything* positive to say about, beyond the occasional backhand compliment, is practicing edition war. An honest critic would have either said his piece some time ago and not feel the need to revisit all the time, or would have at least a few positive aspects that keep them engaged in the conversation. In many edition wars, whoever else finds themselves sucked in, you can often identify such a relentlessly negative individual in the early sniping.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> It's more a "know it when I see it" for me, but I don't really mind the "hot" edition war, so much--at least as long it is honest about what it is, and can keep a bit of tongue in cheek.
> 
> No, what irritates me about it is the thing that isn't called out (because it really can't be), and that is the passive/aggressive snark, in the "cold" edition war, that spills over repeatedly into topics where it barely has a plausible deniable reason to even be on topic.
> 
> ...




Right you are, CJ!  And I accept the refined definition:

An edition war is what happens when *someone else* (probably willfully) misinterprets your *perfectly innocent* post about how much *cooler* your game is than theirs as some kind of "attack" on their game.  

Then they engage in maintaining tension and derailing useful conversation by continuing to follow up on your *perfectly innocent* post, no doubt to score a shot and get off with no consequences.  Clearly, your *perfectly innocent* post was on topic, and those darn edition warriors are threadcrapping by following up on it!

Oddly enough, although many people engage in edition wars, few of them are actually "edition warriors" -- it is always *someone else *who is responsible!  They can usually be identified because they don't let you have the last word with another *perfectly innocent* post!


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 14, 2011)

billd91 said:


> You see, this is, in my opinion, the sort of attitude and response that really generates edition wars. It's not that someone says 1e is better than 4e (it is), that beer is better than coffee (it is), or that lemurs are cooler than monkeys (they are). It's that someone thinks that someone else's subjective opinion on the matter can be wrong and then feels the need to call shenanigans on it that kicks the thread down the edition war spiral.




This is a great post. How can I argue with: "If you disagree with me, YOU'RE THE ONE DOING IT!"?

Anyway, there's no need to worry. I know what a subjective opinion is. I'm not arguing that your preferences are wrong (they are). I'm arguing that your reasons for having your opinions are factually incorrect. 4e is Dungeons and Dragons, it's not "dumbed down" it's not all that complex and it's not WoW on paper.

It's not all that different from Basic with a unified mechanic and cleaned up rules and much more awesome (THIS ENTIRE POST IS JUST MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION!!!)


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 14, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> This is a great post. How can I argue with: "If you disagree with me, YOU'RE THE ONE DOING IT!"?
> 
> Anyway, there's no need to worry. I know what a subjective opinion is. I'm not arguing that your preferences are wrong (they are). I'm arguing that your reasons for having your opinions are factually incorrect. 4e is Dungeons and Dragons, it's not "dumbed down" it's not all that complex and it's not WoW on paper.
> 
> It's not all that different from Basic with a unified mechanic and cleaned up rules and much more awesome (THIS ENTIRE POST IS JUST MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION!!!)




Do you see what you are doing? I have watched you get kind of angry over anyone who has a negative opinion of 4E. 

I have a friend who hates 3E he still plays AD&D and for years he would say that 3E was not real DnD that it had been turned into a video game.

At first I used to argue with him and then I realized it was fruitless because to him it was not DnD and it felt to video game for him.  He was not wrong because this is how he felt about it.

I came to the realization that in these kind of discussions there is no right or wrong when talking about subjective opinions.

I don't like 4E because of the changes. To me they made it not DnD and they made it feel to much like a video game for my taste.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 14, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Right you are, CJ! And I accept the refined definition:
> 
> An edition war is what happens when *someone else* (probably willfully) misinterprets your *perfectly innocent* post about how much *cooler* your game is than theirs as some kind of "attack" on their game.
> 
> ...



 It the is the last word element that is usually the problem.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 14, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> It the is the last word element that is usually the problem.



I disagree.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 14, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Right you are, CJ! And I accept the refined definition ...




Edition warring overlaps with some other negative forum behaviors, but it is not those behaviors.  Nor is all snark or passive/aggressiveness a sign of an edition warrior.  

Nor should either one be confused with the questionable but oft-seen debate tactic of screaming "hater" or "fanboy" (depending upon ones' perspective of the given subject, alternate spellings available) at the first sign that two other people might be having an honest disagreement but getting along just fine.  "You just say that because you ..." is as bad as, "I'm not saying X, but".  Maybe worse, since it often has no reasonable basis. 

Some people simply enjoy derailing conversations, full stop.  Exactly why that is so, and how they go about it, could consume multiple volumes.  If this, as is claimed several times in this topic so far, is correlated with strong emotions, I suggest that the emotions are as much an effect as a cause.  When the emotions are the effect, it is not about the topic anymore, but the *perceived* dishonesty or rabble rousing or trollish behavior of the current antagonist.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 14, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> I'm arguing that your reasons for having your opinions are factually incorrect.




Oh really? Am I factually incorrect when I say that the powers of 4e remind me of City of Heroes? They do. They may not remind you of them, but then, that's why the impressions and connects are subjective, not objective. There are virtually no facts that are subject to significant dispute. 

Does the repeated use of at will powers once other powers are expended in an encounter against a solo with gobs of hit points remind some players of repeatedly hitting primary attacks in WOW? Probably. Is that a fact subject to dispute? Not really, their feelings are their feelings.

There's a huge conceit in thinking that "facts" underlying opinions may be incorrect. Most often the facts simply are that someone holds the feelings they hold. They may be based on a superficial impression or an unusual experience, but that doesn't make them wrong. Every time I hear "Break Up Song" by the Greg Kihn band, I think of issue #135 of the X-Men. It feels very X-Men 135 to me. There's no fact that you can claim to disprove that "Break Up Song" is X-Men 135. The two things only have a connection within my personal experiences.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 14, 2011)

Touhou Hijack said:


> It beats you getting mad because someone else _likes_ 4e.




I don't get mad if someone likes 4E. I have another friend who loves 4E and we often talk about our games. For his birthday I bought him a 4E game book.

He understands why I don't like 4E and I understand why he likes it so much. Neither of us think the other is wrong.

He does tease me about how I just hate the number 4 because I also dislike 4E Shadowrun. He had a T shirt made for me with the number 4 with a big circle with an x through it. 

I have come to realize that edition wars are pointless there is no winning. There are no facts that are indisputable when it comes to taste in RPGs.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 14, 2011)

Touhou Hijack said:


> Case in point, the thread this branched from. It's ok to say 4e is dumbed down, and an MMORPG, and WoW, and a toy, and so on, and so forth.
> 
> Wait someone is saying disparaging things about other editions? Time to break out the red text!



 Oh the red text is flying on the other thread and I would say the banhammer is being wound up as we speak.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 14, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> I disagree.



 Can't resist having the last word.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 14, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Oh really? Am I factually incorrect when I say that the powers of 4e remind me of City of Heroes? They do. They may not remind you of them, but then, that's why the impressions and connects are subjective, not objective. There are virtually no facts that are subject to significant dispute.
> 
> Does the repeated use of at will powers once other powers are expended in an encounter against a solo with gobs of hit points remind some players of repeatedly hitting primary attacks in WOW? Probably. Is that a fact subject to dispute? Not really, their feelings are their feelings.




I would just like to add that if you played 4e with me, you wouldn't have these feelings (probably). Of course, I make _every_ edition more awesome (probably). 

Of course, one of my convert friends, who was convinced he hated 4e, recently said to me at a session, "You know, sometimes I think you just make [stuff] up, just to get me to like it."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Edition warring overlaps with some other negative forum behaviors, but it is not those behaviors.  Nor is all snark or passive/aggressiveness a sign of an edition warrior.




True; but the ultimate point was "It was him!  Not me!  I'm innocent!" which is, IMHO, at the root.  We sometimes give ourselves too much benefit of the doubt, and the other person too little.  

I'm as guilty as anyone (although I try not to be!).


RC


----------



## billd91 (Jun 14, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> I would just like to add that if you played 4e with me, you wouldn't have these feelings (probably). Of course, I make _every_ edition more awesome (probably).




I probably still would. Both were early but strong impressions I made during play tests and upon first reading the rulebooks. Those are very hard to rub out.

That said, neither makes 4e a non-playable game for me. I do play it a little bit. But I never plan on running it, I don't subscribe to DDI, I don't own any more than 2/3 of the initial core books, don't plan on ever buying more, and I can take it or leave it like no other edition of D&D I ever encountered. That's a huge change in my general orientation toward D&D. The game no longer really attracts me.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 14, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I probably still would.




So you're saying there's a chance (notwithstanding the entire rest of your post). A little doubt is all I need.

When can I fly you down here to beautiful Destin, Fl and show you the best system you've ever seen. I promise you don't need any books or DDI. You don't even need an open mind; that will take care of itself.

On second thought, you may never want to leave (assuming you can stand the heat and humidity). My wife probably wouldn't like it either. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to leave you with your preferred system. You seem happy enough.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 14, 2011)

This is not an _edition war_, but an _edition warrior_ comment:

If you make a sock puppet just to post in this thread, the other thread, or really, any thread so that you can say nasty things with little fear of reprisal....

*invokes Jeff Foxworthy*

...then you might be an edition warrior.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 14, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I have come to realize that edition wars are pointless there is no winning.




i disagree.

i am an edition warrior.

i have won.

i consider myself a winner in the edition war. b/c i have a group garnered from years of battling in the edition's war.

i am refereeing OD&D(1974) and have been for 7 years in the current campaign b/c i fought and continue to fight the edition war.

i will continue to fight for my edition.


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 14, 2011)

> Do you see what you are doing? I have watched you get kind of angry over anyone who has a negative opinion of 4E.
> 
> I have a friend who hates 3E he still plays AD&D and for years he would say that 3E was not real DnD that it had been turned into a video game.
> 
> ...




It's cool, bro I'm not mad you're reading into what I'm saying. I literally have less than 10 posts on this board so I'm not sure you can really say what my posting habits even are.

What I'm talking about here is a poster making passive-agressive edition snipes and then hiding behind technicalities when someone calls it out.

Also, 4e is still Dungeons and Dragons. Once you explain to me how Cleave the power is any different than cleave the feat (and how that makes it like an MMO) then I might listen to whatever silly opinions you posess.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 14, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> It's cool, bro I'm not mad you're reading into what I'm saying. I literally have less than 10 posts on this board so I'm not sure you can really say what my posting habits even are.
> 
> What I'm talking about here is a poster making passive-agressive edition snipes and then hiding behind technicalities when someone calls it out.
> 
> Also, 4e is still Dungeons and Dragons. Once you explain to me how Cleave the power is any different than cleave the feat (and how that makes it like an MMO) then I might listen to whatever silly opinions you posess.




If I took your posts the wrong way I am sorry it just how the few I read seem to come across.

It is annoying when people use passive aggressive tactics but I also think passive aggressive accusations get thrown around a lot on boards.

If I say that 4E feels to gamist in design and that is the reason I don't enjoy it and that is also the reason I don't like MMOs how am I wrong in my opinion.

Years ago Coke changed its formula to the vile Pepsi ripoff New Coke.  As far as I was concerned it was no longer Coke. The product had changed to drastically for me to call it Coke.

I kind of feel the same way about 4E to me they killed so many sacred cows and changed so much of the game that it no longer felt like DnD to me.

This is simply my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I don't think they are wrong for feeling differently about it than I do.


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 14, 2011)

> If I say that 4E feels to gamist in design and that is the reason I don't enjoy it and that is also the reason I don't like MMOs how am I wrong in my opinion.




You are very careful to couch your language in a way that makes your point. To me, 4E doesn't feel any more "gamist" than any other edition of Dungeond and Dragons. We're both saying opposite things. Who's right?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 14, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> You are very careful to couch your language in a way that makes your point. To me, 4E doesn't feel any more "gamist" than any other edition of Dungeond and Dragons. We're both saying opposite things. Who's right?




Both of us are right. That is my point. When it comes to opinions on what you like or dislike about an RPG or even a soda there is no wrong answer.


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 14, 2011)

What if I were to say something like: "In my opinion, water is terrible for you and no one should drink it!" 
Am I still right?

Also I want to add that for you in particular, I don't care what you do or don't play. It really doesn't matter to me in the least. At least you're honest enough about it I guess. (Saying: They changed it now it sucks!).

What I am arguing about is the WoW references, the "dumbed down" statements and the "too complex" statements. I'm arguing the abuse of the GNS and the invention of terms like "dissociated mechanics" or "Gygaxian naturalism". You know, all of the stuff that is objectively not true that people use to try and objectively justify their preferences.


----------



## AeroDm (Jun 14, 2011)

Hmm, after reading a page and a half of replies after my first post, I think I might change my answer to:_
"An edition war begins when statements are more defamatory than illustrative." 
_


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 14, 2011)

So you came around to the conclusion that the original thread was edition war, then?


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 15, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> If I took your posts the wrong way I am sorry it just how the few I read seem to come across.
> 
> It is annoying when people use passive aggressive tactics but I also think passive aggressive accusations get thrown around a lot on boards.
> 
> If I say that 4E feels to gamist in design and that is the reason I don't enjoy it and that is also the reason I don't like MMOs how am I wrong in my opinion.




I was just reading this post, and I suddenly got a little paranoid (because it's probably obvious that I'm enthusiastic about 4e). I didn't know if you were talking specifically about me, so I went back and read all my recent posts. Was this comment aimed at my posts?

Looking at them now, I see all kinds of ways to interpret them as passive aggressive. For example, I told bill d that I could change his feelings about 4e, and it kinda looks now like I might have said "you were doing it wrong, let me show you how", when all I really meant was that I really thought I could get him to appreciate it if he played with my group.

Also, while I really like 4e, I'm more concerned with the hobby as a whole, and would never consider previous editions or other games as bad.

So, if you were thinking of me with this post, I apologize if I offended you (part of the problem may be that my incessant optimism doesn't come across like I think it does).

If you weren't thinking of me in the slightest, please disregard my ramblings.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 15, 2011)

Touhou Hijack said:


> Case in point, the thread this branched from.  It's ok to say 4e is dumbed down, and an MMORPG, and WoW, and a toy, and so on, and so forth.
> 
> Wait someone is saying disparaging things about other editions?  Time to break out the red text!




You do know that the red text in the other thread was because some of the posts had Pictures of US Presidents, The constitution, Magna carta, Declaration of Independence, etc meaning it broke the *NO POLITICS *rule.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 15, 2011)

Touhou Hijack said:


> Case in point, the thread this branched from.  It's ok to say 4e is dumbed down, and an MMORPG, and WoW, and a toy, and so on, and so forth.
> 
> Wait someone is saying disparaging things about other editions?  Time to break out the red text!



Did you read the forum rules?

If not then please read them.
If so, then please read them again.

There is a NO POLITICS rule on this board, and it is there with a reason. For much the same reason RELIGION is also a taboo subject - they, like edition wars, are polarizing topics.

Also, case in point, many folks on that thread were more than willing to poke fun at their own games, while you were selective. Other folks who were edition warring _did_ get called out, and not just in favor of [GAME OF CHOICE]....

The Auld Grump, ever notice that no one ever pulls out Polk or Harrison for these discussions? James Buchanan would be a perfect choice for late 2e....


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 15, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> What if I were to say something like: "In my opinion, water is terrible for you and no one should drink it!"
> Am I still right?
> 
> Also I want to add that for you in particular, I don't care what you do or don't play. It really doesn't matter to me in the least. At least you're honest enough about it I guess. (Saying: They changed it now it sucks!).
> ...




No I wouldn't think you were right because you are tying to force your opinion on to me. It is sort of like what an Aunt of mine used to do she felt that the only way to eat steak was well done and by god that was the only way you could get it at her house. She would not accept that there were different ways to enjoy steak.

You say that they are using these terms to justify their opinions about 4E. I see them as less justifying but more as way of explaining their opinion. 

And even if they are being asshats over it why should you care? That is what I don't understand why people seem to take it personally. Do you feel that it is an insult directed at you because you like the game?

I don't think it sucks I can see what they wanted to accomplish with the new design. I just prefer a different game design.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 15, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> I was just reading this post, and I suddenly got a little paranoid (because it's probably obvious that I'm enthusiastic about 4e). I didn't know if you were talking specifically about me, so I went back and read all my recent posts. Was this comment aimed at my posts?
> 
> Looking at them now, I see all kinds of ways to interpret them as passive aggressive. For example, I told bill d that I could change his feelings about 4e, and it kinda looks now like I might have said "you were doing it wrong, let me show you how", when all I really meant was that I really thought I could get him to appreciate it if he played with my group.
> 
> ...




None of it was directed at you at all. My comment about passive aggressive was not directed at any one in particular. I was just acknowledging that it can be irritating. And that I also think the word gets tossed around a lot and often is used incorrectly.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 15, 2011)

I love how this thread has, itself, become an edition war proxy.

-O


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 15, 2011)

Obryn said:


> I love how this thread has, itself, become an edition war proxy.
> 
> -O



Nar, I just used it as an excuse to mention Polk and Buchanan.  (though given the goings on at TSR in late 2e... maybe Taft would have been a better choice?)

The Auld Grump


----------



## billd91 (Jun 15, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> What if I were to say something like: "In my opinion, water is terrible for you and no one should drink it!"
> Am I still right?
> 
> Also I want to add that for you in particular, I don't care what you do or don't play. It really doesn't matter to me in the least. At least you're honest enough about it I guess. (Saying: They changed it now it sucks!).
> ...




You would be comparing apples and oranges. Nutritionists agree that at least some moisture is necessary and lack really IS bad for you. But whether or not a game is too 'gamist' is more akin to saying the salsa is too spicy. It's a question of personal preference how spicy you like your salsa, same with the balance between gamist, narrativist, and simulationist elements. If I liked the game as it was before and the balance of those elements has changed, then the game may be too gamist... for my preferences. Your preferences may be different without either of us being wrong.


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 15, 2011)

billd91 said:


> You would be comparing apples and oranges. Nutritionists agree that at least some moisture is necessary and lack really IS bad for you. But whether or not a game is too 'gamist' is more akin to saying the salsa is too spicy. It's a question of personal preference how spicy you like your salsa, same with the balance between gamist, narrativist, and simulationist elements. If I liked the game as it was before and the balance of those elements has changed, then the game may be too gamist... for my preferences. Your preferences may be different without either of us being wrong.




what if its the same salsa in a different jar and you still tell me that in your opinion, the second one is too spicy?


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 15, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> No I wouldn't think you were right because you are tying to force your opinion on to me. It is sort of like what an Aunt of mine used to do she felt that the only way to eat steak was well done and by god that was the only way you could get it at her house. She would not accept that there were different ways to enjoy steak.
> 
> You say that they are using these terms to justify their opinions about 4E. I see them as less justifying but more as way of explaining their opinion.
> 
> ...




im not offended or angry or taking anything personally, i assure you. I post on the internet because it's fun. I thought we'd have a discussion. I thought that's what discussion boards were for.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 15, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> what if its the same salsa in a different jar and you still tell me that in your opinion, the second one is too spicy?




Funny you say that because I have seen that  happen WITH SALSA at my family's restaurant.   A man asked a waitress to return one of two bowls of the same salsa (which was part of the same batch) because it was too hot.

We told him it was the same but he didn't have anything to do with it because he already precieved it to be too hot.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 15, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> what if its the same salsa in a different jar and you still tell me that in your opinion, the second one is too spicy?



If you are wondering if you can be wrong in any argument, given enough silliness, then the answer is yes. Going out of your way to be wrong makes little sense, but, yeah, you can do it.

Too bad it doesn't go the opposite way as well, I would _love_ to be correct in every argument, regardless of subject or context. 

The Auld Grump, or just maybe the answer is 'No - one jar of salsa says spicy, the other says mild. The spicy one obviously has jalapenos, while the mild just as obviously does not. Just because they come from the same company does not make them the same salsa. Saying that they are the same doesn't make them so'.

'If your cat had kittens in the oven, would you call 'em biscuits?'


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 15, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I can see what they wanted to accomplish with the new design.



So can I.

I just can't see why.

Lan-"I too am an edition warrior, only the edition I fight for is one that very few know of; as it is largely my own"-efan


----------



## AeroDm (Jun 15, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Nar, I just used it as an excuse to mention Polk and Buchanan.  (though given the goings on at TSR in late 2e... maybe Taft would have been a better choice?)
> 
> The Auld Grump



You know who really doesn't get any love? Chester A. Arthur. I was assigned to write a report on him in 5th grade and I think I can count the number of times he has come up since on one hand.

This thread also made me realize that being compared to WoW is sort of a silly slur. Being likened to a hobby that has a player base probably close to 10x D&D that is a pioneer in its field and has consistently remained excellent enough to continue to dominate despite many new entrants and competitors doesn't really feel like it should hurt.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 15, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> im not offended or angry or taking anything personally, i assure you. I post on the internet because it's fun. I thought we'd have a discussion. I thought that's what discussion boards were for.




Some of your answers seem kind of snarky for just having a discussion. Like calling my opinion silly to assuming that I think 4E sucks just because I don't like it.

I perfect capable of thinking something is well written and still not like it. I seen several episodes of the Sopranos and I think the writing and the acting is fantastic. But I don't like the subject matter and don't enjoy watching the show.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 15, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> what if its the same salsa in a different jar and you still tell me that in your opinion, the second one is too spicy?




This is absolutely silly as an example. Please don't tell me that you think AD&D, 3E and 4E are the exactly the same game.

The first two are closer which is why when 3.0 came out they included a conversation guide to convert your PCs to 3.0. They didn't with 4E because it is very hard to convert characters. 

I have several friends who convert material from AD&D to 3E and even the other way all the time. None of them thinks it easy to covert 4E because so much of the game has changed.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 15, 2011)

> My FAVORITE/BELOVED edition is the 2nd edition.
> 
> It was through this 2nd edition that I got into gaming. It was love at first sight.
> 
> ...




Am I insulting anyone?

Does this make me an Edition Warrior?


----------



## Gorgoroth (Jun 15, 2011)

*I like PF*

and 3.5 for the powerful magic spells that you know, you can actually use outside of combat and doesn't cost 5000gp (like rituals), but I find 4e martial classes way more fun for exactly the opposite reasons. In PF they aren't as dull with full round option or nothing, but 4e is still better for the power curve of martial guys. 

although multi-attacking fighters in 3.5/PF are huge damage dealers, my PF cleric does insane damage, flies around, can teleport, fight in melee pretty well, throw his axe 11 times a day with my wis mod to-hit. And has the second highest AC and the highest base speed in the party : While in heavy armor. Most days I have 40-60 speed, as a dwarf.

Does what I just wrote mean I'm starting a war? nah, I like both games, and I will post my mind since I don't believe in coloring safely in the lines. Why can't I say why I like different things for different reasons? I hardly care if someone else loves or hates this or that edition, but I will listen to well-reasoned arguments and ponder on them (hopefully to improve my builds)


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Both of us are right. That is my point. When it comes to opinions on what you like or dislike about an RPG or even a soda there is no wrong answer.




Mostly.  Humans (ALL of us), have a strong tendency to form opinions, and rationalize support for them after the fact.  We are strongly influenced by many things that are not necessarily rational or obvious. For example, how the new edition was presented to the public could have influenced some folks to be pro- or anti- before they ever saw the actual product.  

So, when asked if you like or dislike something, there is no wrong answer.

When asked why you dislike something, maybe the answer you give isn't as correct as you think.  Our own minds occasionally mislead us.  Maybe you dislike a thing because of it intrinsic qualities, or maybe you dislike it for other reasons that even you don't consciously recognize.  

People out on the internet are not in a good position to say which it is, though.  We cannot tell you for certain whether a person's stated reasons are accurate, and we aren't in a position to divine the truth.  So, for the vast majority of cases we should take a person's word for it, accepting that the know themselves better than we do.


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 15, 2011)

Gorgoroth said:


> and 3.5 for the powerful magic spells that you know, you can actually use outside of combat and doesn't cost
> 5000gp (like rituals),




This is what I'm talking about when I say an opinion is wrong. All powers in 4e can be used outside of combat. All of them can have "objects" as targets per the DMG. Rituals also exist but they aren't the only options for out of combat spells. Not only that (and I realize I'm on thin ice with this argument but hear me out) who here that plays a previous version of D&D doesn't houserule? It's a relatively minor houserule to lower (or remove) the cost of many rituals. Much more minor than a lot of the stuff I saw during the good old days.

I realize that the fact you can houserule is sort of stormwindesque but my point isn't that the ritual system is good (it's not) just that it's telling that many of you are willing to fix issues with older systems and not with the new one.

I was talking about salsa in direct reference to the "Gamist" stuff. I believe that every version of D&D is just as "Gamist" as every other version. The gamism is the salsa. Can you prove to me otherwise?

Also, thanks for making me talk about GNS.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jun 15, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> The gamism is the salsa.



I would probably buy a t-shirt with this written on the front.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 15, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> I was talking about salsa in direct reference to the "Gamist" stuff. I believe that every version of D&D is just as "Gamist" as every other version. The gamism is the salsa. Can you prove to me otherwise?




Nope. In fact, you're correct.

You do believe that every version of D&D is just as "Gamist" as every other version.

I do not believe this. I have my reasons, as I'm sure you have yours.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 15, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> I was talking about salsa in direct reference to the "Gamist" stuff. I believe that every version of D&D is just as "Gamist" as every other version. The gamism is the salsa. Can you prove to me otherwise?




Can you prove that every edition is every bit as gamist as ever other edition? That looks, to me, like an unsupported assertion. 

Gamism (or simulationism or narrativism) isn't the salsa. It's an ingredient. It's an ingredient the game as much as lime juice, fresh tomatoes, red onions, and hot peppers are ingredients of the salsa. The taste of the salsa will depend on how those ingredients (and others) are prepared and mixed. The same is true for the ingredients of a game.

If I were to compare multiclassing rules in 3x and 4e, the ones in 4e that don't require a PC to build up the fundamentals of the second class but allow them to pick up a high level power (like a fighter multiclassing as a wizard and picking up a later power like 9th level daily without mastering lower level wizard powers other than an at will) are more gamist than the 3x rules. The 3x rules won't allow the multiclassed character to have those higher powers without mastering lower level ones all the way up. They have more simulationist elements, changing the way the game plays and feels... and tastes. Every edition is not just as gamist as every other edition. Each one blends gamist, simulationist, and narrativist elements a bit differently.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Gamism (or simulationism or narrativism) isn't the salsa. It's an ingredient.




Revealing what I think of GNS theory here, so take what follows only as personal opinion: Gamism (or simulationism, or narrativism) is a thing we can see in a game if we hold up a grid of G/N/S axes to the game after it is designed.  They are qualities we can reveal by analysis, not things we can directly add to a game.

If you hold up the grid of "The Breakdown of RPG Players" to a game, you will see no gamism at all, because "gamism" doesn't exist in that breakdown.  You'll instead see focus on Strategy vs tactics, and combat vs story.  If you hold up another grid, you'll see other qualities revealed.  

G/N/S are not "ingredients", like flour and milk and eggs.  A designer cannot add "gamism" to his design - he can add mechanics that are fun from a game-player's point of view, and the result might be gamism.  Much like we cannot add "fluffiness" to cookies - we can put butter and sugar to a bowl, beat them, and thus have some fluffiness in our cookies.

IMHO, anyway.


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 15, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Can you prove that every edition is every bit as gamist as ever other edition? That looks, to me, like an unsupported assertion.
> 
> Gamism (or simulationism or narrativism) isn't the salsa. It's an ingredient.




I would like to respectfully say that you're not the one making the analogy.



> Every edition is not just as gamist as every other edition. Each one blends gamist, simulationist, and narrativist elements a bit differently.




I would like to respectfully say that I don't buy GNS theory. Just because some guys got together on the internet and redefined some vague terms to try and describe some play styles doesn't mean that a) it's gospel and b) it's applicable to system design at all.

As for proof? They're all games. All of them. They all involve rolling dice and doing some arithmetic. (a very disassociated action I might add) 

They are all narativist as well. They all involve creating narrative.

None of them "simulates" anything except the Dungeons and Dragons genre. Which I guess could be described as Gonzo medieval spelunking with magic.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 15, 2011)

I would say that most of the GNS theorizing is masturbatory babble, however, there are elements of it that I find useful. There are game mechanics that are more gamist than simulationist (in the sense that they dispense with simulating anything other than something that may be done in a game), more simulationist than narrativist (in that they simulate the organic development of a character's ability than direct the flow of the story), and so on. A game's designers can deliberately go one direction more than another and I do believe 4e dispenses with simulationist elements of previous editions in favor of the way the designers wanted the game to play out on the map (diagonals counting the same as movement along straight square lines). Thus, on certain topics, it's more gamist than other editions.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 15, 2011)

One interesting fact about edition war is this:



Who are the people who voice a stronger opinion against a certain edition?

If we take a look around we'll see how, for example, with 4e it's mostly D&D

veterans who say this and that.

Do you see someone at the age of 16 to 20-something bitching about 4e?

Personally, I don't.

What does that prove? 

"The Older the Wiser" ?  *NO*

...not necessarily anyway....

It only proves how emotional we really are about a game/hobby we like and love.

Most, if not all of us, have stronger ties with the edition we learned to play with,

when we didn't really know every monster in the MM by heart, and when every new encounter,

every beast and every twist was exciting, electrifying and thrilling.

As the years go by, new products see the face of the gaming world, and new editions come to 

"update" what we love so much. Now, when this new "stuff" comes out, how objective are we really?

How capable are we of putting aside our emotions so as to judge a "change" in something that; because

we love it so much, we are incapable to see the reasons for a change... because it was "perfect" for us?

As I said above, what made it for ME, was 2nd edition, no matter what one says, 

this is my "best' edition so far...

Am I capable of seeing flaws in my beloved edition? 

Sure, I can see.... some. But my judgement is so suppressed by my emotions, 

that I will never agree to EVERY argument.

Perhaps, deed inside me, I know better than what I actually say and write... and I probably won't admit it,

even to myself.

How can we blame some new gamer for liking, perhaps, the ONLY edition he has ever known?

Surely, I can tell you that he feels just like you feel, when one bitches about the edition, or whatever you treasure most.

Perhaps he feels the exact same way, the first players felt 30 years ago, when D&D was considered a "spawn

of the devil".

Sounds a bit "too much"? Take a second and think about it...

My father used to tell me: "Nahhh, you kids don't know how to live!!!! Back in the days when i was young....."

We 've all heard that one!

That's to say how objective we really are, about things we like, and about all the things that come after that.


That doesn't mean that wisdom doesn't count. Of course it does, and am sure that most Vets make some very good points

when it comes to comparing yesterday to today.

As to how objective this judgement really is... is really beyond me...


I bitch about kids playing WOW, saying how stupidly they waist hours in front of their screens...

And me? Oh... I played "super wonder boy" in front of my AMSTRAD-6128... how superior am I....

ANd my father? He probably played pool at the time... or something of the sort...

And my grandfather? He probably didn't even have time to play anything...

How do I know I do "the right thing"?




Sure, if we get down to talking about how video games have a negative effect on tabletop RPGS, 

I'm certain that I will come up with some very good points. And I'm not gonna say them

because I want to "win" the argument. I'll say what I'll say because I really believe in it....

I'll talk out of experience, I'll be logical, I'll be compassionate towards the human evolution and I 'll also

be expressing my beliefs on the deterioration of the human species...

but at the same time I'll be speaking as one man born at a certain time, bearing all the faults and prejudices of the

age I was born in...

I will answer all your questions, I 'll satisfy your inquires the best way I can,

yet if you ask me: "Which part of all this is based on emotion, and which part is based on logic?"

Well, I will NEVER know the answer to that one.....





“What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.”

Pericles


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> Who are the people who voice a stronger opinion against a certain edition?
> 
> If we take a look around we'll see how, for example, with 4e it's mostly D&D
> 
> ...




Well, you have to be careful about that.  Who you hear talking depends upon where you listen.

It is my impression that EN World's population leans toward older gamers - the people speaking are preselected to be older here, so of course you won't see as many younger players speaking.  On some other website (say, the WotC forums), you may see more younger gamers, and come to the exact opposite conclusion.

Which is to say, the sample you see on any particular website doesn't speak to other websites.  And what you see on websites doesn't necessarily speak to the majority of gamers who don't post to websites at all.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 15, 2011)

Sometimes I forget that I'm only 23 and most posters on this website are probably older than me. Of course, I feel much older than your typical 23-year-old does.

Funny story: earlier in the year I was at a conference (I'm an executive at a U.S. defense contract firm) and one of the other presidents was complaining about, well, _my _generation. He was saying how we were lazy, had no drive, felt entitled, etc. I just had to roll my eyes at his ignorance. Admittedly, he didn't know how old I was, and he did specifically complain about his 23-year-old son who was apparently still at home and flipping burgers.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 15, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Well, you have to be careful about that.  Who you hear talking depends upon where you listen.
> 
> It is my impression that EN World's population leans toward older gamers - the people speaking are preselected to be older here, so of course you won't see as many younger players speaking.  On some other website (say, the WotC forums), you may see more younger gamers, and come to the exact opposite conclusion.
> 
> Which is to say, the sample you see on any particular website doesn't speak to other websites.  And what you see on websites doesn't necessarily speak to the majority of gamers who don't post to websites at all.




Well I've seen a bit of what goes on in the WotC website, and I did not come to the opposite conclusion.

WotC is much more pro 4e than here (normal right?), and the people in there are a lot younger. Especially those participating in the 4e dedicated sub-forums.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't any older gamers who have crossed the bridge. There are. It's just that they're the minority.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 15, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> One interesting fact about edition war is this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would it surprise you to hear that I have? And that I have heard 13 and 14 year olds complaining as well?

To take any surprise away - one group are all in my teens 'n' tweens Pathfinder game - and for the most part their parents are in my grown-up games, either Pathfinder or Spycraft. They had played the game for a while, and had parents who had played similar games for years.

And the person they were talking to was a younger brother who was a loud mouthed 4e fan, and who was quoting WotC ad speak. (All about the combat, that boy. All about the combat.)

They got quite heated about it*. At least in part because he could not seem to grasp that they enjoyed 3.X/3.P _in spite of the fact that he had never read or played it._ He based his premise entirely on WotC's claims, rather than informing his own voice. In this case sibling rivalry was a stronger component, I think, than actual enjoyment  on one side, and defensive behavior on the other.

While I happen to agree that Pathfinder is a better game in many ways, the actual battle was over things aside from the topic voiced. The younger brother wanted to run a game, and they did not want to play that game. I do not know if they would have played the game if he had decided to run Pathfinder, but I have my doubts.

On the flip side - the young players all seem happy with Pathfinder, while the 4e fan was willing to play Pathfinder because it wasn't 3.X. (If I could roll my eyes here, trust me, I would be doing so. Ah, the power of brands.) He also seemed to have a good time, though he did not become what I would call a convert.

I think part of it may just have been him wanting to be in something before his friends and family, then being frustrated when they weren't interested in that new thing.

I have also encountered 13-15 year olds, not my players, who quite happily called Pathfinder 'D&D'. They did not care about branding, as far as they were concerned it was D&D, and the version of D&D that they wanted to play. (I would love to say that it was because they preferred the Pathfinder mechanics, but I suspect it had more to how with how the book looked and read than the actual systems.)

And a group at the book store who were complaining about 4e, but sounded more like Exalted would fit them better than 3.x/Pathfinder. (They really were not happy with 4e, not at all.)

The Auld Grump

* By heated I mean loud, stubborn, and repetitive - you know, standard edition war behavior.


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 16, 2011)

Umbran said:


> When asked why you dislike something, maybe the answer you give isn't as correct as you think. Our own minds occasionally mislead us. Maybe you dislike a thing because of it intrinsic qualities, or maybe you dislike it for other reasons that even you don't consciously recognize.
> 
> People out on the internet are not in a good position to say which it is, though. We cannot tell you for certain whether a person's stated reasons are accurate, and we aren't in a position to divine the truth. So, for the vast majority of cases we should take a person's word for it, accepting that the know themselves better than we do.




This is not a constructive thing to do when the argument is about how games should be made. Mike Mearls is over on the wotc website doing his regular colum in which he basically kisses up to grognards, talking up the kind of ideas edition warriors have as if they were legit goals for design. 

But they're not. 

Most criticisms of 4e from the edition warriors simply aren't well argued, well supported, or legitimate. For example, 4e is not less narritive than previous editions in any real, concrete sense- it's just one of the ways people are rationalising their edition war angst. 

That's fine if it's preference, and i'm the first to say that around the table? In a game? Somebody's whim or feelings or enthusiasm is totally concretly relevant if everyone is going to have fun. If somebody is bummed out about 4e for whatever reason, they're not going to have fun playing it, no matter how well it's designed.

But this is not about play, this is about design. When it becomes a design goal to try and serve those demands? That's a recipie for a crappy game, and a clear step backwards from the progress made in 4th edition. 

One example. 4e is not less narritive-oriented. That criticism is simply not legit, and it not being argued on a rational basis. A designer trying to appease the people making that criticism cannot suceed in doing so through design, because the criticism is not a legit criticism of design. 

What they can do by trying is make a crappier, less well designed game, with a bunch of sacred cow baggage and appeasement for grognards. 

Treating all opinions on design as equal is a recipie for disaster when people pretend that their preferences, whims and edition war angst are linked to real, rational design issues. 

There are any number of flaws in 4e, and there are even cases where for instance, the out-of-combat systems like rituals should be fixed to give more suport to that play. 

But it doesn't matter what the 4e ritual system looked like, most of the people bitching about 4e being too combat oriented would be doing it either way. Their critiera is not rational, it never has been.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 16, 2011)

An edition war is an attempt for one group of RPG players to defeat at least one other group of players of a different edition through opinion. Whether or not a specific action is part of such an activity depends on interpretation. In general I would look for evidence of any of the following:

- Bad argument, e.g. ad hominem attacks, illogic, failure to respond to and rebut, numerous fallacies, and so forth
- Evidence that someone is not merely content to state the superiority of their game, but to insist that others also agree to its superiority
- Evidence that someone prefers to engage in aggressive posting when an opportunity presents, and does not post constructively when opportunities arise
- Not valuing the enjoyment of others, whether playing a different edition or the same one


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 16, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> But this is not about play, this is about design. When it becomes a design goal to try and serve those demands? That's a recipie for a crappy game, and a clear step backwards from the progress made in 4th edition.



Spoken like a true warrior.

Crappy?  Backwards?  Progress?  All subjective opinions, and all open to debate and disagreement.


> One example. 4e is not less narritive-oriented. That criticism is simply not legit, and it not being argued on a rational basis. A designer trying to appease the people making that criticism cannot suceed in doing so through design, because the criticism is not a legit criticism of design.



Without diving into ghastly Forge-isms, it's pretty easy to see the swing from story-driven (or imagination-driven) to gameplay-driven (or rules-driven) as you look at the evolution from 2e to 3e to 4e.  Pushing the pendulum back the other way a bit *can* be done through a combination of design and presentation; and thus is a legitimate design goal.  It is also a worthy one. 


> What they can do by trying is make a crappier, less well designed game, with a bunch of sacred cow baggage and appeasement for grognards.



Where instead you would do...what, exactly?


> Treating all opinions on design as equal is a recipie for disaster when people pretend that their preferences, whims and edition war angst are linked to real, rational design issues.



There are really only two things that make an edition what it is:

1. Design.  This is where we all try to have some input, or at least we go through the motions and hope for the best, and hope the actual designers listen to us as a bloc if not as individuals.

2. Presentation.  This is completely out of our control.  If the game is presented (by how the rules and books are written) and marketed as all-combat-all-the-time then guess what?  That's how it'll be played.  But if it's presented as something more; as being capable of combat, story, imagination, world design, exploration, etc. etc. - in other words, as being versatile - then more people will find it suitable for the game they want to play.  Which by extension means more people wil buy it. 


> But it doesn't matter what the 4e ritual system looked like, most of the people bitching about 4e being too combat oriented would be doing it either way. Their critiera is not rational, it never has been.



It's not just 4e.  3e had the same problem.  So did 1e, though to nowhere near the same extent.

Lan-"it's not D+D until I can roleplay getting drunk in a Norse town somewhere"-efan


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 16, 2011)

See, am I supposed to argue with that? Am I supposed to put on a show? 
We go line by line for a few pages and then hmm, I wonder who'll get banned for edition warring?

I have nothing to prove, I stated my opinion, and my entire point is that there isn't a constructive dicsusion going on here, even if people want to pretend there is. 

2e wasn't some bastion of story gaming, and the edition with the best story support is 4e, because it has the best dming advice, by a long shot. You don't use that definition? I don't give a rat's ass; in my opinion your criteria is not sound.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 16, 2011)

Touhou Hijack said:


> I'm trying to figure how 4e is this bastion of gamist ideas compared to other games, when 4e is the first one to openly state "Rather then give you charts and rules, it's up to the DM to create the world, and up to the players to be creative and roleplay."



If by 'first' you mean 'most recent in a long line going back to OD&D'.... Typically called 'Rule Zero' something akin has been in _every_ edition. It has been in most games that aren't part of the D&D systems as well.

Not a bad thing, but _far_ from new.

Part of the gamist accusation against 4e is true, but a larger portion is a product of the manner that WotC forwarded the line, especially in the pre-release and just post-release periods.

4e most certainly _can_ be used for a more vibrant manner of game, with greater verisimilitude, but in its early days it was presented in rather the opposite manner, with a _not_ unspoken assumption that previous games were doing it wrong.

Me, I'd rather watch a good movie than play 4e. Hell, I'd rather watch a bad-but-fun movie than play 4e. And, given the number of miniatures that I have painted, I can honestly say that I'd rather watch paint dry than play 4e.... But that just means that I like painting miniatures.  

The Auld Grump


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 16, 2011)

Gamist means challenge the players.

For most of its history, D&D has been strongly gamist, but the nature of the challenge has changed. In OD&D and 1e the player figures out how to crack the DM's dungeon - avoid the traps, solve the puzzles, avoid the wandering monsters, kill the guardians, find the treasure and then haul it out.

In 3e, the challenge has changed somewhat. PC build is very important - avoiding 'traps' like the Toughness feat. The rules for combat tactics are much better than 1e's pummeling/overbearing, weapon vs AC, etc so combat becomes a more viable area for player decision making and hence gamist challenge. Avoiding encounters that are too tough and figuring out a foe's 'secret weakness' are also part of it, as per DMG page 49-50.

In 4e, the challenge shifts away from the build somewhat and more towards tactics in combat. Players also have to make strategic decisions about spending gold on rituals, and operational level choices about using dailies and action points.

2e is the least gamist by far. Although the rules are pretty similar to those of 1e, gameplay is supposed to be focused more on roleplaying and experiencing the world and story, not winning.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 16, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> See, am I supposed to argue with that? Am I supposed to put on a show?
> We go line by line for a few pages and then hmm, I wonder who'll get banned for edition warring?
> 
> I have nothing to prove, I stated my opinion, and my entire point is that there isn't a constructive dicsusion going on here, even if people want to pretend there is.
> ...




You really can't see it can you. That you are basically trying to state your opinion as fact not an opinion. 

I have found this discussion very constructive. Because I have finally figured out why some 4E fans get so bothered by all this.

You guys are afraid that the designers will listen to our criticism and change the game design that you enjoy.

Welocome to the club fans of older editions know exactly how that feels. To have a game that you really enjoy changed.

I think the reason Mearls and WOTC is courting old fans is that the new edition is not selling as well as they hoped and want some of that business back. Believe me a lot of this has to do with bottom dollar.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the reason Mearls and WOTC is courting old fans is that the new edition is not selling as well as they hoped and want some of that business back. Believe me a lot of this has to do with bottom dollar.




This... if 4e was/is meeting financial expectations or surpassing them, then I doubt WotC would be screwing around with it's basic design paradigms in the middle of the editions lifespan ...cough*essentials*cough... or even entertaining the criticisms of those fans 4e has dissapointed. Plain and simple if 4e was making the type of money they wanted it to or garnering new customers like they expected it to, WotC wouldn't care what those left behind thought.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

Touhou Hijack said:


> _Or_ Mearls - the guy who regularly plays 0e? - is a fan of old school classes and wants them to be implemented more in D&D.
> 
> It really is that simple.




Wait... so you think the powers that be at WotC, regardless of what sales data or and/or marketing data tells them... would just give Mearls carte blanche to design any way he wants (because he likes it)... even if it would lower their profits? Hmmm, I'm not a fan of the practices of WotC but even I believe they have more business sense than that.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> This... if 4e was/is meeting financial expectations or surpassing them, then I doubt WotC would be screwing around with it's basic design paradigms in the middle of the editions lifespan ...cough*essentials*cough... or even entertaining the criticisms of those fans 4e has dissapointed. Plain and simple if 4e was making the type of money they wanted it to or garnering new customers like they expected it to, WotC wouldn't care what those left behind thought.




Before the 4E fanboys have a brain hemorrhage over this , this is not an attack on the design of the game. 

I think there is a lot more to it than that. 4E came out just as the economy was crashing. I breed birds. Pets like gaming is a luxury and I have seen my business take a beating. 

Another part of the issue is Pathfinder. It gave people who like to play a supported system a different option.

And finally 4E changed a lot about the game and for some of us those changes were a deal breaker. 

The thing to remember is that WOTC is a business and it will do what it has to do to stay in business.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

Touhou Hijack said:


> I believe that the guy who's job position is being in charge of how 4e is developed is, indeed, in charge of how 4e is developed.
> 
> Shocking, I know.




I'm not even sure what to say to this... So you think Mike Mearls is just given free reign to develop D&D however he wants... and there are no checks, balances and restrictions from on high on the type of products and design space he has to develop in???  Why does WotC even do market research for D&D... I mean they're going to let Mearls do whatever he wants, right?  So why waste the money on it?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

Double Post.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'm not even sure what to say to this... So you think Mike Mearls is just given free reign to develop D&D however he wants... and there are no checks, balances and restrictions from on high on the type of products and design space he has to develop in???  Why does WotC even do market research for D&D... I mean they're going to let Mearls do whatever he wants, right?  So why waste the money on it?




Mike Mearls can do this because he is a powerful wizard and everyone else at WOTC are not so he has complete narrative control.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Mike Mearls can do this because he is a powerful wizard and everyone else at WOTC are not so he has complete narrative control.




So in reality there is only one Wizard of the Coast... Mike Mearls, and everyone else working there are just his apprentices... got it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> Mike Mearls can do this because he is a powerful wizard and everyone else at WOTC are not so he has complete narrative control.






Imaro said:


> So in reality there is only one Wizard of the Coast... Mike Mearls, and everyone else working there are just his apprentices... got it.




It's funny because it's true!


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

I think part of the problem of this thread is that 4e "fanboys" are being too defensive and emotional, when there is nothing needed to be defended. 4e is the best game by far, best at narration, best at simulation, and best at gaming. The problem, as mentioned in the posts above, is that WotC's presentation and marketing of the system was very poor, and now they're trying to change that. The presentation can be approved, but I think we can all agree that 4e is otherwise the best edition so far.


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the reason Mearls and WOTC is courting old fans is that the new edition is not selling as well as they hoped and want some of that business back. Believe me a lot of this has to do with bottom dollar.




Why do you think 4e fans would buy a 5e designed to appeal to fans like you? 

We'll just do what most of you lot did and play a rebranded knockoff, with the added advantage that ours will actually be worth playing.

The bottom dollar is that no company can survive by pandering to ex-fans who are angry at them for imagined insults and even more imaginary design concepts.

Nor can they do it by creating a game that is deliberatly less fun for new people who say things like 'I want to play a guy with a sword' or 'I don't want to just sit around and heal people'. Old school design isn't more immersive or naritivist, it's just bad. That's why they fixed it.

The backlash against 4e is many things, but a valid business opportunity for wotc it is not. Paizo already siezed the brass ring for that one, wotc can't take it back, least of all by by making the same mistake again, and alienating the people who are currently buying it's books.

Personally, I have no doubt that if we ever see a 5e, it will be stocked to the gills with pandering, while also trying to appeal to 4e players. 

And it will fail to bridge that gap, because most of the people bashing 4e will not be happy unless the brilliant improvements made in it are sufficiently damaged to appease them.

The problem is, if that happens, me and all my book-buying, subscription-having buddies wil simply not buy it. After all- we know bad design when we see it.

So either redbadge is right, and this is about, frankly, spin, in which case, the haters won't come back, or i'm right, and 5e will be essentials + 3.75, in which case 4e fans won't buy it.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> I think part of the problem of this thread is that 4e "fanboys" are being too defensive and emotional, when there is nothing needed to be defended. 4e is the best game by far, best at narration, best at simulation, and best at gaming. The problem, as mentioned in the posts above, is that WotC's presentation and marketing of the system was very poor, and now they're trying to change that. The presentation can be approved, but I think we can all agree that 4e is otherwise the best edition so far.




I beliive you'll find that there is no such agreement.  People have entirely different perspectives on what makes a RPG good/better/best.  That's why it's great to have a large variety of product to choose from.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> So either redbadge is right, and this is about, frankly, spin, in which case, the haters won't come back, or i'm right, and 5e will be essentials + 3.75, in which case 4e fans won't buy it.




Well, I might buy it, but I probably wouldn't play it. One of my first posts, reposted here for its relevancy:

I've played every edition of Dungeons and Dragons and many other RPGs besides. D&D 4e has provided me better experiences and more fun, both as player and GM, than any other system by far. If preferring the 4e design makes me a "kid", as described in the post above, I'll wear that title proudly.

I'd be extremely happy if 5th edition continued the design started by  4th edition, perhaps with better communication in intent and design from  WotC and more ingrained  flavor to draw in parts of the fractured player base. Raven Crowking  has previously mentioned a possible "pendulum swing" back towards the  design of earlier editions, and while I enjoy Essentials, anything more  than that in 5th edition would greatly disappoint me. A fractured player  base doesn't mean a lot to me, either now or going forward, because I  can easily find people that love 4th edition as much as I do. In that  case, I would obviously like WotC  to take their resources and make an even better version of the game me  and my friends enjoy now, regardless of whether or not everyone else  would like it. As long as WotC sells enough of this system to keep trying and keep developing new support, hey, works for me.

However, even if 5th edition is nothing like 4th edition, and goes  backwards in ways I dislike, well, my greatest system ever has _already_ been invented, with plenty of support. I can easily play 4th edition for the next 25 years (despite the assertions of RCK).  At most, I lose the online character builder and compendium, but oh  well. If 5th edition, and 6th edition, and 7th edition don't match up  with the greatness of 4e, I'll be staying with 4e. It's the same reason I switched from 3.5 to 4e; I naturally play the system I find better. I'd expect most supporters of early editions to feel the same.

Given this, I suppose it's selfish to expect more awesome stuff from WotC,  just to please me and others like me. Though I would be disappointed  that I couldn't look forward to new stuff every month if 5th edition  significantly changed for the worse, I wouldn't begrudge Raven Crowking  and other like him from getting their wish for a couple of editions.  (After all, I find the editions wars and hearty design discussion fun,  as long as no one insults the debaters themselves, badwrongfun and all  that). Edited to add: Who knows, I may even end up liking such as direction (I would still buy the core books).


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

Nagol said:


> I beliive you'll find that there is no such agreement.  People have entirely different perspectives on what makes a RPG good/better/best.  That's why it's great to have a large variety of product to choose from.




Aha, but I said we _can _all agree, not that we _do_. If any one who currently doesn't like 4e, as long as they truly liked RPGs (story, pretend, fantasy, immersion in another role, and all that), played a handful of sessions with me or a person with a similar perspective as me, we _would _all agree that 4e is best, of this I have no doubt (because I've seen it happen more than once before, with the most diehard of grognards*).

*said with admiration and respect


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> Aha, but I said we _can _all agree, not that we _do_. If any one who currently doesn't like 4e, as long as they truly liked RPGs (story, pretend, fantasy, immersion in another role, and all that), played a handful of sessions with me or a person with a similar perspective as me, we _would _all agree that 4e is best, of this I have no doubt (because I've seen it happen more than once before, with the most diehard of grognards*).
> 
> *said with admiration and respect




You must be a better DM than my DM of 8 years who switched over to 4e then.

Because I left his 4e game firmly unconvinced (played several sessions and played two different types of characters).




(Not that it's a bad game, but I don't find it to be the best.)

Seriously though, it's VERY silly to claim any one game is the "best". You can claim it is for you, sure. But to claim it's universally best? Silly. 

I'd say the same if anyone claimed Pathfinder, 3e, World of Darkness, GURPS, Call of Cthulu, etc etc were *best*.


Thinking in this way "this game is clearly best" is I think one of the attitudes behind edition warring. It doesn't leave room for "that is also good, maybe AS good".


----------



## Nagol (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> Aha, but I said we _can _all agree, not that we _do_. If any one who currently doesn't like 4e, as long as they truly liked RPGs (story, pretend, fantasy, immersion in another role, and all that), played a handful of sessions with me or a person with a similar perspective as me, we _would _all agree that 4e is best, of this I have no doubt (because I've seen it happen more than once before, with the most diehard of grognards*).
> 
> *said with admiration and respect




I respectfully disagree.  A particular person may run a great game for many others, but they will not run the perfect game for everyone.  There are too many perspectives and desires for any particular game or any particular game master to be consdiered 'the best' by everyone.  In my case, for example, some editions of D&D are go-to games for some particular genres and game choices and other versions get mined for some game ideas and never run as themselves.  Other genres and/or game choices have entirely different game systems as there go-to choice.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Why do you think 4e fans would buy a 5e designed to appeal to fans like you?




Who said we expected you too? Maybe WotC has realised we spend more money, support our game more or whatever and has decided that it's actually the 4e fan base that could be sacrificed to make a better profit... 



catastrophic said:


> We'll just do what most of you lot did and play a rebranded knockoff, with the added advantage that ours will actually be worth playing.




Well here's to hoping some company out there somewhere considers 4e worth it form a profit perspective to do this... oh, and chooses to do it with the creativity and production values of Paizo. Hope springs eternal, and I definitely don't begrudge you the opportunity to keep playing the game you believe is superior.



catastrophic said:


> The bottom dollar is that no company can survive by pandering to ex-fans who are angry at them for imagined insults and even more imaginary design concepts.




Who made the claim that a company could. As far as Paizo goes... the proof is in the pudding, whatever it is they're doing... they're doing it right. They aren't just "surviving" they are prospering and growing.



catastrophic said:


> Nor can they do it by creating a game that is deliberatly less fun for new people who say things like 'I want to play a guy with a sword' or 'I don't want to just sit around and heal people'. Old school design isn't more immersive or naritivist, it's just bad. That's why they fixed it.




I've introduced new gamers to Pathfinder... they had fun... subjective opinion, is well... a subjective opinion. But hey you keep stating it like it's fact.



catastrophic said:


> The backlash against 4e is many things, but a valid business opportunity for wotc it is not. Paizo already siezed the brass ring for that one, wotc can't take it back, least of all by by making the same mistake again, and alienating the people who are currently buying it's books.




Maybe you guys should buy more of their books... support the company and maybe then they wouldn't be reconsidering their design, cancelling products for D&D and considering new directions. Just saying, money talks... 



catastrophic said:


> Personally, I have no doubt that if we ever see a 5e, it will be stocked to the gills with pandering, while also trying to appeal to 4e players.
> 
> And it will fail to bridge that gap, because most of the people bashing 4e will not be happy unless the brilliant improvements made in it are sufficiently damaged to appease them.
> 
> The problem is, if that happens, me and all my book-buying, subscription-having buddies wil simply not buy it. After all- we know bad design when we see it.




Subjective opinion is... oh, yeah I covered that above... 



catastrophic said:


> So either redbadge is right, and this is about, frankly, spin, in which case, the haters won't come back, or i'm right, and 5e will be essentials + 3.75, in which case 4e fans won't buy it.




No I don't think redbadge is correct in his very broad and simplistic generalization... and I think WotC will take option C... assess where the money is and cater to that marketshare. I mean 4e fans are warring alread over "true 4e" vs. "essentials 4e"... you guys are already a fractured player base and it isn't even a new edition.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> Aha, but I said we _can _all agree, not that we _do_. If any one who currently doesn't like 4e, as long as they truly liked RPGs (story, pretend, fantasy, immersion in another role, and all that), played a handful of sessions with me or a person with a similar perspective as me, we _would _all agree that 4e is best, of this I have no doubt (because I've seen it happen more than once before, with the most diehard of grognards*).
> 
> *said with admiration and respect




... uhm, yeah...ok...glad you clarified that.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'm not even sure what to say to this... So you think Mike Mearls is just given free reign to develop D&D however he wants... and there are no checks, balances and restrictions from on high on the type of products and design space he has to develop in???  Why does WotC even do market research for D&D... I mean they're going to let Mearls do whatever he wants, right?  So why waste the money on it?




Game design is such an art, I don't think you can formulate what works. Of course it's his decision.... a game designer's best effort _that they think is cool_ is probably one of the better designs you are going to get out of them. Of course, if you think you can get 2% more profits doing a little backseat designing, go ahead and burn out Mike Mearls on your project. Independence is both a blessing a curse.

Honestly, 4e is obviously the product of the WotC designers doing whatever the whatooiee they felt like, either with the blessing of management, or the tactic acceptance by suits who don't understand the game anyway. 4e is a textbook example of a creative group of people doing something really amazing by following their own instincts. Unofortunately, the zeitgeist is not as happy with the result as perhaps some had hoped, but that's the risk of daring to do something good. 

I think 4e is pretty stinkie, but there is no doubt in my mind a lot of people are proud to have designed it, and it provides genuine enjoyment for many of the people who play it.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Seriously though, it's VERY silly to claim any one game is the "best". You can claim it is for you, sure. But to claim it's universally best? Silly.
> 
> I'd say the same if anyone claimed Pathfinder, 3e, World of Darkness, GURPS, Call of Cthulu, etc etc were *best*.
> 
> ...




 I can be a silly person, but also optimistic, confidant, and enthusiastic (good qualities for a DM, by the by). When I say 4e is "best", I don't mean that any other system is bad. I've actually said the opposite. What I mean is that on average, players using the 4e _system_ will have a little more fun, a little more often, and given a choice players will choose that system most of the time. If the 4e system was built with the Pathfinder presentation, it would be even better.

I mean compare 4e to 3.5. 4e is basically 3.5, but with more fun and colorful options (after all, a 4e wizard can summon a red dragon at-will at level 1, if he wants, while the 3.5 wizard is probably using a crossbow most of the time at level 1) with fewer restrictions. Note that a 4e wizard can still use a crossbow if he wants.

Basically, 4e has everything and can do anything that earlier editions could do, but they added more for those that wanted to take advantage of it. By most accounts, better.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Game design is such an art, I don't think you can formulate what works. Of course it's his decision.... a game designer's best effort _that they think is cool_ is probably one of the better designs you are going to get out of them. Of course, if you think you can get 2% more profits doing a little backseat designing, go ahead and burn out Mike Mearls on your project. Independence is both a blessing a curse.
> 
> Honestly, 4e is obviously the product of the WotC designers doing whatever the whatooiee they felt like, either with the blessing of management, or the tactic acceptance by suits who don't understand the game anyway. 4e is a textbook example of a creative group of people doing something really amazing by following their own instincts. Unofortunately, the zeitgeist is not as happy with the result as perhaps some had hoped, but that's the risk of daring to do something good.
> 
> I think 4e is pretty stinkie, but there is no doubt in my mind a lot of people are proud to have designed it, and it provides genuine enjoyment for many of the people who play it.




This has nothing to do with my post... what I'm saying is that regardless of what Mike Mearls wants to do there are certain design and development constraints he must work within as set down by those in a higher position at WotC, this has no bearing on whether it is a good or bad game, or whether the developers are proud or not of their design... that's just how businesses are ran.  The only way this wouldn't be true is if Mike both owned and developed D&D.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> I can be a silly person, but also optimistic, confidant, and enthusiastic (good qualities for a DM, by the by). When I say 4e is "best", I don't mean that any other system is bad. I've actually said the opposite. What I mean is that on average, players using the 4e _system_ will have a little more fun, a little more often, and given a choice players will choose that system most of the time. If the 4e system was built with the Pathfinder presentation, it would be even better.
> 
> I mean compare 4e to 3.5. 4e is basically 3.5, but with more fun and colorful options (after all, a 4e wizard can summon a red dragon at-will at level 1, if he wants, while the 3.5 wizard is probably using a crossbow most of the time at level 1) with fewer restrictions. Note that a 4e wizard can still use a crossbow if he wants.
> 
> Basically, 4e has everything and can do anything that earlier editions could do, but they added more for those that wanted to take advantage of it. By most accounts, better.




Better to whom? This thread is about what constitutes an edition war. Your post is an example of something that, while not overtly aggressive, is riddled with numerous problems as a logical argument. The biggest problem is that you are simply wrong. Now, I realize you may not believe you are wrong, and you may not feel wrong, but as far as I am concerned, you are wrong. Now, if you don't want to have an edition war with me, it would be worthwhile to try to look at why someone might have a different opinion than you do.

You like 4e. You are predisposed to like 4e. My opinion is that 4e is a well-designed 4e. However, I have a lot of experience with game design, and it is my opinion that 

1) the 4e design is not very robust and the core of the game is less elegant than many other games, and
2) 4e is not as good a 4e as 3e is 3e, or BECMI is BECMI; I put 4e about on par with AD&D and Shadowrun 3e in terms of meeting its own design goals. Definitely not a home run.

You can claim 4e is an objectively better, freer system, but if you won't listen, you will never come to understand why others believe differently. You will have an unexamined opinion, and hence a less valuable one.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> This has nothing to do with my post... what I'm saying is that regardless of what Mike Mearls wants to do there are certain design and development constraints he must work within as set down by those in a higher position at WotC, this has no bearing on whether it is a good or bad game, or whether the developers are proud or not of their design... that's just how businesses are ran.  The only way this wouldn't be true is if Mike both owned and developed D&D.




You made the comment that market research was wasted if Mike Mearls does whatever he wants. I disagree. You do the market research, then you do whatever you want. You are of course correct that Mike Mearls has bosses that will tell him what to do. It does not follow logically that they are correct to tell him to do any one thing. That's not "how business is done." That's one style, and in my view, probably not a good way to run a creativity-based business. 

Market research is really only useful for telling you about the predictable.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Better to whom? This thread is about what constitutes an edition war. Your post is an example of something that, while not overtly aggressive, is riddled with numerous problems as a logical argument. The biggest problem is that you are simply wrong. Now, I realize you may not believe you are wrong, and you may not feel wrong, but as far as I am concerned, you are wrong. Now, if you don't want to have an edition war with me, it would be worthwhile to try to look at why someone might have a different opinion than you do.
> 
> You like 4e. You are predisposed to like 4e. My opinion is that 4e is a well-designed 4e. However, I have a lot of experience with game design, and it is my opinion that
> 
> ...




"I'm never wrong. I once thought I was, but I was mistaken."

I know why people have their opinions... and it's because they haven't had the benefit of experiencing the game the way I have. I'm not claiming that 4e "is an objectively better, freer system." I'm just saying that, if you had my perspective, you'd agree with me. It's tough to argue against that.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 16, 2011)

[MENTION=61463]Redbadge[/MENTION]:

First, I want to apologize for using the word "silly". I'm glad you didn't take offense, and I want to clarify that I didn't mean YOU are silly...I was saying the position you are supporting is silly...but even then that's a loaded word.

Untenable might be a better word.

I think, if we were to put a poll up (which I don't want to do because it would be flamebait for sure), you would find that even ardent supporters and huge fans of 4e would not claim that it was "best". Most people on these boards are able to see positives and negatives about all editions of D&D and of various systems.

Here's what the poll would look like:
1. I play an edition that isn't 4e and it's clear that 4e is objectively the "best" edition.
2. I play an edition that isn't 4e and I don't believe 4e is objectively the "best" edition.

3. I play 4e and it's clear that 4e is objectively the "best" edition.
4. I play 4e and I don't believe 4e is objectively the "best" edition.


I suspect you wouldn't be surprised by the ratio of answers to 1. and 2. I suspect you WOULD be surprised by the answers to 3. and 4. especially if we were to make it a public poll (where people's account names are tied to their answer).

I believe that we'd see more than 90% of the answers to 3 and 4 be #4...that even people who play 4e don't consider it objectively "best".


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> You made the comment that market research was wasted if Mike Mearls does whatever he wants. I disagree. You do the market research, then you do whatever you want. You are of course correct that Mike Mearls has bosses that will tell him what to do. It does not follow logically that they are correct to tell him to do any one thing. That's not "how business is done." That's one style, and in my view, probably not a good way to run a creativity-based business.
> 
> Market research is really only useful for telling you about the predictable.




Are you being pendantic... I really can't tell. If market research tells WotC... classes are what 99.8% of players want in D&D, you best believe they are going to set down a design paradigm of classes in D&D. Now what Mike Mearls does within that paradigm is up to him... but telling a developer to "Just do whatever you want..." especially with an established property in a creativity-based business is a quick way to failure... profit wise (which is what we have been discussing) 

I also have not made any argument towards the correctness or not of any particular design or development paradigm... that again has nothing to do with the argument that he is given restrictions, paradigms and tenets he must adhere to in his development... and thus cannot just decide to do whatever he wants with D&D development.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> "I'm never wrong. I once thought I was, but I was mistaken."
> 
> I know why people have their opinions... and it's because they haven't had the benefit of experiencing the game the way I have. I'm not claiming that 4e "is an objectively better, freer system." I'm just saying that, if you had my perspective, you'd agree with me. It's tough to argue against that.




You were posting this as I wrote my last post. You clarify a bit here.

I'd addend your statement to: "if you had my perspective, and my preferences in gaming, you'd agree with me."

That would be a statement I could agree with. 

I could go to the exact same movie as someone else and they might love it while I hate it.

4e is better for you. Got it.

4e is better for everyone, even if presented in the ideal way to them? No.


----------



## dagger (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> I can be a silly person, but also optimistic, confidant, and enthusiastic (good qualities for a DM, by the by). When I say 4e is "best", I don't mean that any other system is bad. I've actually said the opposite. What I mean is that on average, players using the 4e _system_ will have a little more fun, a little more often, and given a choice players will choose that system most of the time.




Nope, not from what I have seen, it is less fun and folks have dropped it. See how this works?



> I mean compare 4e to 3.5. 4e is basically 3.5, but with more fun and colorful options (after all, a 4e wizard can summon a red dragon at-will at level 1, if he wants, while the 3.5 wizard is probably using a crossbow most of the time at level 1) with fewer restrictions. Note that a 4e wizard can still use a crossbow if he wants.
> 
> Basically, 4e has everything and can do anything that earlier editions could do, but they added more for those that wanted to take advantage of it. By most accounts, better.




So 1e has everything all the other editions have and can do much more. By my account combats are run better.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 16, 2011)

A more "meta" comment.


Regarding the original question of "what constitutes an edition war", I'd like to make the claim that Redbadge and I (and any others so far) are not having an edition war despite claims of which edition is "best" and whether or not that might or might not be true.

I've enjoyed/am enjoying the conversation, I don't think anyone is upset, and I don't see "warring".


Just an observation about how discussion can occur, even about which edition is "best" without it being an edition war (at least in my definition of "edition war").

EDIT: Damn, ALMOST made it. *Sigh*.

Well, the post above mine, which I wouldn't call "edition warring" does seem to exemplify the beginning of a "getting the ball rolling down the edition war hill".



> Nope, not from what I have seen, it is less fun and folks have dropped it. See how this works?




Could have just been:


> Nope, not from what I have seen, it is less fun and folks have dropped it.




and would have been less likely to provoke an upset response. I think edition wars come about when one person is offended and then uses snark/sarcasm/an attack/passive aggressive behavior or some other means of escalating the emotion in the thread...then it builds.

[MENTION=279]dagger[/MENTION], my apologizes for the critique of your post, I don't mean to single you out, and I'm certainly guilty of doing the same (hence my apology for using the word silly).


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> "I'm never wrong. I once thought I was, but I was mistaken."
> 
> I know why people have their opinions... and it's because they haven't had the benefit of experiencing the game the way I have. I'm not claiming that 4e "is an objectively better, freer system." I'm just saying that, if you had my perspective, you'd agree with me. It's tough to argue against that.




Actually, it's very easy to argue against that. I'm not you. "If you had my perspective," is a nonsense phrase. 

As for your experience... I have a LOT of experience. You are welcome to claim your experience is superior and more wide-ranging, but I don't believe you.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 16, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> @Redbadge :
> 
> First, I want to apologize for using the word "silly". I'm glad you didn't take offense, and I want to clarify that I didn't mean YOU are silly...I was saying the position you are supporting is silly...but even then that's a loaded word.
> 
> ...



 I am going to jump in here and quibble about the best, is the best the best edition of D&D or the best rpg evar?
If the former then as a 4e fan I would be inclined to go along with "best edition of D&D so far", but I would not agree with "best rpg evar". Mostly because diferent rpg rules give rise to different styles of game. I like tea but occasionally I like coffee.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Are you being pendantic... I really can't tell. If market research tells WotC... classes are what 99.8% of players want in D&D, you best believe they are going to set down a design paradigm of classes in D&D. Now what Mike Mearls does within that paradigm is up to him... but telling a developer to "Just do whatever you want..." especially with an established property in a creativity-based business is a quick way to failure... profit wise (which is what we have been discussing)




New Coke.

D&D 3e.

New Coke was the product of market research. 3e was the product of "ivory tower design." Marketing research is simply no substitute for design.



> I also have not made any argument towards the correctness or not of any particular design or development paradigm... that again has nothing to do with the argument that he is given restrictions, paradigms and tenets he must adhere to in his development... and thus cannot just decide to do whatever he wants with D&D development.




You are of course correct, but I can't detect any serious claim by anyone stating otherwise, so I'm having trouble telling what you're trying to tell me here. I've already agreed MM has bosses who tell him what to do.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 16, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> I am going to jump in here and quibble about the best, is the best the best edition of D&D or the best rpg evar?
> If the former then as a 4e fan I would be inclined to go along with "best edition of D&D so far", but I would not agree with "best rpg evar". Mostly because diferent rpg rules give rise to different styles of game. I like tea but occasionally I like coffee.




Just to clarify, I should probably have also emphasized the word "objectively".

Would you make the claim "4e is objectively the best edition of Dungeons and Dragons"?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> New Coke.
> 
> D&D 3e.
> 
> ...




Dude, I'm trying to figure out why you quoted me... I wasn't making any value judgements at all... I was responding to an argument that was stated earlier that because Mearls likes something he has carte blanche to develop D&D around that particular like... that's just not true. That was my point.

EDIT: Also, I don't think one example of market research failure is conclusive as far as whether it is or isn't the best approach to designing and developing a creative endeavor to make money.  I could pull out plenty of examples where marketing research has positively influenced a product and where free reign has hampered or caused a product to fail.  Just saying.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 16, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Just to clarify, I should probably have also emphasized the word "objectively".
> 
> Would you make the claim "4e is objectively the best edition of Dungeons and Dragons"?



 No, I do not believe that the sentence has meaning. There is no Platonic Ideal D&D to which all D&D editions aspire to. As far as I know there is no concensus as to what D&D is, never mind what best migh mean.

Hmm...

On further reflection I think that only way that an rpg could be said to be objectively the best would be if no-one who had experience of playing disageed with the premise.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 16, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> No, I do not believe that the sentence has meaning. There is no Platonic Ideal D&D to which all D&D editions aspire to. As far as I know there is no concensus as to what D&D is, never mind what best migh mean.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> On further reflection I think that only way that an rpg could be said to be objectively the best would be if no-one who had experience of playing disageed with the premise.




You are confusing universally with objectively. To determine if something is objectively the best, you simply define some criteria, and determine which choice best meets those criteria. The answer may not be just one thing, but if there are diverse choices, it probably won't be all of them.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 16, 2011)

Exactly Ardoughter. 

EDIT:
Universally best would be if everyone liked the same game the best and no one disagreed, but it would still not be objectively true. 

Objectively best would be if you set up criteria and it met those criteria better than any other game...but it wouldn't be the "best game" it would be the "best game according to these strict criteria".


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 16, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> You are confusing universally with objectively. To determine if something is objectively the best, you simply define some criteria, and determine which choice best meets those criteria. The answer may not be just one thing, but if there are diverse choices, it probably won't be all of them.



 May be, but what would the criteria for "the best edition of D&D" be? and could we get a concensus for those criteria. I suspect not.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> You were posting this as I wrote my last post. You clarify a bit here.
> 
> I'd addend your statement to: "if you had my perspective, and my preferences in gaming, you'd agree with me."
> 
> That would be a statement I could agree with.




Well just to clarify my preferences: I prefer story and intrigue above dungeon delves. I do not like overt "gamism" and prefer that it either be absent or transparent. I prefer social and skill-based sessions much more than combat. The "powers" formatting and presentation is unfortunate for many, including me, but that's okay because we just imagine them as quicker and easier to cast rituals and martial practices, which we use profusely. I do not prefer miniatures or tabletop combat, so we rarely use that, but we have with particular set pieces. I am a roleplayer and storyteller first and foremost, but I do dabble in  power-gaming and optimization because I like to test and explore the  system. I write 30 page backstories for my characters, as do some of my  players. When I DM, which is most of the time, I draw up elaborate plots  and talk in funny voices. At the table, we spend most of the time  planning, plotting, and roleplaying, and our combats are fast, colorful,  and elaborate. Our games are realistic and simulate a fantasy setting really well, because that is what we prefer, but we could go in any other direction should we choose. I liked the earliest editions of D&D, loved 3e/3.5, and continue to be intrigued by Pathfinder (which I find to be based on 3.5, but inspired by 4e design). But 4e is mine.


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 16, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Thinking in this way "this game is clearly best" is I think one of the attitudes behind edition warring. It doesn't leave room for "that is also good, maybe AS good".



And yet, your alternative leaves no way to ever improve anything, and denies the fact that not all designs- or assesments of designs- are of equal merit. 

This is not just a matter of opinon. Some people might think that game design is just a thing anyone can do, but it's actually very challenging, and can fail of suceed to varying degrees. 

It doesn't matter how many rationalisations you want to make, the previous versions of D&D are just not as well designed as 4e. 

4e still has a lot of problems, things that don't work well- 4e fans know this, and it's the fact that the actual problems are so different from the made-up hater problems that make this distinction clear. 

In some ways, the fact that 4e is so good is a problem itself- Fred Hicks, a designer of some renown, commented on this during the post-mortem of his 4e venture. Designing for 4e is _hard_, because it's a very good, and hence very demanding system. 

It's well balanced, it creates solid outcomes, so the kind of half-assed design done in a lot of games (including 3e) just doesns't cut it, and sticks out like a sore thumb. I'll refrain from naming a few gsl products that show this, including one that got a lot of flack on rpgnet for not doing the kind of dilligence that 4e fans were used to.

Oh and please note, as should be obvious, i'm not saying anything about other rpgs. But when we talk about D&D, about fantasy roleplaying? Saying that the various editions are equal in merit is about as legit as saying rifts is as well designed as savage worlds.

It's not suprising seeing 4e bashers insisting that game design is some kind of subjective art with no rational grounding. You are after all, not presenting rational arguments when you describe the 'videogamification' or 'devancification' of 4e. 

I've seen the kind of designs that are coming out of the 'old school renaisance', and i've seen what pathfinder tweaked in it's fan-pandering copy paste of 3e. Not to mention 'I want my (absurdly overpowered) magic back', on this very website.
Enthusiastic? Maybe. 
Original? Hardly. 
Well designed?

Effective, positive design leading to people having more fun? No, not at all. The same god-damned terrible fighter that 3e had should never have made it's way into pathfinder, and when they let it in to appease the fans, they failed miserably by any standards of legitimate design. 

I don't care if people are too narrow minded and dogmatic to realise that. 
I am not going to bow and nod to some smug dm or fan who thinks it's ok for one of their friends at the table, or anyone at any table, to have a dull, boring time because they fell into one of the gaping pit-traps in 3e design.

And i'm not very impressed with mike mearls for feeding that anti-fun delusion by chortling along in his colum, about his useless garbage od&d thief that he had to make his own fun with because the system he paid money for wasn't doing it's job, by adding to his enjoyment of the game instead of subtracting from it.

In reality, design is a real, credible disipline, and it leads to better games, wich people have more fun with. That's a principle worth defending, and that makes me an edition warrior, then so be it.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, it's very easy to argue against that. I'm not you. "If you had my perspective," is a nonsense phrase.
> 
> As for your experience... I have a LOT of experience. You are welcome to claim your experience is superior and more wide-ranging, but I don't believe you.




Sorry about the nonsense. I have to remind myself that everyone's mind works differently, especially from mine. I guess I could have said "If you shared my opinions, and experienced the same things that helped me formulate them, you'd agree with me..." but that seems slightly circular.

As far as the "experience" thing, I don't challenge the quantity of your experiences, just the _quality_ in this one instance.

I have had a very high quality experience with 4e.

Apparently, you have not had a high-quality experience with 4e. I was just hoping that if your experience with 4e had been as high-quality as mine, you'd appreciate it more.

Looking at this now, I still can't tell if I'm going to confuse anyone again. Apologies in advance.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 16, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> And yet, your alternative leaves no way to ever improve anything, and denies the fact that not all designs- or assesments of designs- are of equal merit.
> 
> This is not just a matter of opinon. Some people might think that game design is just a thing anyone can do, but it's actually very challenging, and can fail of suceed to varying degrees.
> 
> <snip>




I agree with the part of your post that I quoted.

I disagree with most of the rest.



4e IS a better balanced game. I will agree with that. If you equate all of design to balance, THEN 4e is a better designed game and it might possibly even follow that it is a better game.

However, there are other elements that were sacrificed in designing 4e. These other elements were also part of the design. Some other elements were amped up, others dampened. 


Design is not a linear process from "good" to "bad". It's a blending of a number of considerations and elements, and the whole that is created is the "art" (the synergy of the elements that make up the game...the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" aspect). 

But there's still plenty of "science" in deciding how much of certain elements go into game design. Do we want to model realism in which we have 50 tables with various complicated rules to address each and every eventuality (e.g. AD&D's weapon type versus armor type)? Do we want it less "realistc" and more "smooth to play"? How well a design addresses each sub element can be measured.


What I'm saying is that game design is about making tough choices. Speed versus detail; reality versus simplicity; gritty versus heroic; differentiation versus balance. Note that not all of these are polar opposites, but sometimes are more "complications" For instance, differentiation is not the opposite of balance, though balance is easier to achieve if things fall into a similar template or pattern.

Also, a less quantifiable, but no less important part of game design is fluff design. These are roleplaying games after all. A game with zero fluff, one that only presented rules and no world, no names of races, no feel to it would be poorly designed indeed. One with really bad fluff would be equally poorly designed.

So yes, some games can be called out on being horrible at balance, or realism or whatever else. Some truly horrible games out there can be called out at not being particularly good at any specific measure of good design (poor balance, incoherent and absurd fluff, clunky systems that poorly model reality, etc. etc). But it'd be impossible to find the worst RPG. Yes, there'd be a few contenders, but I doubt there'd be universal agreement on which is worst...just as we can't agree which is best.


In the end, though, you could pick one of those "worst games" that many agree is just awful, and I might think it's the best. I might have a measure that is more important to me, such as the inclination of living teddy bears, which no other game has. D&D is nice, and Call of Cthulu is too, but "Romper Stomper Teddy Bears*" is the cutest...and therefore the best.

If I reify "cutest" as the single design component that matters, and sacrifice all others to make the cutest game out there, then I've made the best. IF (note I'm saying if to make a point here, I don't actually believe this) 4e sacrificed all other elements to become the most balanced, but failed utterly at every other aspect of game design, then "most balanced" and "cutest" rpg are each best at one thing...but they're hardly the "best" rpgs out there.


My point is that, yes we can use factors to weigh quality, but we must understand that no factor is monolithic in importance to game design, and that each and every game balances the factors in different ways. To claim any one game is best is absurd. To claim a game is best at a specific factor might be reasonable, though.



*Romper Stomper Teddy Bears, coming soon to cuteify your daydreams!


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jun 16, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> In reality, design is a real, credible disipline, and it leads to better games, wich people have more fun with. That's a principle worth defending, and that makes me an edition warrior, then so be it.



Where can I get a funometer?  I'd like to measure how much fun I'm having when I play, so I can be sure I'm doing it as designed.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Effective, positive design leading to people having more fun? No, not at all. The same god-damned terrible fighter that 3e had should never have made it's way into pathfinder, and when they let it in to appease the fans, they failed miserably by any standards of legitimate design.





I'm almost starting to feel like it's pointless talking to you... but just to show how your "effective positive design" is still subjective when it comes to having fun... I had a very casual player when I ran 3.5... his favorite class was... surprise, surprise the fighter or barbarian. When we tried 4e out, he created a fighter... and hated it... actually ended up leaving the group. 

You see the problem was that he didn't want to pick and read over a bunch of powers to use... or analyze symetry with others in his group... and remember to mark enemies, oh and decide whether it was the right or wrong time to use a daily or encounter power, or spend an hour killing a lowly group of kobolds...

In combat all he wanted to do was roll some dice, whack a monster and pile on the damage... for him the fun was in the simplicity of playing the fighter or barbarian class. So yeah, 4e didn't create more fun for him it drained it away. Which is all to say that if you want the type of play experience 4e created I'm sure it's the best designed edition... *FOR YOU*... but no... it is not objectively better for everyone.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> In the end, though, you could pick one of those "worst games" that many agree is just awful, and I might think it's the best. I might have a measure that is more important to me, such as the inclination of living teddy bears, which no other game has. D&D is nice, and Call of Cthulu is too, but "Romper Stomper Teddy Bears*" is the cutest...and therefore the best.
> 
> If I reify "cutest" as the single design component that matters, and sacrifice all others to make the cutest game out there, then I've made the best. IF (note I'm saying if to make a point here, I don't actually believe this) 4e sacrificed all other elements to become the most balanced, but failed utterly at every other aspect of game design, then "most balanced" and "cutest" rpg are each best at one thing...but they're hardly the "best" rpgs out there.




I don't think living teddy bears, or even Cthulu mythos, have much do do with system design, but more with presentation and trappings. Certainly, you could take "Romper Stomper Teddy Bears" and make it with the 4th edition system, and it would be just as cute (and probably better balanced than otherwise).

4th edition to me is the d20 resolution mechanic, supplemented by a number of options, both when creating the character and when roleplaying the character. You could do 4th edition horror, sci-fi, fantasy (the default), etc., so long as you use the underlying system.

That's also why 4e is "better" than previous editions. It's basically 3.5 (d20 resolution, classes, levels, actions), but with additional layers of options on top, none of which you _have_ to utilize when playing 4e. You can certainly remove a bunch of things to turn 4e back into 3e, if you wanted to, but you'd just be removing some things that I imagine most players find fun (i.e. at-will spellcasting, effective and varied martial maneuvers, etc.).


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 16, 2011)

Ahh, but It wouldn't be as cute to use 4e for RSTB.

My combat resolution mechanic is hugging.

Waaaay cuter than a d20 (but less balanced, to be sure).



(Or to be more clear, sometimes the mechanics highly influence the feel of the game, as well as the focus.)


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'm almost starting to feel like it's pointless talking to you... but just to show how your "effective positive design" is still subjective when it comes to having fun... I had a very casual player when I ran 3.5... his favorite class was... surprise, surprise the fighter or barbarian. When we tried 4e out, he created a fighter... and hated it... actually ended up leaving the group.
> 
> You see the problem was that he didn't want to pick and read over a bunch of powers to use... or analyze symetry with others in his group... and remember to mark enemies, oh and decide whether it was the right or wrong time to use a daily or encounter power, or spend an hour killing a lowly group of kobolds...
> 
> In combat all he wanted to do was roll some dice, whack a monster and pile on the damage... for him the fun was in the simplicity of playing the fighter or barbarian class. So yeah, 4e didn't create more fun for him it drained it away. Which is all to say that if you want the type of play experience 4e created I'm sure it's the best designed edition... *FOR YOU*... but no... it is not objectively better for everyone.




I just wanted to point out that he could have played the 4e fight identically to the 3.5 fighter. He could use his basic attack every time and chose not to mark. Otherwise, the rules would be the same as he was playing before: speed 30' (or less in heavy armor), he could choose to make OAs as he saw fit, etc. Very simple, and it probably wouldn't even be noticeably less effective for him compared to the other players (more similar to prior editions, actually).

It just isn't an indictment of 4e to me that it allows for a greater number of player mindsets.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> I just wanted to point out that he could have played the 4e fight identically to the 3.5 fighter. He could use his basic attack every time and chose not to mark. Otherwise, the rules would be the same as he was playing before: speed 30' (or less in heavy armor), he could choose to make OAs as he saw fit, etc. Very simple, and it probably wouldn't even be noticeably less effective for him compared to the other players (more similar to prior editions, actually).
> 
> It just isn't an indictment of 4e to me that it allows for a greater number of player mindsets.




Nobody was trying to prove anything to you...please don't try to make some kind of point by quoting me out of context and then addressing said post. 

What I was addressing was the fact that fun isn't objectively better with 4e for some people (and honestly I think you knew that before you quoted me.).


----------



## Imaro (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> That's also why 4e is "better" than previous editions. It's basically 3.5 (d20 resolution, classes, levels, actions), but with additional layers of options on top, none of which you _have_ to utilize when playing 4e. You can certainly remove a bunch of things to turn 4e back into 3e, if you wanted to, but you'd just be removing some things that I imagine most players find fun (i.e. at-will spellcasting, effective and varied martial maneuvers, etc.).




You know it's funny... a bannana split is just a scoop of ice cream with layers of options on top of it... guess that makes it "better" ice cream. Of course if you just want ice cream without all that stuf... well then it's really just a mess you have to pick through to get what you want... not better ice cream. 

EDIT: On a side note... what stopped those who wanted more options for martial characters from houseruling ToB mechanics on the martial classes or just using ToB... since we're getting into options and houseruling?


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> You know it's funny... a bannana split is just a scoop of ice cream with layers of options on top of it... guess that makes it "better" ice cream. Of course if you just want ice cream without all that stuf... well then it's really just a mess you have to pick through to get what you want... not better ice cream.
> 
> EDIT: On a side note... what stopped those who wanted more options for martial characters from houseruling ToB mechanics on the martial classes or just using ToB... since we're getting into options and houseruling?




I suppose that's a good analogy, though I would prefer one where it didn't sound quite so... inconvenient.

As far as house rules and other options, I include them as part of the 4e system. To me, 4e _is_ my house rules, and the core books, and the supplements, and essentials, and DDI, Dungeon, and Dragon, and the WotC forums where so much good discussion and analysis and advice goes on, and EnWorld as well, and Encounters, and Zeitgeist, and Santiago, and of course my home play group and other impromptu sessions I've played.

These are the same things I included as part of my love for earlier editions, and other games.

These are the types of things I mean, when I mentioned "my perspective." And I'm honestly dissappointed that some of my fellow gamers haven't been able to share this perspective.

Though I admit that they hopefully have this same type of perspective on their own preferred system. But based on the amount of unneeded vitriol that gets tossed amongst people who should be comrades _as gamers_, sometimes I think that they are not as happy as they could be.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 16, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'm almost starting to feel like it's pointless talking to you... but just to show how your "effective positive design" is still subjective when it comes to having fun... I had a very casual player when I ran 3.5... his favorite class was... surprise, surprise the fighter or barbarian. When we tried 4e out, he created a fighter... and hated it... actually ended up leaving the group.
> 
> You see the problem was that he didn't want to pick and read over a bunch of powers to use... or analyze symetry with others in his group... and remember to mark enemies, oh and decide whether it was the right or wrong time to use a daily or encounter power, or spend an hour killing a lowly group of kobolds...
> 
> In combat all he wanted to do was roll some dice, whack a monster and pile on the damage... for him the fun was in the simplicity of playing the fighter or barbarian class. So yeah, 4e didn't create more fun for him it drained it away. Which is all to say that if you want the type of play experience 4e created I'm sure it's the best designed edition... *FOR YOU*... but no... it is not objectively better for everyone.




It is pointless talking to him. He is one of these people who can't seem to accept that different people have different tastes in RPGs.

And he is certain that he is right and the rest of us just don't know how to play the game because we are not as enlightened as he is.

He was the perfect candidate for 4E imo because when they launched they were very careful in telling us we had been playing wrong and we were having badfun. I guess he took the ads really seriously. 

And like any warrior protecting his edition the only reason you don't like it is because you are angry or to stupid to see that the edition you enjoy is just so wrong.

I tried 4E so did my son's three different gaming groups and my two different groups. That is five different groups made of about 25 people. We are obliviously 25 stupid people because no one wanted to stay with it. Some went back to 3.5, some to Savage Worlds and others to Pathfinder. 

I have one friend who loves 4E and I sent him some of these posts since he doesn't come here. His comment was "oh lord save the rest of us from the 4E fanatics, no one really likes them."

I agree with him I have little patience for any fanatic of any edition.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> Apparently, you have not had a high-quality experience with 4e. I was just hoping that if your experience with 4e had been as high-quality as mine, you'd appreciate it more.




But it is unlikely I would have as high-quality experience. Setting aside preconceptions for the moment, 4e is not for me. It's like someone made a list of all the things in 3e that some people like, but I don't, and said, "Let's make D&D like this, but more!" 4e is not ever going to be an optimized experience for me.

Even if I had a very positive experience, it would not sell me in the game. I had a really great time playing Star Wars d20 Revised. My last game was one of my favorite campaigns ever. I think mechanically, Star Wars d20 RCR shoots Saga Edition out of the water. And yet... having had the benefit of experience, I have to say Star Wars d20 RCR is a flawed game. I would point to it more as an example of things going wrong than as a model of innovation in d20. What is good about it is that it is Star Wars, and of all the d20 versions of Star Wars, it is the best.

D&D 4e can never be that for me. First of all, it's only somewhat D&D to me. It's the first edition of D&D I know of where you need a different set of miniatures because the characters and creatures have changed so much. You could play 3e with AD&D official miniatures, or AD&D with the Giants of Legend set. Any given 4e-inspired set, however, is full of things that make me scratch my head. Second, it's not the best D&D there is. 3.5 is, or if you're willing to let Pathfinder under the heading, Pathfinder is. That is not to say that 3.0 does not have its charms, or AD&D for that matter (although I have not played it since 1997 and do not plan on ever returning to it). But 3.5 is superior to 4e, in my opinion, and no matter how positive an experience I may have with 4e, I am going to continue to believe that 3.5 is a more agreeable game to me. 

Because in terms of game choice, what matters is not simply my experiences, but the experiences I anticipate in the future. If I switched to 4e over one good experience, I would essentially be switching due to nostalgia, and a thin one at that. No session of 4e is going to convince me that the Elf/Eladrin split is a good idea, that 1st level "elf" PCs should have magical teleports, or that tieflings or dragonborn are plausible core races for any of the campaigns that interest me. It is never going to escape my attention that 4e started off with a a "two ability score" paradigm and later switched to a "Nevermind, just pile most of your points into your prime ability" paradigm, with several classes stumbling through the transition. "Starleather" is not my cup of tea. I hate game-centric economies with stupidities like selling valuable, reusable magical artifacts for 20% of their nominal value. There are plenty of people for whom those aren't issues, and 4e is meant for them. Not for me.

The reason edition wars happen is because some people will not leave well enough alone. It's okay that I don't like 4e. It's okay others like it. It is preposterous to think I am going to become a convert. ... At the point at which I get insulted for stating I will not be converted, that's when I get angry. I am not clinging to 3e, nor am I blind to 4e's innovations. It's very clear to me, simply, that 4e is not going to be the game I want. I own at least eight other games I can think of I would rather play for heroic fantasy, over D&D 4e. If I don't want to play 3e, for whatever reason, why wouldn't I play a game of Talislanta, or Hero System, or GURPS, or what-have-you? I already like those games. I am not a 3e person for any religious, personal, or psychological issue; 3e/Pathfinder isn't even necessarily my main game. I simply prefer what I prefer.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

It seems that some of these posts may have upset you. I for one promise that I accept everyone's taste and what they play. There is no way for them to be _wrong_, no matter what they play. Heck one of _my _friends doesn't like RPGs at all, and I certainly don't think he is angry, oblivious, or stupid. I'm glad if people play at all, no matter what they choose.

In the interest of maintaining RPG comraderie, I think I'm going to walk away from this thread and participate in some of the more light-hearted ones. Great points and fun discussion, all.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 16, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> It seems that some of these posts may have upset you. I for one promise that I accept everyone's taste and what they play. There is no way for them to be _wrong_, no matter what they play. Heck one of _my _friends doesn't like RPGs at all, and I certainly don't think he is angry, oblivious, or stupid. I'm glad if people play at all, no matter what they choose.
> 
> In the interest of maintaining RPG comraderie, I think I'm going to walk away from this thread and participate in some of the more light-hearted ones. Great points and fun discussion, all.




From your posts I get you have a lot of enthusiasm for the game which I think is great.

I think most of your posts are kind of light hearted joking ones.

But it does get annoying when someone says look I just don't like it.  And you say but that is because you haven't tried it my way yet.

It reminds of a friend of mine who just can't seem to accept that I will never like the taste of venison, rabbit, bear or other wild meats. I don't care how you cook them they always taste rotten to me. He is always trying to make me try a new recipe and telling me I just have not had it prepared right.

Sometimes you just have to accept that some people are not going to like something no matter how you try and convince them to.


----------



## Jimlock (Jun 16, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> For example, 4e is not less narritive than previous editions in any real, concrete sense- it's just one of the ways people are rationalising their edition war angst.





When I play "White Wolf" Games, the people I play with (and that means people who mostly play "White Wolf" Games), are a lot more interesting in Roleplaying, storytelling, narration... & somehow we manage to play a more storytelling/Roleplaying driven game...

I'm wondering why......

Is it perhaps the "White Wolf" books that play a role in this?

Is it perhaps that they are more Roleplaying/Storytelling oriented?


Personally, I am TOTALLY convinced that the way the books are written, play a MAJOR role on how/how-much we roleplay.


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 16, 2011)

> no matter how positive an experience I may have with 4e, I am going to continue to believe that 3.5 is a more agreeable game to me.




Yes, this is the heart of it I think. Thank you for your explanation. You can trust me when I tell you I would never offer to try and convert you to 4e.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 17, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> When I play "White Wolf" Games, the people I play with (and that means people who mostly play "White Wolf" Games), are a lot more interesting in Roleplaying, storytelling, narration... & somehow we manage to play a more storytelling/Roleplaying driven game...
> 
> I'm wondering why......
> 
> ...



Which goes right back to my point about 'design' and 'presentation' about 80 posts ago.  A good design can be slaughtered by poor presentation while a poor design can be somewhat covered over with good presentation.

Design we can influence - maybe - by what we buy and what we say; and then by how we houserule the game to make it what we want it to be.

Presentation we can't touch, and can only hope for the best.  If nothing else, 1e and 3e got the presentation bit way better than 2e and 4e did.

Lan-"too many other things in this thread to argue with, not enough time"-efan


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 17, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> Aha, but I said we _can _all agree, not that we _do_. If any one who currently doesn't like 4e, as long as they truly liked RPGs (story, pretend, fantasy, immersion in another role, and all that), played a handful of sessions with me or a person with a similar perspective as me, we _would _all agree that 4e is best, of this I have no doubt (because I've seen it happen more than once before, with the most diehard of grognards*).
> 
> *said with admiration and respect




This isn't intended as an insult at all, so please don't take it as such. If you or your game uses minis, then I won't enjoy it more than what I play now. Period. It's draws way, way too much immersion away from the game for me, and that kills a lot of the emotional draw and appeal away from me.

This is just my view on things. My players are similar, but not identical. And, as someone who has spent the majority of their gaming time playing 3.X, let me say that we didn't use minis in that, either.

Which means, of course, if you didn't use minis or a grid, then you might be able to change my mind. I doubt you would, considering I don't play 3.X anymore either, but a game based on it (since I had problems with 3.X). However, it was still my favorite incarnation of the game, and it's possible it could change to 4e. But from my experience with the game, it won't.

Maybe if we're in the same area we can try sometime, though. And, of course, none of my subjective views on what makes a game enjoyable are meant to be seen as applying to the masses in general.

As always, play what you like 

EDIT:


			
				Redbadge said:
			
		

> Well just to clarify my preferences: I prefer story and intrigue above dungeon delves. I do not like overt "gamism" and prefer that it either be absent or transparent. I prefer social and skill-based sessions much more than combat. The "powers" formatting and presentation is unfortunate for many, including me, but that's okay because we just imagine them as quicker and easier to cast rituals and martial practices, which we use profusely. I do not prefer miniatures or tabletop combat, so we rarely use that, but we have with particular set pieces. I am a roleplayer and storyteller first and foremost, but I do dabble in power-gaming and optimization because I like to test and explore the system. I write 30 page backstories for my characters, as do some of my players. When I DM, which is most of the time, I draw up elaborate plots and talk in funny voices. At the table, we spend most of the time planning, plotting, and roleplaying, and our combats are fast, colorful, and elaborate. Our games are realistic and simulate a fantasy setting really well, because that is what we prefer, but we could go in any other direction should we choose. I liked the earliest editions of D&D, loved 3e/3.5, and continue to be intrigued by Pathfinder (which I find to be based on 3.5, but inspired by 4e design). But 4e is mine.




I should have read this first, and I apologize for speaking too quickly. However, any presence of miniatures is a deal breaker for me. As are the funny voices. I know, I'm not tolerant of it, and that may be a fault in me as a gamer, but it will draw the immersion out of the game, even if the voice is closer to what you had imagined it being.

Also, there are other problems I have with D&D's recent style of gaming, but it's not like 3.X didn't have the same or even worse problems (the Christmas Tree effect can at least be somewhat muted with inherent bonuses in 4e, but a level 6 warrior being vastly superior to level 1's NPC guards in nearly every way [if not every way] has also always greatly bugged me). Also, I'm a fan of gritty, or at least vulnerability to the mundane, and 4e seems to have moved even further away from this than 3.X did.

At any rate, I'm not trying to talk down your skill as a DM. But, if we do meet in person, I'm going to be a challenge to convince. I won't say you can't do it, though. Maybe we'll see one day


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 17, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> This isn't intended as an insult at all, so please don't take it as such. If you or your game uses minis, then I won't enjoy it more than what I play now. Period. It's draws way, way too much immersion away from the game for me, and that kills a lot of the emotional draw and appeal away from me.



Oddly enough, as an old-school player supporting what is often seen as a new-school thing, I've used minis for nigh on 30 years and still do; they often help me visualize who is where and what's going on.

With 3e or 4e, where tactics and spacing are more important, I can't imagine not using them.

Lan-"my first car was a Mini"-efan


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 17, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Oddly enough, as an old-school player supporting what is often seen as a new-school thing, I've used minis for nigh on 30 years and still do; they often help me visualize who is where and what's going on.
> 
> With 3e or 4e, where tactics and spacing are more important, I can't imagine not using them.
> 
> Lan-"my first car was a Mini"-efan




Yeah. I understand that take on it, too. It just hurts my enjoyment, and it helps yours. But, as always, I'm impressed by the versatility such a game can provide to different styles. I think it's amazing that so many people with such different styles can have so much fun with the same basic rules.

Which leads me, as always, to "play what you like"


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 17, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> I think part of the problem of this thread is that 4e "fanboys" are being too defensive and emotional, when there is nothing needed to be defended. 4e is the best game by far, best at narration, best at simulation, and best at gaming. The problem, as mentioned in the posts above, is that WotC's presentation and marketing of the system was very poor, and now they're trying to change that. The presentation can be approved, but I think we can all agree that 4e is otherwise the best edition so far.



The single word answer *'NO!'* comes to mind for the last sentence in that paragraph.

Not the 'best by far' for 'all', in fact, as far as I am concerned it is the _worst_ edition of D&D - the edition where I gave up on a game that I have played since 1975.

You may think it is the best, and perhaps for you that is the case, but by no means do _all_ of us agree, nor is it at all likely that _all_ of us will ever agree on what is 'the best edition by far'. 

I would count Pathfinder as 'the best edition', and it isn't even D&D by the title. I would rate True 20 as a better edition, and it may have wandered as far from the original D&D as 4e has. Heck, I _might_ even rate DCC as a better edition, but that may just be the warm whiskey-like glow of nostalgia.

Trying to say that 'we can all agree that 4e is otherwise the best edition so far.' is just plain foolish. It looks like a large percentage disagrees, even here, in this small but outspoken enclave of role playing games, lost in the tangled strands of the interweb.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 17, 2011)

Edition wars, in my experience, tend to happen partly because the people involved assume their experiences are universal. Even in the case where people understand their preferences are personal and not shared, what turns a discussion into an edition war is the idea that experiences must be the same.

"I like/do not like Edition X," says one person, "because these factors create an experience that I dislike." 

"But I do not like/like Edition X," says another, "because I had a very different experience, and those factors did not create what you describe."

How does this become an edition war? When either the first person or the second person believes that the other is saying they're _wrong_ -- that they didn't have the experience they describe, or that if they did, that they "did it wrong." For example, "if you weren't able to get immersed in a 4e game you did it wrong," or "if casters were a problem for you in a 3e game you were doing it wrong." This may be a matter of sensitivity, or it may be that the other person _is_ actually saying you're wrong. And of course, that's where the defensiveness breaks out and war is declared.

Where edition wars _don't_ happen is where people are more willing to take one another's word for it. "I have been playing D&D for 30 years," says one person, "and I simply find it impossible to roleplay to the same level in a game with such abstraction." "I have been playing D&D for 30 years," says another, "and I find the abstraction is actually a boon to roleplay." "My group never was able to get into character, we spent so much time wrangling with the rules." "My group dives deep into character and barely comes out." 

Both sides are probably telling the truth! At least, they are when they talk about themselves alone. Once one side starts assuming their experiences are universal, that's where the problems begin. "It is impossible to roleplay with Mechanic X" and "It is totally easy to roleplay with Mechanic X" aren't themselves true statements. But add "for me" or "for us" and they're as true as any absolute statement can be.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 17, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> The single word answer *'NO!'* comes to mind for the last sentence in that paragraph.
> 
> Not the 'best by far' for 'all', in fact, as far as I am concerned it is the _worst_ edition of D&D - the edition where I gave up on a game that I have played since 1975.
> 
> ...




Well said. If I could give XP for this post right now I would.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 17, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> The single word answer *'NO!'* comes to mind for the last sentence in that paragraph.
> 
> Not the 'best by far' for 'all', in fact, as far as I am concerned it is the _worst_ edition of D&D - the edition where I gave up on a game that I have played since 1975.
> 
> ...




It was a joke, but a poor one. I was trying to play on the subtle difference between "can" versus "do" or "should". I think now that it may have detracted from any other point I might have made. 

And I know you might say that it's not even possible that we "can" all agree, we're just all too different. I would like to clarify that what I was thinking was, that for any given person, the perfect combination of past experiences and specific circumstances might have led them to like 4e. Obviously in some cases that didn't happen, isn't happening, and won't happen, but I think anything is _possible_. I thought I might bring more geniality and camaraderie to the "rift" if I shared such a view, that although we all have different preferences, there are experiences and circumstances that we share that led us all to be gamers. But I think this argument is a bit too... out-there/unuseful/specious/fill-in-your-word-of-choice-here.

I will now resume not contributing to this thread .

Edit: And I suppose another of my goals was that maybe I could, if not get people to appreciate it, at least get them to dislike 4e a little less, because I apparently care more than I thought I did. And it seems I may have come up short in that goal, at least.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 17, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> Edit: And I suppose another of my goals was that maybe I could, if not get people to appreciate it, at least get them to dislike 4e a little less, because I apparently care more than I thought I did. And it seems I may have come up short in that goal, at least.




This is something I don't get. If someone dislikes something why would you care about trying to make them dislike it a little less?

I think it is natural to be a little uncomfortable when you really like something and some people go ugg. It can feel like they are not validating your opinion. 

The trick is to realize that is where the feeling is coming from. And then to realize that you really don't need anyone else to validate your liking of something.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 17, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> This is something I don't get. If someone dislikes something why would you care about trying to make them dislike it a little less?



Why not?

I'm a Canucks fan.  I'll try to talk others into supporting the Canucks when opportunity arises.

He's a 4e fan.  He's trying to talk others into supporting 4e when opportunity arises.

It's only fair... 

The problem comes when trying to talk each other into supporting our edition of choice turns into a brawl.  They don't seem to like that here.

Lan-"so support 1e, dammit!"-efan


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 17, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Why not?
> 
> I'm a Canucks fan.  I'll try to talk others into supporting the Canucks when opportunity arises.
> 
> ...




I guess I don't see it the same way. Well no I do sort of. I try and introduce my favorite authors and books or TV shows to other people.

But I don't keep trying if they say I don't like it or I am not interested. I may ask why because I am curious but I don't try and change their opinion. And I don't get pissy or snarky about it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 17, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> I'm a Canucks fan.  I'll try to talk others into supporting the Canucks when opportunity arises.
> 
> He's a 4e fan.  He's trying to talk others into supporting 4e when opportunity arises.
> 
> ...



Anyone trying to do that should remember that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In other words, I think they should be positive about their favourite thing, whatever it is, and not be negative about other peoples' favourites*. In fact they should try to be of a pleasant demeanour, generally. There was a poster on ENWorld a while back (think he was called Nightfall) who was a huge fan of Scarred Lands but he conducted himself so poorly that I've seen several people say they were turned off ever trying the setting because of him.

*I'm negative about peoples' favourites, but I'm not trying to proselytise for anything.


----------



## keterys (Jun 17, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I guess I don't see it the same way. Well no I do sort of. I try and introduce my favorite authors and books or TV shows to other people.
> 
> But I don't keep trying if they say I don't like it or I am not interested. I may ask why because I am curious but I don't try and change their opinion. And I don't get pissy or snarky about it.



Part of the problem is the way that the discussions occur...

For example, let's say I were talking to someone about fantasy authors that I appreciate - especially over the course of growing up, and I mentioned George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, since it's got the TV series and it's probably worth a talk... and the person immediately recoiled "You read that filth!? It's just a pile of crap filled with rape and swears"... I'm fairly content to let people read what they will, and I've specifically _not_ recommended his books before to certain people due to their content, but I could easily see myself attempting to defend the work as _not_ just a pile of crap filled with rape and swears.

I'm more than content to discuss various nuances of gaming systems in a mechanical light, but more often than not a lot of arguments feel like they're somewhere between "your momma" level of civility and "when considering just this blemish on the left flank, you can see the entire system is horrible" level of hyperfocus on "This One Horrible Thing" that I can't help but blink and go "So... change that one thing? Or ignore it? I haven't even noticed it come up?"

Also, some people just like to stir up trouble. And other people like to give them XP for stirring up trouble, which only encourages the behavior. It's a trick we learn in our youth I think.

So, yeah, edition wars. Maybe, just maybe, people could try harder not to engage in them.


----------



## Windjammer (Jun 17, 2011)

Edition war is something...

...that first reared its ugly head in mid 2007, gained steadily in momentum in 2008, caused Enworld to nearly shut down in 2009, died a slow death in early 2010, only to be re-ignited as 'Essentials hatred'. But that too is on its way out. Let's hope WotC is fast at work to once more 'evolutionize' our hobby with radical soft changes which abandon the traditions by harkening back to them.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 17, 2011)

Windjammer said:


> Edition war is something...
> 
> ...that first reared its ugly head in mid 2007




Vicious argument between players of different editions of games (or just different games) started well before 2007.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 17, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Vicious argument between players of different editions of games (or just different games) started well before 2007.




I was around for Hero Fuzion Edition, something I would describe not so much as an edition war as Edition Genocide...


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 17, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> Where edition wars _don't_ happen is where people are more willing to take one another's word for it. "I have been playing D&D for 30 years," says one person, "and I simply find it impossible to roleplay to the same level in a game with such abstraction." "I have been playing D&D for 30 years," says another, "and I find the abstraction is actually a boon to roleplay." "My group never was able to get into character, we spent so much time wrangling with the rules." "My group dives deep into character and barely comes out."
> 
> Both sides are probably telling the truth! At least, they are when they talk about themselves alone. Once one side starts assuming their experiences are universal, that's where the problems begin. "It is impossible to roleplay with Mechanic X" and "It is totally easy to roleplay with Mechanic X" aren't themselves true statements. But add "for me" or "for us" and they're as true as any absolute statement can be.




A closely related aspect to the above is when the misplaced universal declaration turns into, "the thing you say happens at your table can't logically happen because of X." 

Ironically, I've defended mulitple versions of D&D from other system fans, on this very point many times. You even get variations like, "you can't have exciting/interesting/fun combats with hit points and armor making you harder to hit." That kind of statement *always* means that the speaker hasn't been able to have combat he likes in such systems.  And as far as any kind of truth or insight, that is all it ever means.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 17, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I was around for Hero Fuzion Edition, something I would describe not so much as an edition war as Edition Genocide...




I fled the country during that furor. We hunkered down in another land with our 4th edition rules and quietly kept up the culture.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 18, 2011)

Windjammer said:


> Edition war is something...
> 
> ...that first reared its ugly head in mid 2007, gained steadily in momentum in 2008, caused Enworld to nearly shut down in 2009, died a slow death in early 2010, only to be re-ignited as 'Essentials hatred'. But that too is on its way out. Let's hope WotC is fast at work to once more 'evolutionize' our hobby with radical soft changes which abandon the traditions by harkening back to them.




Well, you could also count 1e AD&D vs. 2e AD&D, aforementioned Hero/Fuzion, various World of Darkness edition wars (oWoD vs. nWoD and Mage in particular), Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Exalted...

The most memorable edition war by any single person's metric is one that involves an edition that single person cares about. Doesn't mean it's the only one, same as how the one side of any edition war isn't the right one.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 18, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I fled the country during that furor. We hunkered down in another land with our 4th edition rules and quietly kept up the culture.




Somewhere out there, Almafeta is probably still fighting...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 18, 2011)

Redbadge said:


> It was a joke, but a poor one. I was trying to play on the subtle difference between "can" versus "do" or "should". I think now that it may have detracted from any other point I might have made.



I would give you XP for that admission if I could.

Thank you.

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 18, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I was around for Hero Fuzion Edition, something I would describe not so much as an edition war as Edition Genocide...



*Shudder* I remember that.

And, much like D&D v. Pathfinder, Champions ended up having competition in the form of their own earlier rules set being published by a third party (though by permission - I don't think that either publisher engaged much in the fighting).

At least in the end that war had a clear victor - Fuzion is pretty much gone, while Hero is still going strong.

The Auld Grump


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 18, 2011)

I'm reminded of something called the "Conservation of Happiness" concept.  It's like the conservation of energy idea; there's only so much of it to go around.  That means whenever a designer does something in D&D, one person will love it and another will hate it!  Since there are unhappy people no matter what you do, that's bound to make conflict sooner or later...


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 18, 2011)

Fuzion seemed likc such a great idea- combine the simple, low-complexity system of interlock with the depth and breadth of hero system power creation. Take the best bits of two great systems and smoosh them together. Instead, the designers did something completly different, and nobody was happy.



Jimlock said:


> When I play "White Wolf" Games, the people I play with (and that means people who mostly play "White Wolf" Games), are a lot more interesting in Roleplaying, storytelling, narration... & somehow we manage to play a more storytelling/Roleplaying driven game...
> 
> I'm wondering why......
> 
> ...



I'm not suggesting other designs, even other editions of D&D in the future could not serve those goals better- but the previous editions of D&D certainly do not do so, that's just one of the rationalisations people make for hating 4e.

There are any number of games that take a fair crack at putting roleplaying and story concepts into a space with more mechanics support. I don't agree that they all work, but they at least have a valid argument to make in favour of them trying.

The previous editions of D&D did nothing of the sort, and 4e is certainly better than them in that respect, due to the quality of it's DM advice about story, campaign, play styles, ect.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 18, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> I'm not suggesting other designs, even other editions of D&D in the future could not serve those goals better- but the previous editions of D&D certainly do not do so, that's just one of the rationalisations people make for hating 4e.
> 
> There are any number of games that take a fair crack at putting roleplaying and story concetps into a space with more mechanics support. I don't agree that they all work, but they at least have a valid argument to make in favour of them trying.
> 
> The previous editions of D&D did nothing of the sort, and 4e is certainly better than them in that respect, due to the quality of it's DM advice about story, campaign, play styles, ect.




You know, after going back and re-reading the 3.5 DMG 1 & 2 along with the PHB 1 & 2 and Unearthed Arcana for 3.5... I'm going to call bull on this...  There's tons of advice on roleplaying, story concepts, structuring campaigns, DM'ing styles, player traits, backgrounds, etc.  In fact I'd even argue that 3.5 also (whether you like the implementation or not) provided more rules suppport for implementing alot of this stuff in your game.  So no, I don't think 4e was a better edition at touching on this than 3.5 was... the only thing I might give 4e is that it was touched on in more depth earlier in the edition lifecycle... and even then I'm not so sure it's as in depth as what we got out of those five books above for 3.5.


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 18, 2011)

I must say i'm shocked by this turn of events. You're saying there's a part of fourth edition or, indeed, any part, which you consider inferior to pervious editions? How long did it take for you to come to that determination? 

It does not suprise me to see people reject this argument. 
But the DMG's for 4e have been fantastic and blow the advice in the previous game's books out of the water. It's not just about depth of breadth, but quality. The quality of the advice is better, and makes for better play. 

It's discussion of play types comes straight from the guy who literally wrote the book on the subject. It touches on issues like shared narrative, which have only been managed in a remidial fashion in the past. Those are just two examples.

I say this as somebody who considers the campaign sourcebook and catacomb guide one of my favorite books from the old days, but each edition has been better than the one before it in this respect, and 4e is miles ahead of it's predecessors.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 18, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> I must say i'm shocked by this turn of events. You're saying there's a part of fourth edition or, indeed, any part, which you consider inferior to pervious editions? How long did it take for you to come to that determination?
> 
> It does not suprise me to see people reject this argument.
> But the DMG's for 4e have been fantastic and blow the advice in the previous game's books out of the water. It's not just about depth of breadth, but quality. The quality of the advice is better, and makes for better play.
> ...




This is all subjectively true.

To someone such as myself, who _despises_ narrative play styles in a long term game, advocating such things is much, much worse (again, subjectively). I think 4e is much more narrative than 3.X is (I'm pretty hazy on anything earlier, so I won't comment), while also being much more obviously gamist. I prefer both of these be muted (especially the narrative portion of the game) much more so than 4e has revealed itself to be (to me). To me, these aspects make the game much worse than 3.X was (again, hazy on earlier editions).

And my statements are also subjectively true.

At any rate, I think if everyone used a lot more "in my opinion" and "YMMV" in their posts, we'd see edition warring drop significantly. Disagreements, sure, but a lot less "I need to correct that guy, because he doesn't speak for me!" going on in these threads.

Anyways, play what you like


----------



## Imaro (Jun 18, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> I must say i'm shocked by this turn of events. You're saying there's a part of fourth edition or, indeed, any part, which you consider inferior to pervious editions? How long did it take for you to come to that determination?




Honestly? Quite a bit of money (I wish I hadn't spent on books and DDI)... and quite a bit of play time (I wish I could get back) over the past year. 



catastrophic said:


> It does not suprise me to see people reject this argument.
> But the DMG's for 4e have been fantastic and blow the advice in the previous game's books out of the water. It's not just about depth of breadth, but quality. The quality of the advice is better, and makes for better play.




Please enlighten us... since it's an argument could you give some concrete examples where 4e gives *objectively* better advice on roleplaying and such... Here's a question for you... have you even read the advice in the 3.5 books I listed?



catastrophic said:


> It's discussion of play types comes straight from the guy who literally wrote the book on the subject. It touches on issues like shared narrative, which have only been managed in a remidial fashion in the past. Those are just two examples.




Just two examples of what... subjective opinion is... subjective opinion.



catastrophic said:


> I say this as somebody who considers the campaign sourcebook and catacomb guide one of my favorite books from the old days, but each edition has been better than the one before it in this respect, and 4e is miles ahead of it's predecessors.




Again please give some concrete "objective" examples and perhaps your arguments would hold more weight... right now it just sonds like... "I like the way 4e said it better..." Which honestly has already shifted goalposts of your earlier claim that no editions "did nothing of the sort" ... which I've already proven is false.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 18, 2011)

Admittedly, I don't have a lot of breadth in my reading, but from what exposure I've had to 4e GMing advice, it seems to range from obvious to bad.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 18, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Admittedly, I don't have a lot of breadth in my reading, but from what exposure I've had to 4e GMing advice, it seems to range from obvious to bad.



In fairness, some of what I've seen there does seem to vaguely get the point across; but that's about it.

Still gets beaten sideways by the 1e DMG: required reading for all DMs of any edition.

Lan-"assigning homework, giving out required reading - next thing I know I'll be a teacher"-efan


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 18, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Admittedly, I don't have a lot of breadth in my reading, but from what exposure I've had to 4e GMing advice, it seems to range from obvious to bad.



Actually, a lot of fresh young DM's _need_ the 'obvious' advice. That part don't bother me.

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 18, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Honestly? Quite a bit of money (I wish I hadn't spent on books and DDI)... and quite a bit of play time (I wish I could get back) over the past year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, catastrophic is doing a good job of defining an edition war with an in thread example at any rate.  More politely than many I will grant, but not accepting that not everyone agrees with him. Heck, not everyone agrees with _me_, and _I_ am always right! 

The Auld Grump, hmm... the term '4e - the Catastrophic Edition' does have a certain ironic validity.... 

*EDIT* This last was intended purely for humorous effect - a chance alignment of my opinion with the screen name of a poster. I _don't_ currently think that 4e is 'catastrophic', I do know that it is a game that I do not want to play or run. The existence of Pathfinder has mellowed me a good deal.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 19, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Actually, a lot of fresh young DM's _need_ the 'obvious' advice. That part don't bother me.
> 
> The Auld Grump




It doesn't bother me. I've just never seen any DMing advice out of 4e that made me say, "Oh, hell yeah, that's how you do it."


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 19, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> This is all subjectively true.
> 
> To someone such as myself, who _despises_ narrative play styles in a long term game, advocating such things is much, much worse (again, subjectively). I think 4e is much more narrative than 3.X is (I'm pretty hazy on anything earlier, so I won't comment), while also being much more obviously gamist. I prefer both of these be muted (especially the narrative portion of the game) much more so than 4e has revealed itself to be (to me). To me, these aspects make the game much worse than 3.X was (again, hazy on earlier editions).
> 
> And my statements are also subjectively true.



You completly missed the point of the conversation. We were talking about wether or not a given edition provided better support for the playstyle you don't like. You don't like that playstyle? Fine, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. 

Also as noted earlier, it's easy to act like everything is just a matter of opinion- but that doesn't lead to good game design. Sooner or later if you want good games, and you want games to be better, you have to get down to brass tacks instead of indulging in easy platitudes.



Imaro said:


> Just two examples of what... subjective opinion is... subjective opinion.



Just because people refuse to accept any proof of an argument contrary to their own, doesn't mean none exists- it also doesn't mean somebody should go through the time and effort of providing such proof when it's so clear that you aren't interested in that kind of discussion. You want to act like everything is subjective? You go right ahead. That doesn't mean other people have to think about things the same way.

And you can pretend this applies to me as much as you like, but i'm not the one who sits on this forum day after day beating the edition war drums. And yes I know- you guys also insist that it's the mean old 4e fans who keep the wars going, but that's just another side of the argument.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 19, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> And yes I know- you guys also insist that it's the mean old 4e fans who keep the wars going, but that's just another side of the argument.



Not to interject, but I don't think everyone is insisting that its only 4e fans who are only ones that keep the edition war going.  In fact Sadly, fans on both sides are what is keeping the war going, and all it takes is one snide or edition biased comment to start an edition war.


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 19, 2011)

Relique du Madde said:


> Not to interject, but I don't think everyone is insisting that its only 4e fans who are only ones that keep the edition war going.



Actually several people in this thread are clearly heavily implying just that.

And to be frank, it's disingenuous to argue for some equal share. I challenge you to go to any news item on the web relating to dungeon and dragons, and read the comments section. You'd be amazed at how quickly you come across people posting about how 4e sucks and nobody should play it. To say nothing of how people act on forums. The edition wars over 4e have never been an equal conflict, and that platitude only encourages the real instigators, who are often, although not always, people who dislike 4e.



> In fact Sadly, fans on both sides are what is keeping the war going, and all it takes is one snide or edition biased comment to start an edition war.



Once again, you can look at the thread this topic was forked from and pretend it's an equal conflict, but that's not really what's going on. It's not as if the thread didn't have merit, I especially liked the mention of angel summoner and bmx bandit, but the attitude is still there in the background.

I stand by my original post in this thread. An edition war happens when 4e fans put up too much of a fight. 

When they don't, there's an endless, self perpetuating, snide subtext on the issue. Occasionally fans of 4e get sick of that and ask the other side if they want to make something of it, and that's when something is labeled an edition war, and hence bad.

And frankly, why should people put up with it? If people went around the general forum making endless snide comments about 3e and how much it looks like a dumb baby puzzle in comparison to the other editions, i'm pretty sure the mods would get on it pretty fast.


----------



## Kannik (Jun 19, 2011)

These probably would be my “litmus tests” for whether a conversation is leading towards an edition war (as opposed to a discussion of gaming mechanics or even styles):


An absolute statement is made about the game (“You cannot do X in this game at all” vs “I do not see how the system might elegantly support X")

A statement is made about the players of an edition (“Only simpletons could like this system” vs nothing – there is no reason for ad hominem statements)

A statement is made about the designers of an edition (similar to above)

A post is made only to say how much they dislike a system or everything that is wrong with it (“I do not like this system because of X, and I thought I would just share it with you for no apparent reason” vs "I have a question" or "I am soliciting suggestions/advice/insight/other experiences")
 
I'd assert it's perfectly possible to have a great conversation and discourse on the plusses and minuses of a system, as well as our own experiences about it, and gain excellent insights and even respect for each other.  Being steadfast to your opinion or experience as the only possible one, not being willing to see the other person’s point of view (ie, expecting the other to “see the light” with your post, and not willing to do the same in return), or relying on any of the above bullets as ammunition will derail it beyond conversation to a fight.  

Peace,

Kannik


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 19, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> And frankly, why should people put up with it? If people went around the general forum making endless snide comments about 3e and how much it looks like a dumb baby puzzle in comparison to the other editions, i'm pretty sure the mods would get on it pretty fast.



People _do_ make such comments, and the mods move on such posters in exactly the same way they do on those who do so about 4e.

The very offensive Bellhop post is _still_ in the Pictures thread - and that is _exactly_ the type of thing that you are weeping about, only it singles out 3e and Pathfinder, not your oh! so defenseless, 4e. 

4e is not defenseless, neither is 3.X - both sides need to stop acting like their opponents are the only offenders. I don't have to like your game, nor do I need to agree that it is in any way a better or equal game to my poison of choice. You, in turn, do you need to respect the obvious superiority of my game, even though angels choir when its name is spoken.

Early on I think that the mods were _more_ likely to move on folks bad mouthing 4e, in part because there were some very obnoxious folks who hated 4e. Once Pathfinder started doing well some of the more vocal 3.X trolls lumbered back to their dens, happy that a game they enjoyed continued. Some 4e goblins then took the success of Pathfinder as attack on their spiky fortress and began lobbing slings and arrows of passive aggressive pain.

Seeing only one side of the edition war as the aggressors is part of being an edition warrior. I find that it saves time to just hate everybody.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jun 19, 2011)

Hey!  First day back and I've already added someone to my Ignore list.  Cool, man.  



Barastrondo said:


> Well, you could also count 1e AD&D vs. 2e AD&D, aforementioned Hero/Fuzion, various World of Darkness edition wars (oWoD vs. nWoD and Mage in particular), Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Exalted..




Okay.  For the last 6 or 7 years, I've been playing Exalted.  We started with 1e and switched to 2e for our current campaign.  I can NOT imagine anyone saying 1e is better.  ~shudder~  2e still has some major design flaws and... eccentricities... but it's WAY better than the first edition was.  No comparison to the different D&D editions.  1e Exalted was flat out retarded in a lot of ways.  

The essential problem here is that human beings will not accept the fact that you can not change someone's opinion with an argument.  (And I'm not saying I'm any better.  I've been in more pointless flamewars than most people in my day.)  Maybe Redbadge could convince me 4e is a good game if he sat me down, went through the books and showed me the cool parts, and then ran me through one of his games.  But can his logical arguments on a message board ever change my opinion that Pathfinder is better than 4e in every way?  No.  Flat out no.

Edition wars are exactly the same as any other flame war on any other subject.  You really want to change other people's opinions with your reasoned arguments.  And you really, really aren't ever going to do it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 19, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Actually several people in this thread are clearly heavily implying just that.
> 
> And to be frank, it's disingenuous to argue for some equal share. I challenge you to go to any news item on the web relating to dungeon and dragons, and read the comments section. You'd be amazed at how quickly you come across people posting about how 4e sucks and nobody should play it. To say nothing of how people act on forums. The edition wars over 4e have never been an equal conflict, and that platitude only encourages the real instigators, who are often, although not always, people who dislike 4e.
> 
> ...



 The simple solution is to put the people that make the snide remarks on ignore. It will do wonders for your blood pressure and reduce the number of edition war threads becasue you willl not feel tempted to respont to them.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 19, 2011)

Cyberzombie said:


> Hey!  First day back and I've already added someone to my Ignore list.  Cool, man.



But, but, but you can't ignore _me!_ I'm the _hero!_ 

You may want to remove the Ignore comment, I got thumped by mods for that. I won't say that it wasn't a deserved thumping, it was deserved, but I won't say that I might not do it again, under the same circumstances. Best to avoid the circumstances.

And not all the arguments used to try to change minds fit the descriptor 'reasonable'.
Though at other times 'silly' works better than any other method.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 19, 2011)

You say this:


catastrophic said:


> Also as noted earlier, it's easy to act like everything is just a matter of opinion- but that doesn't lead to good game design. Sooner or later if you want good games, and you want games to be better, you have to get down to brass tacks instead of indulging in easy platitudes.




But then all you offer is this: 



catastrophic said:


> Just because people refuse to accept any proof of an argument contrary to their own, doesn't mean none exists- it also doesn't mean somebody should go through the time and effort of providing such proof when it's so clear that you aren't interested in that kind of discussion. You want to act like everything is subjective? You go right ahead. That doesn't mean other people have to think about things the same way.




Platitudes.

You say proof exists. But all you give us are platitudes about _how_ proof exists, without any proof at all.


You've been saying 4e is the best game. Ok, how? Where's that objective proof that extends beyond your _own_ platitudes?



I gave you a pretty lengthy response here about how there ARE _some_ objective measures:


Aberzanzorax said:


> I agree with the part of your post that I quoted.
> 
> I disagree with most of the rest.



 that you seemed to just ignore or brush off.

In fact, the only "objective" evidence you've provided has been:


catastrophic said:


> <snip> The previous editions of D&D did nothing of the sort, and 4e is certainly better than them in that respect, due to the quality of it's DM advice about story, campaign, play styles, ect.



 (Again, without evidence, only platitude.)

To which Imaro disproves your assertion with:


Imaro said:


> You know, after going back and re-reading the 3.5 DMG 1 & 2 along with the PHB 1 & 2 and Unearthed Arcana for 3.5... I'm going to call bull on this... <snip>




So you scale back your objective claim that earlier editions didn't do it at all to:


catastrophic said:


> <snippy sarcasm>
> It does not suprise me to see people reject this argument.
> But the DMG's for 4e have been fantastic and blow the advice in the previous game's books out of the water. It's not just about depth of breadth, but quality. The quality of the advice is better, and makes for better play.
> 
> ...



 Ok, so 4e is miles better. (Another platitude.) Where? How? I thought the other editions didn't do it at all? The fact that you make that claim, which was quickly and easily disproven, makes me wonder how knowledgeable about earlier editions you are to actually make a fair comparison.

Finally, Imaro asked you for some objective evidence. You seem keen on this, since you claim both the existence and importance of objective evidence. 







Imaro said:


> Please enlighten us... since it's an argument could you give some concrete examples where 4e gives *objectively* better advice on roleplaying and such... Here's a question for you... have you even read the advice in the 3.5 books I listed?




Yet we've still seen no objective evidence from you, Catastrophic. All we've seen are platitudes.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 19, 2011)

I think Aberzanzorax is quickly turning into my favorite non-mod poster (because my love of the mods knows no bounds ).



catastrophic said:


> You completly missed the point of the conversation. We were talking about wether or not a given edition provided better support for the playstyle you don't like. You don't like that playstyle? Fine, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
> 
> Also as noted earlier, it's easy to act like everything is just a matter of opinion- but that doesn't lead to good game design. Sooner or later if you want good games, and you want games to be better, you have to get down to brass tacks instead of indulging in easy platitudes.
> 
> Just because people refuse to accept any proof of an argument contrary to their own, doesn't mean none exists- it also doesn't mean somebody should go through the time and effort of providing such proof when it's so clear that you aren't interested in that kind of discussion. You want to act like everything is subjective? You go right ahead. That doesn't mean other people have to think about things the same way.




Well, in the case of play style, there's no objective measurement. Period. It's hit or miss with people's preferences. The same even goes for things like the layout of books. Some people like X layout style, while other people like Y layout style.

I don't think there's any way to objectively show that one set of advice is better than another set of advice unless you look at the outcome after the advice is given. If the advice worked, then it was good. If it didn't, then it wasn't.

Since fun is subjective, and the promotion of a narrative style of play is advice, it will work for some people, and not for others. You can only judge the advice in a subjective manner, as fun will vary from group to group.

Now, is there objectively _more_ narrative advice in the 4e book compared to 3.X? Probably (but I'm not positive). However, you still must apply the advice, then objectively judge it based on subjective views of fun. To that end, the measuring stick remains subjective, not objective.

So when you make statements like the following (which I originally replied to):


			
				catastrophic said:
			
		

> But the DMG's for 4e have been fantastic and blow the advice in the previous game's books out of the water. It's not just about depth of breadth, but quality. The quality of the advice is better, and makes for better play.




... then it makes me think, "that can only be subjectively true."

As always, play what you like


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 19, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> It makes me think, "that can only be subjectively true."



No, it can _also_ be subjectively false! 

[EXAMPLE]So, when's the next edition of FATAL due out? It's the best game _EVER!_

Remember, no matter how much you may dislike 4e/3.X/BECMI there is always... worse. _Much_ worse.

The Auld Grump, now Spawn of Fashan on the other hand... pure win.


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 19, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> The simple solution is to put the people that make the snide remarks on ignore. It will do wonders for your blood pressure and reduce the number of edition war threads becasue you willl not feel tempted to respont to them.



I don't usually participate in these threads, and my blood pressure is fine. The problem with ignoring people and ending debate is that they then declare victory, other people assume their viewpoint is far more wide-held than it actually is, and mike mearls starts doing colums about how much of a self-loathing 4e dev he is.

It has other effects as well- such as threads full of people smugly arguing about how everything is subjective and a matter of opinion and nothing can ever be described in any concrete terms. You can see that kind of thinking being echoed in Mearl's artiles, as well, and i'm sure fifth edition will bear the scars of trying to design to fit the absurd demands of such people. I'd predict that 'YMMV' will be a keyword in 5th edition, but then again, keywords are far too coherent and 'gamist' a mechanic for a suitably gygaxovancianarritivist design.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 19, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> I don't usually participate in these threads, and my blood pressure is fine. The problem with ignoring people and ending debate is that they then declare victory, other people assume their viewpoint is far more wide-held than it actually is, and mike mearls starts doing colums about how much of a self-loathing 4e dev he is.
> 
> It has other effects as well- such as threads full of people smugly arguing about how everything is subjective and a matter of opinion and nothing can ever be described in any concrete terms. You can see that kind of thinking being echoed in Mearl's artiles, as well, and i'm sure fifth edition will bear the scars of trying to design to fit the absurd demands of such people. I'd predict that 'YMMV' will be a keyword in 5th edition, but then again, keywords are far too coherent and 'gamist' a mechanic for a suitably gygaxovancianarritivist design.



 There is no victory, you cannot win.
Other people don't give a damn, 4 months later most of the particpants will not remember the thread.


----------



## dagger (Jun 19, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> I don't usually participate in these threads, and my blood pressure is fine. The problem with ignoring people and ending debate is that they then declare victory, other people assume their viewpoint is far more wide-held than it actually is, and mike mearls starts doing colums about how much of a self-loathing 4e dev he is.
> 
> It has other effects as well- such as threads full of people smugly arguing about how everything is subjective and a matter of opinion and nothing can ever be described in any concrete terms. You can see that kind of thinking being echoed in Mearl's artiles, as well, and i'm sure fifth edition will bear the scars of trying to design to fit the absurd demands of such people. I'd predict that 'YMMV' will be a keyword in 5th edition, but then again, keywords are far too coherent and 'gamist' a mechanic for a suitably gygaxovancianarritivist design.




Welcome to the war soldier.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 20, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> I don't usually participate in these threads, and my blood pressure is fine. The problem with ignoring people and ending debate is that they then declare victory, other people assume their viewpoint is far more wide-held than it actually is, and mike mearls starts doing colums about how much of a self-loathing 4e dev he is.
> 
> It has other effects as well- such as threads full of people smugly arguing about how everything is subjective and a matter of opinion and nothing can ever be described in any concrete terms. You can see that kind of thinking being echoed in Mearl's artiles, as well, and i'm sure fifth edition will bear the scars of trying to design to fit the absurd demands of such people. I'd predict that 'YMMV' will be a keyword in 5th edition, but then again, keywords are far too coherent and 'gamist' a mechanic for a suitably gygaxovancianarritivist design.




You clearly have no interest in responding to actual content in posts.

I've attempted to address you directly more than once.

Enjoy your platitudes.


By the way, I never claimed that my favored edition was best. I don't think that claim can be made. In this thread, the ONLY person/people who have claimed their edition to be BEST were 4e people. It's great to think 4e is best. IT IS, but only for you and others like you. 1e or 2e or 3e or Pathfinder are also BEST for people who find them to be so. If that's offensive to someone.....well....gosh.....that someone is someone who clearly thinks there are objective reasons for their edition to be BEST (which they damn well better provide if they expect to be taken seriously) or that person is someone whose emotion is overriding their reason. 

Edition wars happen when someone decides that, in fact, they have the best edition. If anyone wants to claim superiority, that's more of a problem than a discussion point, unless they can actually back it up with, well, unless they can back it up with anything at all.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 20, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> No, it can _also_ be subjectively false!
> 
> [EXAMPLE]So, when's the next edition of FATAL due out? It's the best game _EVER!_
> 
> ...




I dunno man. I usually agree with yout, but not so much here.

I sorta went where you went here with my somewhat silly example of "Romper Stomper Teddy Bears".

I meant it as a sincere (and hopefully not biting) example of how a very horrible game could, in fact, be "the best" depending upon what people are looking for.


For instance, let's take HOL. It's somewhat polarized in its love/hate. It might be the best for some people while being the worst for others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hol_(role-playing_game)



My point about every game and every edition of every game is that it can only really be measured against what it sets out to accomplish. It can utterly fail at doing what it isn't trying to do, but be fantastic at what it attempts to do.

"Hamlet? That movie wasn't very funny at all."
"Die Hard? Where was the plot?"
"Dangerous Liasons? Ummmm. No action."

You know this, of course. I'm not directing this at you, but I'm responding to your post to make a point. 


I mean... If it's a parody game, then it should be a good parody. People playing it seriously should be dissapointed if they do so -- as it is a parody. If it's a drama game, the combat might be nonlethal...people playing it might find the combat boring or "not intense enough" or whatever. If it's a D&D game people might get upset if it's too hack and slash or not enough hack and slash.

An intense shift in focus is an intense change in the game.

Part of comparing editions also necessitates understanding what the game as a whole (WoD, D&D, GURPS, etc) and the specifiic edition are aiming for and how well they accomplish it. Measuring this can be complicated in that _if different edtions of the same game set out to accomplish different things, then we are grading them against different measures_.

That can be a part of the edition warring as well. What if the designers decided "this combat game is now a narrative game...to hell with balance, let's tell a story!" (or vice versa, or some middle ground where the shift of focus was real, but much more subtle).

If the focus of a game is changed to such a degree that it no longer represents the same "purpose" in playing, it's not unreasonable, in my opinion, to claim "this doesn't feel the same to me" if the purpose was the reason for playing the game. If one played the game for the theme or "dressing" or whatever else was maintained, then this argument doesn't hold much water. In fact, a change in purpose with similar dressing could radically change the game and actually be an improvement! (e.g. "I always played D&D for fantasy tropes, but really wanted more balance." versus "I always enjoyed the realism of D&D and hoped it'd give worlds that much more verisimillitude next edition.")

And then edition warriors on both sides discuss how much and how little a game has changed...and what that means...and if it's always been that way or if it SHOULD always have been that way...and so on and so on, and honestly, as someone (maybe Umbran) said (and I'm paraphrasing with my own words...sorry to Umbran if I'm putting words in your mouth)...

It's mostly about forming an opinion based upon "feeling" and enjoyment of a game/edition and then subsequently justifying that with reason and logic. 

I'm pretty sure I do it, but I also do it having given 4e a real solid chance. It's not "bias" so much as "taste". 

I like it. I have friends who play it. They LOVE it. They wish I'd play it more with them. I like playing with them. I like playing with my 3e friends, not because they're better gamers (they're not), but because I like that game better...it meets my preferences.

I don't hate 4e. I just don't prefer it. 



My point? For me 3e is better than 4e. I have given both a very fair shot. I went into Pathfinder, 4e, Iron Heroes, Arcana Unearthed, and others with an open mind. 

I can be comfortable with that. I don't understand people who are angry with me for this expression and I don't understand people who claim that any one of these games are superior to others.


Hell, I LOVED the innovations of 3e over 2e...but I respect the opinions of 2e players who want to stay old school and enjoy their game as superior (to them) over 3e. 



I don't understand the schism between 3e and 4e in the same context...

...Claim your game is best for you, but don't claim your game is best for everyone.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 20, 2011)

I was joking. 

As far as I am concerned the only way to be 'Subjectively wrong' is to deny that you are being subjective, and that other people's subjective views are also valid.

I have objective preferences for my subjective liking and disliking of games - I can point at those objective preferences and say 'this is why _my_ game is better'. But the game is better because I have a subjective liking for those objective causes.

I like handling NPCs and monsters in the same fashion as PCs, I prefer long stat blocks - it was why I liked RuneQuest and it was why I liked 3.X..

The games handling PCs, NPCs, and Critters the same way is objective, it can be measured and demonstrated.

If I say 'that is why I like 3.X better' I am being objective. I like the game, and it can be demonstrated that I do.

If I say 'that is why 3.X _is_ better' then I have started being subjective. Liking long stat blocks is a subjective preference.

And if you then say '4e is better because it has smaller stat blocks!' then you are being subjective.

And if we begin arguing about it... welcome to the war, soldier!

If you say 'I like 4e better because it has shorter stat blocks' you are being objective, both are quantifiable. 

But if I counter with 'you're wrong, you silly ninny-hammer! Long stat-blocks FTW!!1!!!' then I am provoking an edition war. (And I will be grammar clubbed by my fifth grade English teacher.)

And, as an aside, I played HOL, and did not much like the game as it was run. Whether I would have liked it better with a different GM?... I dunno. (The same GM ran a really good Nephelim game, though.)

I _think_ that the designers of 4e _did_ focus over much on combat and encounter. But I also think that what the designers envisioned may not be what folks are running.

The Auld Grump


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 20, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> You clearly have no interest in responding to actual content in posts.



I'm under no obligation to pretend you're being more rational or reasonable than you actually are. 

I have seen the debates go over and over and over, even on really clear cut things like how absurdly underpowered 3e fighters are in later levels- and yes, I know many people argue that that is not a bad thing, or isn't true, or is a good thing, but guess what? They're wrong.

I'm not going to contribute to the edition wars by going line by line while you insist that whatever information I offer is no match for your subjective old school renaisance sandboxing skill or whatever flavour you're peddling.

Everything is not subjective. Everything is not just a matter of preference. It's very easy to hold that position when arguing on the internet, but it's not very constructive to do so when talking about the design, wich needs actual goals, and neesd to be able to talk about mechanics and wether they fail of suceed.

It's not as if we're talking about radically different games here, and again, I know people argue otherwise, but their opinions do nto determine reality. The editions have not shifted that far in the playstyle they are servicing.



ardoughter said:


> There is no victory, you cannot win.
> Other people don't give a damn, 4 months later most of the particpants will not remember the thread.



I'm not trying to win anything. 
I won when I stoped playing 3e and started playing 4e.
Game, Set, Match, me.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> I won when I stoped playing 3e and started playing 4e.
> Game, Set, Match, me.



By the same token, then, I could say I won when - after buying and checking over the first round of core books - I decided to not play 4e at all.  Around the same time I also decided to bail on 3e.

My only question is, given that I won, who or what did I defeat?

Lan-"we are all winners"-efan


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 20, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> I'm under no obligation to pretend you're being more rational or reasonable than you actually are.




Well, what about having a conversation with me? I think I've tried to be reasonable. I'm not trying to make you defensive of your preference. I'm not aligned with many other posters here in terms of preferred play style, so it's not me and others against 4e, or any other edition.

I think it's possible to have a constructive (or at least informative) conversation without becoming defensive, or without implying that others are acting irrationally. Even if you view it as such, it doesn't add much to the conversation by voicing it.



> I have seen the debates go over and over and over, even on really clear cut things like how absurdly underpowered 3e fighters are in later levels- and yes, I know many people argue that that is not a bad thing, or isn't true, or is a good thing, but guess what? They're wrong.




In terms of potential power, yes, casters can be much more potent in 3e at later levels. I think the average game doesn't deal with the optimization or system mastery that most forums maintain, though. I also think that even with that system mastery, many people don't use that power divide against their teammates.

At any rate, I think claiming that somebody is wrong for stating a preference is probably a bad statement to make. I could claim that my favorite cheese was processed American cheese, and someone could say "but that's not real cheese, so you're wrong." But, really, if it's my preferred cheese, then I'm not wrong in expressing my taste. Taste is subjective.

Now, if you're talking about balance, or some other design goal that has yet to be expressed as the topic of conversation, I think you'll find many people in this thread will agree with you that 4e seems much more balanced than 3e. And as I said, if there's another design goal you want to discuss, we can talk about the implementations without getting defensive.



> I'm not going to contribute to the edition wars by going line by line while you insist that whatever information I offer is no match for your subjective old school renaisance sandboxing skill or whatever flavour you're peddling.




I don't want an edition war, either, but I think making statements such as the following really contribute to the edition war:  


> I have seen the debates go over and over and over, even on really clear cut things like how absurdly underpowered 3e fighters are in later levels- and yes, I know many people argue that that is not a bad thing, or isn't true, or is a good thing, but guess what? They're wrong.




Since you've mentioned no design goal, such as game balance, the above statement looks like you're condemning other people's enjoyment of a particular play style. Preferred play styles are innately subjective. I think that having a possible misinterpretation of your words (if you meant the above statement to be in response to balance, for example) is going to contribute more to the edition war than other ways to communicate your thoughts on the matter.



> Everything is not subjective. Everything is not just a matter of preference. It's very easy to hold that position when arguing on the internet, but it's not very constructive to do so when talking about the design, wich needs actual goals, and neesd to be able to talk about mechanics and wether they fail of suceed.




Everything isn't subjective, you're correct. I'd like to talk about more of the objective parts of game design, rather than about play style preferences, which are subjective. I think implying that people are wrong by enjoying the game (even if that's not what you mean) smacks of "badwrongfun" and many people here understandably don't like it, or don't agree with it (much as you disagree with people when they unjustifiably say the same to you).

If you want to talk about mechanical implementation, and which edition came closer to achieving their goals, I'd like to. We can do so in a way that is reasonable, and doesn't cause either one of us to become defensive about our preferences.



> It's not as if we're talking about radically different games here, and again, I know people argue otherwise, but their opinions do nto determine reality. The editions have not shifted that far in the playstyle they are servicing.




Well, forgive the poor analogy, but to me, it's like two people talking about the best way to get down a mountain. The mountain has two ways down: a trail that takes 4 hours walk at a leisurely pace, or an elevator that'll get you down in 2 minutes. People can debate which way is better for getting down, because, subjectively, there's been no stated objective goal yet. No one has said "what's the best way to get down the mountain quickly?"

If that's the question, it suddenly becomes obvious. However, if the question is "what's the best way to get down the mountain?" then I can say "the trail" because I love walking in nature. I could also say "the elevator" because obviously, when it comes to getting down the mountain, the elevator is the fastest.

I think that stating a goal a little more clearly before saying someone is wrong about something would greatly help people from getting defensive, as well as avoiding edition wars. It's also a lot more reasonable.



> I'm not trying to win anything.
> I won when I stoped playing 3e and started playing 4e.
> Game, Set, Match, me.




If you're having fun, then yeah, you're winning D&D. As always, play what you like


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 20, 2011)

Remember, some of the most entrenched and recalcitrant Edition Warriors are the ones who either claim that they are not participating in the war (while shouting how [insert edition here] is the one true game/most flexible/has evolved beyond petty concerns of proof or basic evidence), or are claiming to fight only a war of defense.

When dealing with such a mindset the thing to do is ignore, if not Ignore, them. Fully a quarter of this thread has been spent arguing with *one* such myrmidon. Let such call themself victor while you and I go back to arguing with folks who actually have something to say. You'll have more fun that way, I'll have more fun that way, and nothing of value will have been lost.

Though, in honesty, I think that it is fair to state that the term 'edition war' _has_ been pretty well defined in this thread, by concrete example. So what say that we all agree that _I/we/you_ have won the war, or at least this battle, and have iced tea with cookies? 

The Auld Grump, the problem with arguing with a wall is that sometimes the wall wins....


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 20, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Remember, some of the most entrenched and recalcitrant Edition Warriors are the ones who either claim that they are not participating in the war (while shouting how [insert edition here] is the one true game/most flexible/has evolved beyond petty concerns of proof or basic evidence, or are claiming to fight only a war of defense.
> 
> When dealing with such a mindset the thing to do is ignore, if not Ignore, them. Fully a quarter of this thread has been spent arguing with *one* such myrmidon. Let such call themself victor while you and I go back to arguing with folks who actually have something to say. You'll have more fun that way, I'll have more fun that way, and nothing of value will have been lost.
> 
> ...



 I was going to XP you for this but ENworld won't let me. I must say the only time I won an agrument with a wall I had a 13lb sledge hammer and a crowbar.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 20, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> I was going to XP you for this but ENworld won't let me. I must say the only time I won an agrument with a wall I had a 13lb sledge hammer and a crowbar.



Oh, I usually win arguments with walls.

Or at least I have the last word before stamping off in a huff. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 20, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Remember, some of the most entrenched and recalcitrant Edition Warriors are the ones who either claim that they are not participating in the war (while shouting how [insert edition here] is the one true game/most flexible/has evolved beyond petty concerns of proof or basic evidence), or are claiming to fight only a war of defense.
> 
> When dealing with such a mindset the thing to do is ignore, if not Ignore, them. Fully a quarter of this thread has been spent arguing with *one* such myrmidon. Let such call themself victor while you and I go back to arguing with folks who actually have something to say. You'll have more fun that way, I'll have more fun that way, and nothing of value will have been lost.
> 
> ...




I, too, was going to XP you, but must spread around, yadda yadda.


----------



## dagger (Jun 20, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> I'm not going to contribute to the edition wars





Carry on brave soldier, for you are deep in the trenches. Saying someones view on 3e fighters is wrong and you are right is very interesting.

For myself and several other groups around here, we would not say you are wrong, even though we have dropped 4e (in our case after 1 1/2 years).


----------



## Umbran (Jun 20, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> Game, Set, Match, me.





More like game, set, and removal from thread.  

Folks, the thread's about edition warring - how folks are inappropriately aggressive and tenacious with their opinions on editions.  Let me strongly suggest you all stop trying to demonstrate the concept by direct examples.

Thanks.


----------



## dagger (Jun 20, 2011)

Yousei9 said:


> See, what I've noticed ism that edition wars need two sides to be angry at each other.  That's why edition wars start when 4e fans start defending themselves.








TheAuldGrump said:


> Remember, some of the most entrenched and recalcitrant Edition Warriors are the ones who either claim that they are not participating in the war (while shouting how [insert edition here] is the one true game/most flexible/has evolved beyond petty concerns of proof or basic evidence), *or are claiming to fight only a war of defense*.




TheAuldGrump strikes again.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 20, 2011)

Yousei9 said:


> There is a problem here and it's not one you're trying to point out. It's one you are accidentally showing.
> 
> *The first two pages had little more then wonderful pictures of 3e and earlier, and then a thinly veiled insult at 4e.* Within the first two pages it was called WoW (and would be called such again later on), it was the poorly painted alluminum shed compared to the wonderous castles of other editions, it was an angry "pro-gamer" screaming at his computer, it was literally a cookie cutter, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> But for you, it wasn't an edition war, and it wasn't "offensive," until someone compared the 3e and Pathfinder fighter to a bellhop. Not even a comment on the edition as a whole, just a joke about the fighter class - a joke that's been repeated dozens of times beforehand about fighters existing only to carry the bags. That, for you - that joke that's been around for quite awhile, the joke that was made in, what, page 4 of the thread after countless passive aggressive insults at 4e? - is "very offensive."




First, welcome to ENworld.

I have to say, you're adding some serious slant to that thread.

"Wonderful" pictures of earlier (non 4e) editions include:
(all on page 1)
a pile of crayons
a child confused by the complexities of chess
a question mark
an utterly stupid centaur butterfly thing
a rat trap
(all on page 2)
some sort of ugly organ with perhaps hundreds of unwieldy wires
a glass celing
a kitchen sink
betty white ridng a john ritter minotaur
an ugly mishmash of batman and superman


post #6 http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-edition-into-single-picture.html#post5588767 (on the first page, obviously) was a pretty clear attack on 3e, with 4e being the awesome.


There were several comments on those pages of "At least he seemed to be critical of each edition." and "I keep thinking there is an edition war being fought here, but the medium makes it hard to be sure who is on what side, or even what's being said."

So no, it wasn't offensive (even though there were some pretty critical pictures of the earlier editoins) until someone went out of their way to be offensive (that post, as well as the poop post which was deleted). Of course, those with thin skin might be easily offended even by more gentle critique.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 20, 2011)

Yousei9 said:


> It's fun and easy to say "Just play your game and leave well enough alone," because your game isn't the one constantly being attacked.  But that's not what 4e haters are doing, and they are 4e haters, not 3e fans, because "liking 3e" is not enough for them, they have to put down 4e.  Hey, maybe people who like 4e will play their game happily and leave well enough alone when the other side stops poking them so much.




An opinion is not an attack. Let me demonstrate.

"Katy Perry's so-called music is rubbish."

Observe that Katy Perry is unharmed. Now, obviously Ms. Perry isn't here to be offended. If she were, I might say,

"I can't say I'm much of a fan of your music, Ms. Perry, but it was nice to meet you."

But even if she overheard the first, perhaps as I was unaware she was present, she might be offended, but could not claim to be attacked. Observe, however, if I said,

"Your music sucks. I wish you had never been born."

That's different. That's a verbal attack. 

Now imagine we were in a moderated environment. Perhaps every time someone referred to her music as rubbish, a fight broke out. A moderator might step in and say, "Look, no calling that music rubbish. We're all here just to have a good time." That becomes a stickier issue. I believe, personally, that some things can be called rubbish. At the same time, it's not always kind or worthwhile to do so. I don't go around telling kids that Pokemon cartoons are rubbish, even though they pretty much are. It's a matter of tact and compassion. I think there is an argument to be made that adults can, and perhaps should, be frank about discussing things of pertinence (like, for instance, RPGs, on an RPG site). On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for civility, even enforced civility. As we know in what direction policy has been laid out on EN World, discussion of what constitutes an edition war is probably not all the fruitful.

First, edition wars are not allowed. If you see something that looks like an edition war, either you're wrong, or the mods haven't gotten the report yet. If you're wrong, there's a good chance you are about to start an edition war when you draw your saber, becoming the very thing you swore to destroy.

Second, most of the things that lead to edition wars are already not allowed. Ad hominem attacks, blanket negative evaluative statements about games, and claiming to speak for the other side of an argument are already against the rules. Fallacious arguments are strongly frowned upon. Something is unlikely to even venture into edition war territory during normal business hours. By the time someone gets suspended or whatever, people are usually crossing the warning tape that says "Do Not Go Into the Do Not Go Place."

People saying things about games that you do not like about games you do like is not an edition war. If they are saying inaccurate things, you are entitled to correct them. If they say things with which you disagree, you are welcome to disagree. But it's not a war until someone sets aside civility and attacks. Until then, it's just a difference of opinion.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2011)

Yousei9 said:


> It's fun and easy to say "Just play your game and leave well enough alone," because your game isn't the one constantly being attacked.  But that's not what 4e haters are doing, and they are 4e haters, not 3e fans, because "liking 3e" is not enough for them, they have to put down 4e.  Hey, maybe people who like 4e will play their game happily and leave well enough alone when the other side stops poking them so much.




But the "other side" isn't poking them... they're poking 4e and that's fair game. At least it should be since poking 3e has been fair game since this board went operational. There hasn't been a single time frame in which 3e wasn't a legitimate target for criticism and wasn't criticized in some way, shape, or form. What's different now?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, forgive the poor analogy, but to me, it's like two people talking about the best way to get down a mountain. The mountain has two ways down: a trail that takes 4 hours walk at a leisurely pace, or an elevator that'll get you down in 2 minutes. People can debate which way is better for getting down, because, subjectively, there's been no stated objective goal yet. No one has said "what's the best way to get down the mountain quickly?"



That might be because the best way to get down the mountain quickly involves a free-fall off that cliff over there...




What? 

You asked about the best way to get down quickly.  Didn't say anything about safely... 

Lan-"splat!"-efan


----------



## dagger (Jun 20, 2011)

Well I see 4e fans always slamming 3e/PF. Thoughts?


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 20, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Admittedly, I don't have a lot of breadth in my reading, but from what exposure I've had to 4e GMing advice, it seems to range from obvious to bad.




What sort of stuff specifically? From what I've seen, the DMG and DMG2 are some of the highlights of the edition. DMG2, in particular, introduced several concepts that may have been obvious to other DMs (in-game flashbacks, off-player activity during a solo mission, etc) that were breakthroughs to me.

Or were you referring to advice given out on forums and such?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 20, 2011)

dagger said:


> Well I see 4e fans always slamming 3e/PF. Thoughts?




While some folks will claim all trouble lies with one side or another, from the moderator's view, that's just not true.  

We are in "Hatfield and McCoy" territory, and have been there for quite some time.  Both sides behaved shamefully, and neither is willing to forgive or forget slights, or forego vengeance.  So, on occasion, someone on either side will take a pot shot, and start a flareup.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 20, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> People saying things about games that you do not like about games you do like is not an edition war. If they are saying inaccurate things, you are entitled to correct them. If they say things with which you disagree, you are welcome to disagree. But it's not a war until someone sets aside civility and attacks. Until then, it's just a difference of opinion.




This is true. And it leads directly to a very common tactic, shown here in its baldest and most extreme form (it is often more subtle):

X wants to stir up trouble, and knows the above, and is savvy enough not to butt into such a hornets nest head on. Instead X will say something that is easy to say, kind of right if you look at it cross-eyed in bad light, *but* difficult to concisely refute. X will very carefully not stake out much of a position, in order to "move the goal posts" over and over. 

In a well-moderated board, such as this one, people will try to give X the benefit of the doubt and will discuss this position in good faith. X will twist and turn, refuse to engage key points, pounce on *any* misstep from *any* "opponent", as a distraction from the central discussion. And then to cap it all off, after X has been completely and utterly banished from any reasonable persons' consideration of having a point--X will wait a few days or weeks and start it all over again on something else. And with a lot of chutzpah, X will eventually get around to revisiting the original topic--*totally* ignoring any objection that was ever made to it in the previous exhaustive discussion.

I'm not talking about X refusing to change his mind. That's his choice. But if someone has bothered to write several thousand words in a discussion with you that gets really detailed, you at least owe them the courtesy of factoring in their objections into your next round--if only a comment that an earlier discussion took place, but you still aren't buying it.

One would almost think that X was more motivated by an agenda to put out propaganda than to discuss ... Naw, that can't possibly be it. 

People get used to seeing X before X fully manifests, because they don't want to waste their time with a propagandist (naturally). This causes people to develop radar for X that sometimes makes mistakes. Thus the newbie that gets blind-sided with a poorly worded post that steps into previous mine fields. 

The same guy can call me on the phone. I can be polite. Then he can keep making the same stupid call. At some point, I'll stop being polite. At some point, I'll stop being polite with caller guy number 123456 a lot faster than I was with number 1. This is why we have the "do not call" list. On a forum, we don't have the ability to tell X, "You know, A, B, C, and me were all having a fine discussion on this until you butted in for the 23rd time with your inane propaganda. I suppose we could all just not respond, but D is new in the discussion, and still doesn't know you are a complete jerk (at least on the current subject*), and we aren't allowed to tell him in no uncertain terms not to waste his time on you."

* Were it not sometimes subject by subject, ignore lists would be far more effective.

The fundamental hole in the "everyone be polite" idea is that we have to treat the propgandist, who is exactly not polite, as if he were.  Not that I have an answer.  Mods aren't parents dealing with 5 year olds in the back seat, "not" poking each other.  It just seems that way sometimes. 

I know it is a pipe dream, and would be a nightmare for moderaters to do, but sometimes I wish the moderator text was: "Answer the freaking question that was ask of you and take a position, even if it is, 'I don't know', or shut up about this topic for the next six months, on pain of a suspension." 

I guess the only positive way to get around any of that would be to have closed discussions, invitations only, where the people that started the discussion were the only ones allowed to post, unless they specifically invited someone else. And no doubt that would have a whole host of other problems.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 20, 2011)

Umbran said:


> We are in "Hatfield and McCoy" territory, and have been there for quite some time. Both sides behaved shamefully, and neither is willing to forgive or forget slights, or forego vengeance. So, on occasion, someone on either side will take a pot shot, and start a flareup.




Isn't some of this rather self-perpetuating, because the Hatfields that aren't all that interested in McCoy territory, pro or con, aren't bothering to go there?  And vice versa.  

That is, if I'm a McCoy, and I like McCoy stuff, the only Hatfields I see are the troublemakers and the ones that are a bit of both (i.e. part McCoy and part Hatfield).  And, I'm not seeing the McCoy guys at their worst, when they are shooting up Hatfield territory.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 20, 2011)

dagger said:


> Well I see 4e fans always slamming 3e/PF. Thoughts?




Jumping in again to say that I never had a negative word for 3e/PF. Just overly enthusiastic about 4e.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 20, 2011)

Yousei9 said:


> it was literally a cookie cutter, etc, etc, etc.



You obviously missed the part later in the thread where I said that post of mine was about all the things I hated about every edition and that it contained an image of a "Wall of text", "Glass Ceiling", "Kitchen sink."




> But for you, it wasn't an edition war, and it wasn't "offensive," until someone compared the 3e and Pathfinder fighter to a bellhop.  Not even a comment on the edition as a whole, just a joke about the fighter class - a joke that's been repeated dozens of times beforehand about fighters existing only to carry the bags.



Let's go with the bellhop example using two movie posters*:






  vs  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Which image said's "I Carry your stuff?"  and which states "Hurrr! I'm stupid! I fell down go boom"?

Answer:  



Spoiler



The first guy obviously carries your stuff.  The second saids "Hurrr! I stupid fell down go boom.!"



How can that be? 

Image Interpretation 101: The meaning in the first image is conveyed through the representation of a Bellhop.  The meaning in the second images is conveyed through the actor, Jerry Lewis, looking like a fool and looking inept at being a "bellhop".  Why?  Bellhops are iconic, so is Jerry Lewis.  When most people see an images of a Jerry Lewis characters they immediately think of an individual that fit these qualities: 

1) "Hurrr!" STUPID
2) A bumbling fool
3) Clumsy moron
4) A Beyond brain dead
5) Buffoon
6) Ineffectual
7) Only likely to survive a given task based on luck (opposed to skill)

Unfortunately, that image in the Bellboy image only reinforces those stereotypes and does not convey the notion of someone that "carries your stuff."

What was that , you said?  "The Bellhop is also a comedy!"  Correct you are.

However, because the first movie is circa 1921, chances are that you probably don't know who the comedian Larry Semon was since he was less well known then his co-star from the same movie, Oliver Hardy.  Luckily, the poster did spell that it the Bellhop was a comedy in little yellow text that you probably would have looked over since the focal point of that movie poster is the Bags which the bellhop is masterfully carrying (since the White text stand out).  

Unfortunately, since no one uploaded a complete video of the Bellhop on youtube or the internet archive (I'm not sure when it will be public domain since the co-writer/co-director died in 81), it's hard to know how to characterize Larry Semon's character beyond the clip that currently exists on youtube (see below) which shows him elude mobsters by climbing onto a latter dropped by a passing plane then SHOOTING it down after he was forced off that plane (by mobster who was handing onto the planes landing strut) and landing on an other plane flown by a maid from the Bellhop's hotel.  

Clearly, Larry Semon's Bellhop is cearly different from the bumbling fool Jerry Lewis played, and seems a lot more epic.  Unlike Jerry Lewis he saids, "I'll carry your stuff, break stuff that needs to be broken, and take out the badguys..."  which is appropriate for fighters.

[sblock=Ending sequence from The Bellhop]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No_8q3iuqk8[/ame]
[/sblock]


* Let's not pay attention to how the other images in the same post showed Tome of Battle and 4e as being heroic with 1e and 2e being heroic (in a lesser degree) being compared to the "Bellboy 3e" and the "Bellboy special edition Pathfinder."  Let's also ignore the fact that Warriors carried the bags of Wizards in 1e and 2e as well, yet your image shows them being heroic in 1e and 2e (to a lesser degree).


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 20, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> What sort of stuff specifically? From what I've seen, the DMG and DMG2 are some of the highlights of the edition. DMG2, in particular, introduced several concepts that may have been obvious to other DMs (in-game flashbacks, off-player activity during a solo mission, etc) that were breakthroughs to me.
> 
> Or were you referring to advice given out on forums and such?




Well, for instance, I think in-game flashbacks are generally a bad idea. I've tried them, and you are pretty much stuck with either acting it out, which is not precisely an RPG or why I game, or playing it out, which... doesn't work. It's the sort of stuff that sounds kind of cool and daring, but rarely are you given the proper warning: "By the way, this is a separate activity from how you usually play RPGs which can be inserted if you see the need, but which actually may not appeal to many, if not most, gamers as being part of what drew them into the game."


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 20, 2011)

Yousei9 said:


> ...Or, since everything else in that post comes from a google image search, maybe they just looked up "Bellhop" and grabbed the movie since it had two covers and as such could use it for a Pathfinder joke.  Occam's Razor is a tool that seems to see little usage.




Did you READ any of my post?    No you didn't.  I suggest you read it again because you miss the fact that when you use an icon (Jerry Lewis) to represent something that object takes on the icon's (Jerry Lewis) qualities.

A Bellhop vs Jerry Lewis as a Bellhop are two different notions.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 20, 2011)

Relique du Madde said:


> Did you READ any of my post?    No you didn't.  I suggest you read it again because you miss the fact that when you use an icon (Jerry Lewis) to represent something that object takes on the icon's (Jerry Lewis) qualities.
> 
> A Bellhop vs Jerry Lewis as a Bellhop are two different notions.




So... 3e helps kids with serious illnesses?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 20, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> So... 3e helps kids with serious illnesses?




Yeah, since 4e assumes you can heal yourself ("No healing surges makes 3e a Sad Panda").


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 20, 2011)

Something that I've never really understood, and it bugs me when I see someone doing it: Why comment at all on an edition that you don't like? I'm not even talking about "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I mean, why even enter those threads on subjects you're not positively interested in?

I don't care for cats, and so I wouldn't bother reading a thread on them. And I definitely have no reason to add a comment on them, especially a negative comment in any form. Why pee in someone else's sandbox?

I like three particular editions of D&D, and I read and tend to comment in those discussions. The other three, I'm not interested in, and so I tend to ignore those threads.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a dichotomy with regard to edition love. Some seem to believe that to like one edition, you must actively dislike another. Any expression of love or support for one edition is taken as hate and derision of another edition. I think this is what causes a lot of edition wars.

Basically, saying, "Edition A is great!" is taken by some as exactly like saying, "Edition B sucks!" Heck, you can't even say, "I prefer edition A" without someone taking it as, "You're dumb for liking edition B."

Bullgrit


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 20, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Well, for instance, I think in-game flashbacks are generally a bad idea. I've tried them, and you are pretty much stuck with either acting it out, which is not precisely an RPG or why I game, or playing it out, which... doesn't work. It's the sort of stuff that sounds kind of cool and daring, but rarely are you given the proper warning: "By the way, this is a separate activity from how you usually play RPGs which can be inserted if you see the need, but which actually may not appeal to many, if not most, gamers as being part of what drew them into the game."




Yeah, the suggestion in the DMG2 is to actually act out past events (or even current scenes that the PCs aren't part of) with the players taking the role of important NPCs rather than their own characters. 

I totally get it might not be for everyone - indeed, the section has a disclaimer on most of these approaches mentioning the possible pitfalls. But never having really been presented with the idea before, it was fascinating to me, and I tried it in-game - in this case, each PC took on the persona of their patrons (various Gods, an Archdevil, and other Powers allied in a great extraplanar war) and held a grand debate about how to pursue the coming war. That let them set the tone, in character, of how they wanted the game to proceed, and everyone found it a fun and memorable experience. 

Anyway, maybe it isn't to your taste, but the advice in these books - both on designing the game and running it - has been pretty impressive. I'm honestly puzzled by what sort of poor advice you've come across. 

I admit to being less impressed with the recent DM Kit, which seemed to mostly tread the same ground and leave out some important sections - but the DMG1 and DMG2 were rather universally praised as offering exceptional DM advice.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2011)

Yousei9 said:


> I dunno.  Why is the "fighters are bellhops" picture the only one that's "very offense?"
> 
> Remember, that's the comment I quoted.  That of everything in that thread, the only comment that's "very offensive" is the one that makes a joke about 3e.
> 
> ...




Context is key here. The bellhop pictures came from a brand new member with a name that suggests intent to threadcrap or at least stir up trouble (google the name and you should get the picture) as well as posting behavior that suggests intent to only get embroiled in edition warring (in other words - no posts in any threads but the two). The bellhop pictures also came after the poster was already tossing about accusations of edition warring. That suggests the intent wasn't to simply post pictorial impressions of the editions, but to retaliate. 
Since you say that perceptions are important here, the poster is perceived as an active participant in edition warring and his post was seen as a deliberate attempt to inflame an edition war.

Notice also that there are other posts that could be interpreted as critical of 3e/PF that nobody has called out as offensive. They weren't posted under the same circumstances by a questionable poster.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 20, 2011)

Bullgrit said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, there seems to be a dichotomy with regard to edition love. Some seem to believe that to like one edition, you must actively dislike another. Any expression of love or support for one edition is taken as hate and derision of another edition.



Also, I must add, some seem to take any negative comment about an aspect of one edition as representing a general hate for that edition and, by definition, a love for another edition.

There have been a couple of sadly funny situations in the past when someone took a less than glowing comment of mine about X edition as meaning that I completely dislike X edition and must like Y edition. They then throw in an insult about that Y edition. They just assumed that insult to "my" edition would hurt me, when actually, I didn't even get the reference because I don't play it.

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> Something that I've never really understood, and it bugs me when I see someone doing it: Why comment at all on an edition that you don't like? I'm not even talking about "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I mean, why even enter those threads on subjects you're not positively interested in?
> 
> I don't care for cats, and so I wouldn't bother reading a thread on them. And I definitely have no reason to add a comment on them, especially a negative comment in any form. Why pee in someone else's sandbox?
> 
> ...




The popularity of cats as pets doesn't really affect me as a pet owner of anything else but cats. The ripple effect of any developments in cat ownership is fairly contained. But D&D and anything going on with D&D, given its traditional position in the hobby and mindshare of people both inside and outside the industry, has a big ripple effect with this small hobby. I think that's a significant reason why people can't shut up about it, positive or negative.

Plus, most of us have played D&D at some point in our lives, particularly on this D&D-oriented board. We've pretty much all self-identified as D&D players at some point. Most of us feel a personal connection with this hobby in general and this game, otherwise we wouldn't waste our time here, typing on and on about it. We are (or at least were) invested in it and its future. So, again, we can't really shut up about it.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2011)

Yousei9 said:


> Except, again, you're suggesting we believe someone who's name is literally a meme, who's other pictures were all just google image searches - including others about 3e and Pathfinder! - went out of their way this one time to make an incredibly bizarre and "insightful" post about Jerry Lewis.
> 
> Rather then simply grabbing those from GIS as well.
> 
> Occam's Razor suggests otherwise.




I think that's a misuse of Occam's razor. Assuming he's not looking for a particular meaning would suggest that the poster, going a google search for bellhop, would be more likely to take one of the early hits rather than keep searching for Jerry Lewis. There are pages of bellhop images before you reach the Jerry Lewis video on a google image search. No. I think he was clearly looking for a deeper meaning than simply carrying the other PCs' gear.
Same with his choice of user name.



Yousei9 said:


> Incidentally, by definition, one cannot "retaliate" until they've been wronged first.  As was stated before - the "edition war" didn't start until the 4e side "struck back."




Semantic games only get you so far. The poster made things pretty clear that he thought blows had been struck against 4e before he posted the bellhop pictures.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 20, 2011)

billd91 said:


> We are (or at least were) invested in it and its future. So, again, we can't really shut up about it.




That's one half of why edition wars happen; the other is that, being human beings, we can't hold 100% to the standard of "even if I don't like this, and I can't stay out of the discussion when people are discussing this, I will at least try not to put too much negativity into the conversation because that helps nothing." In fact, one can even intend to not be too negative and still come across as profoundly so, because it's not like there's a weights & measures standard for Internet argument.

The really sad thing about edition wars is how they are not just unwinnable, but counter-productive. The more choices there are on the table, the more likely it is that any given person actually prefers Choice B to Choice A _and has tried both_. Telling this person that you wish Choice B hadn't come along isn't going to make him any happier with Choice A, and in fact it is more likely to engender resentment of Choice A. As a result, edition wars tend to make it _less_ likely that any given participant will be open-minded about trying the choice on the other side, when theoretically what the other side would want would be for him to be _more_ likely to give it a shot. 

They're just terrible, really. It's understandable how they happen; you can even track it back. But they go right against the greatest strength of the hobby, which is the ability to share ideas and experiences with other people.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jun 20, 2011)

yousei9 said:


> incidentally, by definition, one cannot "retaliate" until _they perceive that_ they've been wronged first.  As was stated before - the "edition war" didn't start until the 4e side "struck back."



fify.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 21, 2011)

Pour oil on the troubled waters.... Come back later and the waters are still troubled, and now the oil is now on fire.... 

As has been pointed out there were anti-3e posts in the picture thread on the first page. I rolled my eyes and moved on. Then there was a picture breaking the 'no politics' rule that was also offensive - that one got reported, most likely more than once.

Yes, there have been insulting pics of 4e as well - both sides are being offensive! And there is no need - you can make your point without being offensive.

I went for pictures of pirates from movies - I own every single one of those movies, and wouldn't give any less than three stars out of five. (The three star is Blackbeard's Ghost - when I was a kid I would have given it a five.  I loved that movie in the theater. I used the picture for 2e - because while 2e has faded for me a bit I remember loving it.) The first picture is The Black Swan - an old B&W film of possibly the most successful pirate of all time, Henry Morgan - who managed to become Governor of Jamaica. OD&D had its faults, but I don't think anyone would deny it's success.

1e and 3.5 were both chosen for maniacal grins - Yellowbeard for 1e and Hook for 3.5. I just liked those pictures. 

Jack Sparrow for 4e and Blackbeard for Pathfinder? The most recent success stories in a long line of folks killing things and taking their stuff.

I don't think that any were offensive.

Saying that Jerry Lewis as an incompetent bellhop is not offensive to 3e?... Sorry, it was offensive. Less offensive would be a picture of a packhorse or mule. But, in honesty? Fighters have served as the party's pack mule since OD&D - it was not new to 3e. Which the picture implied was the case.

Saying that they were less effective in 3e? In Basic D&D Clerics had the same attack bonus, could wear the same armor, did the same damage, and could cast spells. 

It wasn't until Unearthed Arcana and 2e that fighters started becoming more effective. Fighters were again a bit more effective in 3e, but perhaps still had ground to cover to come to parity with spell casters.

In Pathfinder fighters have come close to parity, if not reached it - better in armor and weapons use than anyone else, nearly twice the feats of anyone else, and no dead levels. (And fighters getting better protection than anyone else wearing the exact same armor is great. Tankity, tankity, tank!)

4e... some might argue that with the strange new Powers and Healing Surges that he is not a Fighter at all anymore, at least in the OD&D - Pathfinder sense. But, you know... if the folks playing them newfangled, motor driven pack mules are having fun? Let them have fun! That's the freakin' point!

Me, I want to play with the new, shiny, armor plated pack mule with improved kicking power that is in Pathfinder. He still eats hay and oats, he's still stubborn, and doesn't always go where the wizard wants him to go, but he's my mule, and boy, he can carry a lot of stuff. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 21, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> Something that I've never really understood, and it bugs me when I see someone doing it: Why comment at all on an edition that you don't like? I'm not even talking about "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I mean, why even enter those threads on subjects you're not positively interested in?
> 
> I don't care for cats, and so I wouldn't bother reading a thread on them. And I definitely have no reason to add a comment on them, especially a negative comment in any form. Why pee in someone else's sandbox?




That's an interesting question, and I can offer a partial answer. Sometimes bad design is interesting. If you are a game designer, bad design isn't "someone else's sandbox." In fact, the people who really don't belong in an edition comparison are people who are invested in one game, but not the other games in the discussion. To me, edition criticism is more like saying, "Uh, there's some pee in this sandbox, you might want to think twice before hopping in." 

Plus, if you're going to illuminate how a game works and what it does, you really can't make a division between good/bad. You can talk about what is, and what you think about it. In fact, every new game edition is an implicit criticism of every previous edition. I could certainly describe some problems I see with, say, Pathfinder, or D6, but I don't think many people would actually be interested. From what I've said, if a 4e player starts to voice criticisms of 4e-isms they don't like, the usual response is for the 4e fans to say, "No, no, no, that's not really a problem, and we'll tell you why."

EN World is unfortunately uniquely posed in the Blood War between 3e and 4e, because it started as a 3e site, then had some majority or at least plurality convert over to 4e. It's neither a pure 3e site nor a pure 4e site, nor is it united by the lonely love of those who play vintage editions, nor is it (yet?) a generic vehicle for RPG discussion. It's like a club that plays rock on Fridays and disco on Saturdays. EN World is like an oldies station that just nudged their playlist forward a decade. It's like a "new rock" station that's still playing stuff from Soundgarden because their old listeners never stopped listening. Basically, real neutrality is hard to find here.

On the plus side, as a fairly D&D-centric site, with a lot of crossover with various OGL games and "lite" games, there is the potential for a collegiate, congenial atmosphere. However, for that to work, people have to get used to hearing things they don't like. I think with time things have definitely improved. Certainly, you don't see the venom you used to when someone posted an example from the "wrong" edition. 

I mean, there is very little about the coming of 4e I liked at all, but you would be hard-pressed to get me riled up about anything edition-specific at this point... unless you decided you still had to persuade me that I believe 4e is a superior game. I'm sure it is... for someone else.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jun 21, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> Something that I've never really understood, and it bugs me when I see someone doing it: Why comment at all on an edition that you don't like? I'm not even talking about "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I mean, why even enter those threads on subjects you're not positively interested in?




Because it is oh so VERY easy to take your anger out on the faceless denizens of the internet.  90% of a message board's population lurks and never posts.  If you're moved to post, you're likely to be more passionate in your opinions than the average person, so it stands to reason that many threads will get heated.  That's why we have moderators around.

I will poke in the 4e forums from time to time, but not to provoke.  I'm happy with Pathfinder, but it's always fun to learn new things.  They don't make me want to play 4e any more than I do now, but so what?  As long as we're having fun, what do the details matter?


----------



## Ettin (Jun 21, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I think that's a misuse of Occam's razor.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...




I think if you are looking for a deeper meaning in a Pathfinder gag and a 4chan meme you probably need some Occam's Razor all up in your business.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 21, 2011)

Umbran said:


> While some folks will claim all trouble lies with one side or another, from the moderator's view, that's just not true.
> 
> We are in "Hatfield and McCoy" territory, and have been there for quite some time.  Both sides behaved shamefully, and neither is willing to forgive or forget slights, or forego vengeance.  So, on occasion, someone on either side will take a pot shot, and start a flareup.








You best have been smilin' when you say that.

Ol' Devil Anse was waitin' by the lonesome river ford,
When he spied a Mackey cap'n, with his pistol and his sword....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Umbran (Jun 21, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> Unfortunately, there seems to be a dichotomy with regard to edition love. Some seem to believe that to like one edition, you must actively dislike another.




I think there are at least two effects here that partially overlap, neither of which is specific to D&D.  They're common to the human condition.

One is that humans are tribal creatures.  We draw dividing lines between each other.  There's X-fans and Y-fans, and folks will take nearly every opportunity to reinforce the distinction.  If you are a Y-fan, you're a Y-fan all the way.  You can only be critical of Y to other well-established Y-fans.  Otherwise, speaking in less than glowing terms of Y means you are not a Y-fan, and the only other choice is that you're an X-fan, and they are the Enemy....  

Another is that these days, being critical is cool.  I don't mean giving good critique is cool - that's a skill we need more of, not less.  I'm talking about just not liking things, and being vocal about it.  It is cool (and easy) to rip things down, especially things others like.  Tearing things down is a time-honored way of building yourself up, after all.


----------



## DoctorNick (Jun 21, 2011)

> the usual response is for the 4e fans to say, "No, no, no, that's not really a problem, and we'll tell you why."




Maybe I'm missing something but I really don't see a problem with this at all. I mean, isn't this the definition of discussion? You say maybe people should be willing to hear things they don't like. That door swings both ways, my friend.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 21, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> Maybe I'm missing something but I really don't see a problem with this at all. I mean, isn't this the definition of discussion? You say maybe people should be willing to hear things they don't like. That door swings both ways, my friend.




I'm just saying that a conversation has to move in two directions. I don't object to discuss countepoints (ha! check my posting history), I was simply indicating my impression that I am in the minority in finding such discussions interesting.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 22, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I think there are at least two effects here that partially overlap, neither of which is specific to D&D.  They're common to the human condition.
> 
> One is that humans are tribal creatures.  We draw dividing lines between each other.  There's X-fans and Y-fans, and folks will take nearly every opportunity to reinforce the distinction.  If you are a Y-fan, you're a Y-fan all the way.  You can only be critical of Y to other well-established Y-fans.  Otherwise, speaking in less than glowing terms of Y means you are not a Y-fan, and the only other choice is that you're an X-fan, and they are the Enemy....



 Common to most trouping primates. (Ook!) We are the Banderlog. Trespass not against us.



> Another is that these days, being critical is cool.  I don't mean giving good critique is cool - that's a skill we need more of, not less.  I'm talking about just not liking things, and being vocal about it.  It is cool (and easy) to rip things down, especially things others like.  Tearing things down is a time-honored way of building yourself up, after all.



The major difference is that good critique can be used to rebuild the subject in a, hopefully, more robust fashion.

I think that is also a part of the edition war - the perception (accurate, I think) that WotC was doing as much by way of tearing down older styles of play as promoting the new style in the run up to release. That in a demonstrable fashion the opening salvo was not fired by fans of either style (excepting, possibly, the playtesters)  but by the folks from WotC itself.

4e fans, and those introduced to gaming by 4e, came into a barrage already fired. The fact that the target was the game and the company promoting that game does not change the fact that they came, blinking, into the middle of an artillery battle.

Like the fans, the game designers themselves behaved like trouping primates, and the we-know-what has been flying hard and fast between the two tribes ever since.

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 22, 2011)

DoctorNick said:


> Maybe I'm missing something but I really don't see a problem with this at all. I mean, isn't this the definition of discussion? You say maybe people should be willing to hear things they don't like. That door swings both ways, my friend.



Because, all to often, it is prefaced by 'No, you're wrong' - when there is no right or wrong in this instance. Just because something is right for you or me does not mean that it is right for Charlie down the street.

And given that Charlie is just as likely to have 'No, you are wrong' as the preamble to why _he_ isn't wrong....

If I perceive something as a problem then it _is_ a problem - do not assume otherwise. It raises my hackles.

In turn the changes made to the system were directed at what someone else saw as a problem, even though I know _full well_ that it wasn't a bug, it was a _feature!_ (Phrasing chosen for ironic effect.)

If you like a system my telling you that you are wrong will raise your hackles in like manner.

The Auld Grump is a long winded sort, isn't he?


----------



## Griego (Jun 22, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Because, all to often, it is prefaced by 'No, you're wrong' - when there is no right or wrong in this instance. Just because something is right for you or me does not mean that it is right for Charlie down the street. (snip)



So, if I say that Synnibarr or FATAL is right for me, then there is no criticizing them? No, I disagree, there *is* good and bad design, the problem is when edition warriors of either "side" choose to ignore criticism of poor design in their game of choice. That's when a thread devolves from a discussion to an edition war, I would say.


----------



## dagger (Jun 22, 2011)

Griego said:


> So, if I say that Synnibarr or FATAL is right for me, then there is no criticizing them? No, I disagree, there *is* good and bad design, the problem is when edition warriors of either "side" choose to ignore criticism of poor design in their game of choice. That's when a thread devolves from a discussion to an edition war, I would say.




Yes but whether something is of poor design or not is a matter of opinion also.


----------



## BenBrown (Jun 22, 2011)

dagger said:


> Yes but whether something is of poor design or not is a matter of opinion also.




To an extent, yes, but people tend to say "poor design" when they really mean "poor design for what I want to do" or "design that was not what I expected and I had gotten my hopes up for without any real evidence" or even "design that is different from they way I've always done it".


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jun 22, 2011)

dagger said:


> Yes but whether something is of poor design or not is a matter of opinion also.





BenBrown said:


> To an extent, yes, but people tend to say "poor  design" when they really mean "poor design for what I want to do" or  "design that was not what I expected and I had gotten my hopes up for  without any real evidence" or even "design that is different from they  way I've always done it".



Well, yes.  That appears to be what  dagger said.  A design is _not_ objectively "good" or "poor" until everyone defines _*and agrees to*_ some objective criteria by which to make the evaluation.

Much of the disagreement over editions, in fact, actually isn't about  edition design at all, but simply about the criteria to judge the  editions.  Toss out a handful of careless descriptions, and wrap it all up  in thin-skin, and edition wars happen.


----------



## BenBrown (Jun 22, 2011)

Theo R Cwithin said:


> Well, yes.  That appears to be what  dagger said.  A design is _not_ objectively "good" or "poor" until everyone defines _*and agrees to*_ some objective criteria by which to make the evaluation.
> 
> Much of the disagreement over editions, in fact, actually isn't about  edition design at all, but simply about the criteria to judge the  editions.  Toss out a handful of careless descriptions, and wrap it all up  in thin-skin, and edition wars happen.




Whoops.  Misplaced a "not".  Sorry 'bout that.  Here I am disagreeing with someone I actually agree with--which is another feature I've seen in internet arguments frequently.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 22, 2011)

Griego said:


> So, if I say that Synnibarr or FATAL is right for me, then there is no criticizing them? No, I disagree, there *is* good and bad design, the problem is when edition warriors of either "side" choose to ignore criticism of poor design in their game of choice. That's when a thread devolves from a discussion to an edition war, I would say.



Let us turn it around.

4e is badly designed. It focuses over much on combat and the encounter, with a distinct feeling that all actions not pertaining to one or the other were tacked on at the last minute, and poorly tested (as evidenced by the massive errata pertaining to skills).

Does that feel like an attack? It is how I honestly feel about 4e, and what I can point out as a major failing of the game.

Now let me add - if you like 4e then you are wrong to do so. It is not a roleplaying game, but rather a combat and tactical game. That people are managing to use it for roleplaying games, in spite of its systems, is a major achievement.

Again, this is an accurate appraisal of my feelings about the game. Did it feel like I was slighting 4e? 

The unnecessary addition of 'if you like 4e then you are wrong to do so' is where I might feel that I have ventured into an aggressive posture, yet folks will tell you that I have taken an antagonistic approach when I first claimed that 4e is bad design - regardless of whether that is my honest opinion or not.

This is because I am starting with the position that you are wrong in liking 4e. That it does not matter how much you like the game, how much your players like the game, or if you find game preparation much easier with 4e than it was with 3.X - that just by preferring 4e you are wrong.

And it is also where my statement becomes false - not all people, campaigns, GMs, players, or groups function in like fashion. That I am happy with Pathfinder, and that my players are happy with Pathfinder, has no bearing on whether you and yours will like Pathfinder (or 4e) as well. 

Being more or less of an honest sort, I typically preface things like '4e is badly designed' with 'I think' or 'I feel' and qualify it further with something along the lines of 'for my style of play'. 

This is, in fact, more accurate than just baldly stating that '4e is badly designed' - there are folks who vastly prefer 4e over 3.X. _And they are allowed to do so._ For their style of play it works just fine. For me, and for my style of play, it would not be as satisfying as 3.X.

If you like Synnibarr than play Synnibarr - if it is a game that you and your players enjoy then it _is_ the right game for you. There are moderators on this very forum who would be _proud_ to display their copy of Spawn of Fashan! (And rightly so, I am green with envy that Piratecat owns a copy - I have only seen a second or third edition bootleg - on 1980 era photocopy paper....)

The Auld Grump, but if FATAL is the right game for you and your group then _please_ seek treatment immediately. With modern procedures there is still hope....


----------



## pemerton (Jun 22, 2011)

dagger said:


> Yes but whether something is of poor design or not is a matter of opinion also.





Theo R Cwithin said:


> A design is _not_ objectively "good" or "poor" until everyone defines _*and agrees to*_ some objective criteria by which to make the evaluation.



"Matter of opinion" is a fairly elastic phrase.

Whether chocolate is tastier than caramel as an icecream or milkshake flavouring is a matter opinion.

Whether a milkshake offers as interesting a gastronomic experience as a good quality wine is a matter of opinion.

Whether Macbeth or Hamlet is the superior play is a matter of opinion.

Whether Shakespeare or J K Rowling is the better writer is a matter of opinion.

Not all things which are matters of opinion are subject to opinion in the same way. Of the above, I think there's a very strong case to be made that Shakespeare is a better writer than J K Rowling. I also think there is a fairly strong case to be made in favour of the wine over the milkshake (which is not to say that sometimes, perhaps often, one doesn't want a milkshake rather than a wine - superior doesn't always mean preferable).

I can adduce any objective criteria by which I make the above judgments, but that doesn't shake my confidence in them.

To bring this back to RPGs, here is a design flaw in Rolemaster: The PC creation process - which is complex and involved - produces lovingly detailed, subtly differentiated characters. The PC creation process also strongly encourages (and doesn't fall very far short of guaranteeing) each PC to have some significant, combat-relevant ability. The GM guidelines in RM are fairly thin, but the monster stats are primarily relevant for combat, which together with the PC build rules strongly suggests that PCs are meant, from time to time at least, to engage in combat. And the combat resolution rules are such that low level PCs are likely often to be killed in combat, and even mid-to-high level PCs can suffer very serious consequences (although they are likely to have magic available to mitigate the worst outcomes). So if players and GMs play the game in the fashion that the various bits of the rules and guidelines suggest is the way the game is meant to be played, they will spend a good deal of their time developing _new_ lovingly detailed PCs who run a good chance of never actually getting to be played for very long.

This is a flaw. It's not a fatal flaw - different RM groups develop their own workarounds, and I personally have got nearly 20 years of great play out of Rolemaster. But it's a flaw nevertheless. It's a flaw that is absent from other high-death games (like low-level classic D&D and Tunnels and Trolls) because those games have quick PC gen. I think it's an open question whether it's a flaw in Classic Traveller or not - Traveller does have time-consuming and lovingly detailed PC gen, and it does encourage combat as a significant ingame activity, and combat in Traveller is very deadly - but Traveller does have robust action resolution mechanics for activity other than fighting (like voyaging and trading, for example) which mark a noticeable distinction from Rolemaster.

Here's a design flaw in 3E: The character build and action resolution mechanics for skills are, on the whole, towards the RM/RQ/Traveller style "gritty" end of things. Not every PC can be good at everything, or even that many things; DCs are set in a somewhat realistic fashion (as discussed by Justin Alexander here); except for some of the extreme Balance and Tumbling DCs in the ELH, skills are limited to what is more-or-less humanly possible. The character build and action resolution mechanics for combat, on the other hand, are anything but gritty - even 5th level PCs (who, according to Justin Alexander, at the upper end of real world human possibility) can tackle lions bare-handed, wrestle ogres and the like, and it only gets more wahoo as levels are gained. And the hit point mechanic just exaggerates this wahoo-ness.

This mix of gonzo and gritty is by no means a fatal flaw. But it tends to produce oddities in play, and makes some aspects of world design, and also challenge design, harder than they need be, because when gonzo and gritty touch one another it's not always easy to maintain coherence.

I think that 4e tries to avoid the flaws I've identified in RM and 3E by going gonzo all the way, with both skills and combat, thereby ensuring that the lovingly-built and complex PCs get plenty of screen time to do whatever it is that they're going to do. That some dislike this play experience means that 4e is not the game for them, but I don't think it means therefore that 4e itself is flawed in being gonzo.

Which is not to say that 4e doesn't have design flaws. The complexity and clunkiness of the hiding/percpetion/invisibility/concealment rules is one such. The fact that monster XP doubles every 4 levels while item gp value multiplies by 5 every 5 levels is arguably another, as it makes static encounter design impossible, which is arguably an unnecessary burden on GM prep time - although the rapidly escalating treasure value is meant to serve another purpose, of quickly making irrelevant past GM errors in over- or under-awarding treasure. And the fact that combat bonsues and DCs scale at a different rate from skill bonuses and DCs (not to mention the other much-discussed maths debates around Expertise/Improved Defences) is yet another - as it makes integrating combat and non-combat challenges that much harder.

I can't articulate any objective criteria by which I'm distinguishing my identification of design flaws from mere questions of taste, but I nevertheless think it can be done, despite nevertheless remaining (in some sense) a matter of opinion.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 22, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Let us turn it around.
> 
> 4e is badly designed. It focuses over much on combat and the encounter, with a distinct feeling that all actions not pertaining to one or the other were tacked on at the last minute, and poorly tested (as evidenced by the massive errata pertaining to skills).
> 
> ...



I'm not sure if you're looking for actual resopnses here, or just setting up your own analysis, but I'll bite anyway.

The first bit about bad design - it grates slightly, because it seems to ignore that 4e envisages the combat/encounter as _the_ principal site of roleplaying, and that this is a viable design space. But the comment about the failure of integration of the combat and non-combat aspects of action resolution is sound, as per my own earlier post in this thread. (I don't think character build mechanics suffer from quite the same problem).

The second bit - about being wrong to like 4e - does seem more aggressive and unwarranted, for two reasons. First, as I noted upthread preferences and superiority can failry easy come apart in the aesthetic domain. Second, in saying that it's a major achievement to use 4e for roleplaying seems to ignore that 4e is intended to make conflict resolution, including combat, the principal site of roleplaying in the game. In this respect, 4e seems to draw on contemporary trends in RPG design, and a disregard of those trends in criticising 4e seems to suggest ignorance rather than legitimate criticism.

But it is certainly possible to criticise 4e's design without edition warring. Some of the recent "fiction first" threads have involved just that, on the part of at least some posters.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure if you're looking for actual resopnses here, or just setting up your own analysis, but I'll bite anyway.
> 
> The first bit about bad design - it grates slightly, because it seems to ignore that 4e envisages the combat/encounter as _the_ principal site of roleplaying, and that this is a viable design space. But the comment about the failure of integration of the combat and non-combat aspects of action resolution is sound, as per my own earlier post in this thread. (I don't think character build mechanics suffer from quite the same problem).
> 
> ...



It was intended more as a response to the post I quoted, claiming that some preferences are inherently flawed. (I had done so, in a facetious manner, upthread. Here, I think it was fully serious.)

I _do_ believe that rules discussion can take place in a civil (if, in my case a didactic) fashion.

There have been those, in this thread, who have taken the stance that 4e is a better game and that those who critique it, in a negative _or_ a positive fashion are in the wrong. That by focusing on the combat and encounter resolution 4e was the 'better' game.

Other posters, in other threads, have taken much the same stance for opposite cause in regards to 3e, often likening 4e to a popular MORPG. This is a stance I do not take, though I have sympathy for those who claim that 4e has similarity to a board game. (Largely because I have seen a discussion on boardgames get flamed by a 4e player who thought that 4e was being insulted... the discussion in question was about Warhammer Quest, Hero Quest, Dungeon, and the Ravenloft boardgame.... You know, the actual boardgame?  There are folks who are more tempted by the boardgames than the actual RPG. )

I do realize that there are reasons why 4e is focused so tightly on conflict resolution - what many consider to be the 'fun' part of the game. (Here I blame the '20 minutes of fun' quote.)

There are others who have interests that diverge from that line of thought, saying that they are wrong is like saying that folks who like vanilla more than pistachio are wrong. (While of course we all realize that _chocolate_ is the supreme ice cream achievement!)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Griego (Jun 22, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> It was intended more as a response to the post I quoted, claiming that some preferences are inherently flawed. (I had done so, in a facetious manner, upthread. Here, I think it was fully serious.)



I never did any such thing. You're reading too much into my post. 







> I _do_ believe that rules discussion can take place in a civil (if, in my case a didactic) fashion.
> 
> There have been those, in this thread, who have taken the stance that 4e is a better game and that those who critique it, in a negative _or_ a positive fashion are in the wrong. That by focusing on the combat and encounter resolution 4e was the 'better' game.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 22, 2011)

Griego said:


> I never did any such thing. You're reading too much into my post.



Okay, I am willing to accept that as a possibility. 

But I am still right about the ice cream

The Auld Grump


----------



## dagger (Jun 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think that 4e tries to avoid the flaws I've identified in RM and 3E by going gonzo all the way, with both skills and combat, thereby ensuring that the lovingly-built and complex PCs get plenty of screen time to do whatever it is that they're going to do. That some dislike this play experience means that 4e is not the game for them, but I don't think it means therefore that 4e itself is flawed in being gonzo.




Well it still comes down to you thinking/feeling 3e is flawed and others not thinking/feeling the same way.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 22, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Let us turn it around.
> 
> 4e is badly designed. It focuses over much on combat and the encounter, with a distinct feeling that all actions not pertaining to one or the other were tacked on at the last minute, and poorly tested (as evidenced by the massive errata pertaining to skills).
> 
> ...



 The first statement is how you feel, I personally would not be too bothered about it but there are some who would definitely jump at that point.

The second one about being wrong in liking 4e is now an attack on me ( and others that like 4e) and would be much more likely to provoke an angry response.

There is elements in the first part where some of the more contensious parts of the edition war break out. If I were to take you on the the badly designed statement we could then have a long and bitter argument about it while both using different manings of the word "designed" and never actually communicating.

This seems to be quite common.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 22, 2011)

My objections to edition wars (and similar things) have always been that they tend to drown out more useful critiques.  So, somewhat contra pawsplay's earlier assertion, there have been useful criticisms of 4E--even heated, useful ones.  If one poked around a bit, one could easily find them.  There is one going on right now on the 4E board, and near as I can tell, all of the participants are generally pro-4E.  However, there have also been a lot of sturm and drang over very poor criticisms, very poorly and *repeatedly* expressed.  If those tend to register more strongly in some memories than others, I suggest a sample bias. 

And just to be clear, I saw exactly the same thing with the 3E and 3.5.  It seemed you couldn't have a decent discussion about 3E skills for five minutes in late 2000, without some bloke interrupting with how the monk/wizard multiclass was completely broken and anathema to everything that D&D stood for! 

Though I'll grant that I'm in a distinct majority when it comes to criticism.  As far as I'm concerned, design criticism is about discerning the intent of the designer, and then seeing how well the design is realized.  While not entirely objective, it can have objective moments.  Pemerton's discussion of RM above is one such example.  

It seems to me that a lot of criticism, however, is founded on, "your design intent sucked; so sucks to be you."  Not that anyone has to like something, merely because the design intent and implementation are well matched.  I certainly don't always, and some things I've quite enjoyed have been rather poorly designed, when it comes to it.  But I have found that the "sucks to be you" school of criticism does tend to blur the lines between what works versus what the speaker likes--frequently with the aforementioned symptom of making a lot of noise that drowns out the more pointed and useful criticisms.  Not always, but often.  (Every now and then, someone consciously takes a more holistic approach on the criticism of the design intent, and because it is conscious, does it well.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2011)

As design intent will become a focus for future editions, it seems rational to me to express which design intents you are happy with, and which you are not.  That is at least as important as how well the intent is met.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> As design intent will become a focus for future editions, it seems rational to me to express which design intents you are happy with, and which you are not.  That is at least as important as how well the intent is met.




Since we are talking ostensibly about what constitutes an edition war...

Expressing which intents you like is fine, and attempting to communicate those ideas to the designers makes sense.

Flogging your fellow gamers with a campaign for your desired intents, and attempting to shout down or otherwise suppress the expressions of others, however, is apt to be problematic.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 22, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> As design intent will become a focus for future editions, it seems rational to me to express which design intents you are happy with, and which you are not. That is at least as important as how well the intent is met.




More important! If they turn 5E into D&D Meets Eldritch Horrors, it won't matter to me how well they design it. 

Expressing preferences, even strong preferences, for certain design intents is entirely rational. Expressing such preferences mixed in with critiques of current design realizations often is irrational. It need not be (if consciously kept separate), but it often is. Mix in the usual problems of written communication, and it often seems even more irrational than perhaps the writer intends.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Since we are talking ostensibly about what constitutes an edition war...
> 
> Expressing which intents you like is fine, and attempting to communicate those ideas to the designers makes sense.
> 
> Flogging your fellow gamers with a campaign for your desired intents, and attempting to shout down or otherwise suppress the expressions of others, however, is apt to be problematic.




Fortunately, no one is actually claiming otherwise.

Right?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 22, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Fortunately, no one is actually claiming otherwise.
> 
> Right?




I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise in this thread, no.

But we (the moderation staff) have seen folks try to justify poor behavior by claiming it is their right to communicate their desires to designers, and that EN World is a bully pulpit for such.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise in this thread, no.
> 
> But we (the moderation staff) have seen folks try to justify poor behavior by claiming it is their right to communicate their desires to designers, and that EN World is a bully pulpit for such.




Well, that may be so, but you (the moderation staff) do an excellent (and, I am sure, sometimes rather difficult) job of preventing that sort of thing from occurring.  Or dealing with it when it does occur.

I just wanted to make sure that you were not implying that anything in this thread claimed otherwise.  Such as the comment you were replying to!  


RC


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 22, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> The first statement is how you feel, I personally would not be too bothered about it but there are some who would definitely jump at that point.
> 
> The second one about being wrong in liking 4e is now an attack on me ( and others that like 4e) and would be much more likely to provoke an angry response.
> 
> ...



Exactly, which is why I tend to qualify it these days. (I will admit, the success of Pathfinder soothed some raw wounds. I was a trifle bitter, early on.)

For me the biggest problem with 4e was not the rules themselves, it was the seeming assumption that everyone would like those new rules, and that the earlier rules were inherently flawed.

Those preview books were particularly bad in this regard. There is at least one game designer involved who's books I will never seek out because of the way he addressed non combat encounters. (What if I _want_ to go traipsing through the fairy gates to interact with the little people?)

I wonder now if some of the playtesters were, perhaps, overly zealous in defending the previous edition, and some of the poo flinging in the preview books was in part a response to that. I do know that some of the playtesters felt that they were not being listened to regarding the handling of skills, a feeling that was vindicated with the massive skill errata early on.

If the designers had focused the majority of their efforts on combat and encounters then they were likely feeling the time crunch by the time they got to skills, as the Death Bus rolled forward (and possibly toward the edge of a cliff). They did not have the attention to spare, which led to a very large errata.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 23, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Those preview books were particularly bad in this regard. There is at least one game designer involved who's books I will never seek out because of the way he addressed non combat encounters. (What if I _want_ to go traipsing through the fairy gates to interact with the little people?)




That's fair.  I know there is one 3E writer who I now wouldn't read if you gave me his work and paid me to read it.  I try not to hold this writer's behavior against 3E, but there have times when I have to consciously refrain from doing so.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 23, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> That's fair.  I know there is one 3E writer who I now wouldn't read if you gave me his work and paid me to read it.  I try not to hold this writer's behavior against 3E, but there have times when I have to consciously refrain from doing so.



Yep, it happens.

And the saying 'You only get one chance to make a good first impression' definitely came into play. It is likely that I would never have liked, played, or run 4e, but the attitude displayed turned me from what might have been accepting apathy to active dislike.

While there were elements of 2e that I very much disliked (I am looking at _you_ Complete Book of Elf Cheese!) I never felt dislike for the game as a whole, thinking it, overall, was an improvement on 1e.

When 3e came out there were nods and smiles towards earlier editions (including the sample of play from the 1e Dungeon Masters Guide, almost verbatim). There was a guide for updating characters to the new edition.

4e did not bother with even that minor courtesy. (I will admit - a minor courtesy, but likely a whole lot of work, on a tight schedule.)

Add the dumping of the OGL, and the way they dropped the licenses, and, well... you get the picture. It felt like WotC was going out of their way to get rid of every drop of goodwill that I felt towards them for saving D&D.  If so, then they succeeded. And there had been a whole lot of goodwill to start with. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## billd91 (Jun 23, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Those preview books were particularly bad in this regard. There is at least one game designer involved who's books I will never seek out because of the way he addressed non combat encounters. (What if I _want_ to go traipsing through the fairy gates to interact with the little people?)




You know, having worked with the author this statement was attributed to in his previous job and hearing about some of the uses he was putting D&D (and other rule sets) to and the articles he was writing at the time, I would have thought him the designer *most* likely to have great fun running a game that involved something other than killing things and taking their stuff... and that includes traipsing through fairy rings.

I've never been entirely able to square the person with that statement... other than to assume that it was the party line more than a statement of personal belief.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 23, 2011)

billd91 said:


> You know, having worked with the author this statement was attributed to in his previous job and hearing about some of the uses he was putting D&D (and other rule sets) to and the articles he was writing at the time, I would have thought him the designer *most* likely to have great fun running a game that involved something other than killing things and taking their stuff... and that includes traipsing through fairy rings.
> 
> I've never been entirely able to square the person with that statement... other than to assume that it was the party line more than a statement of personal belief.




I've mentioned this in other threads, and I admit that the statement can look bad out of context, but I don't think it was quite meant the way most people read it. Especially with the shift in 4E towards more "creepy fey out of folklore" and less "friendly sprites out of Disney movies", I don't imagine he was trying to say that wandering into the faerie realms and interacting with the fair folk was inherently a bad idea, just that he wanted it to be more about exploration and adventure than, well, "traipsing" about through entirely harmless fields of sunshine and flowers. 

Admittedly, just my interpretation of the statement, and I can get how it would rub some folks the wrong way. But given all the other stuff he's done, it seems a shame to avoid it all based on that one statement alone.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 23, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> ...Especially with the shift in 4E towards more "creepy fey out of folklore" and less "friendly sprites out of Disney movies", ...




I haven't read the previews, only such quotes.  But when I heard this, I took it to mean, more or less, "If you are going to have Disney fairy land, might as well not bother."  

In that particular example, it doesn't bother me, because I agree with it.  But there are plenty of ways that one could change the nouns around, that other people might buy, that I would find a trifle pushy.  For example, "If you are going to have Princess Bride quotes in your semi-serious roleplaying scene, might as well not bother." I don't agree with that at all.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 24, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> I've mentioned this in other threads, and I admit that the statement can look bad out of context, but I don't think it was quite meant the way most people read it. Especially with the shift in 4E towards more "creepy fey out of folklore" and less "friendly sprites out of Disney movies", I don't imagine he was trying to say that wandering into the faerie realms and interacting with the fair folk was inherently a bad idea, just that he wanted it to be more about exploration and adventure than, well, "traipsing" about through entirely harmless fields of sunshine and flowers.
> 
> Admittedly, just my interpretation of the statement, and I can get how it would rub some folks the wrong way. But given all the other stuff he's done, it seems a shame to avoid it all based on that one statement alone.



Given the number of 3.X adventures, including some by WotC, where 'traipsing through the fairy gates' _meant_ dealing with the 'creepy fey out of folklore', that just does not wash with me, especially since he followed it with a breathless exclamation that D&D is all about combat.

Sorry, done with him. It came far too close to yelling 'let's cater to the lowest common denominator! Plot? You don't need it! Mystery? Screw that! Just go kill something!' Pheh.

I swan, that series of previews did more to turn me off 4e sight unseen than any competitor could have. And they charged money for the privilege. Thank the gods above and below that I was not one of their suckers. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 24, 2011)

I took a private delight in reading the preview books at used book stores almost as soon as they were in print, then traipsing... er, sorry, ADVENTURING!... back home to the Intarweb to mock the contents thereof. Whatever 4e's virtues, the 4e team did a poor job of marketing it to people who actually like fantasy.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 24, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I took a private delight in reading the preview books at used book stores almost as soon as they were in print, then traipsing... er, sorry, ADVENTURING!... back home to the Intarweb to mock the contents thereof. Whatever 4e's virtues, the 4e team did a poor job of marketing it to people who actually like fantasy.




I probably shouldn't say this...

I'm not 4e fan, and maybe it's just me (probably is), but this just strikes me as petty. Perhaps it's just the presentation of it, or perhaps I missed something in the text. It just seems like such an odd thing to be proud of.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 24, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> that series of previews did more to turn me off 4e sight unseen than any competitor could have. And they charged money for the privilege. Thank the gods above and below that I was not one of their suckers.



We've had this conversation before, and maybe it's a mistake to rehash it, but I'm a sucker . . . 

Worlds and Monsters is, in my view, one of the best GMing books published for a mainstream RPG. The 4e DMG would be significantly better if most of its advice on adventure and campaign design was dropped, and replaced by the contents of W&M.

One of the strengths of the 4e DMG is that it gives advice on how to design a combat encounter not from the perspective of ingame reality and likelihoods, but from the metagame perspective of a GM trying to put together a fun game.

W&M has the same sort of advice, only rather than being addressed to combat encounter design, it talks about the way using different sorts of creatures and world/story elements contributes to a fun game. The only analogue to this sort of discussion in the actual DMG is its discussion of langugaes, which explains, from the metagame point of view, why their are only 10 languages and how the GM is expected to use languages in the game. (Contrast the Monster Manuals, which contain lots of fiction about the monsters - ie the relevant story material - but don't have anything at the metagame level that advised the GM on how to _use_ this fiction in the context of setting up and running a game.)

For those who think that 4e suffers from being focused excessively on combat, I would expect that including big chunks of W&M in the DMG would significantly improve the game. Because it would make it clear that when designing a fun game, the GM can usefully think not only about the tactical elements of encounter and scenario design, but about the story elements also.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 24, 2011)

Yes we have. I did not change my opinion then and I will not change that opinion now.

The preview books were an outright money grab with people paying for the advertising. Taken as a whole they were a second rate con job that should never have been run by a first rate company.

The books attempted to paint previous editions of the game in a poorly fashion, dismissed styles of play that did not fit the limited paradigm of their forthcoming edition, and the time spent writing them could have been more profitably spent on a conversion guide.

And they charged the same amount for the advertising brochures for 4e as they had for the first printing of the 3e core books.

The books are not something that I consider in any guise to be the best of anything. And given that I am not the only person that they alienated I would have to say that they did rather badly at their intended goal - that of an advertisement for the new edition, paid for by the consumer.

I am being more direct this time, because you seem to feel that trying to change my mind is somehow something that I might welcome.

It is not.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I did not take perverse pleasure in reading those books - instead I felt angry.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 24, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> The books are not something that I consider in any guise to be the best of anything.



I took one look at "Worlds and Monsters" when it came out and bought it on the spot.

I didn't care about 4e, or what the book had to say about it or any other edition; though I suppose I read it through at some point I didn't buy it for the words.

The art in it blew me away.  I've got one full adventure out of the scenes in that book so far, with another in the works eventually and maybe a third if I can pull it off.

Two or three months later I was then very disappointed in the art in 4e's core three books.  W+M had got my hopes up way too high. 

Lanefan


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 24, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> I took one look at "Worlds and Monsters" when it came out and bought it on the spot.
> 
> I didn't care about 4e, or what the book had to say about it or any other edition; though I suppose I read it through at some point I didn't buy it for the words.
> 
> ...



Okay, that I _might_ grant you - I do not remember the art at all, at all. I was concerned only with the text. If you were happy with them as art books, well, there is nothing I can say against that.  Glad that they were good for _something_, I guess.

The Auld Grump


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 26, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I probably shouldn't say this...
> 
> I'm not 4e fan, and maybe it's just me (probably is), but this just strikes me as petty. Perhaps it's just the presentation of it, or perhaps I missed something in the text. It just seems like such an odd thing to be proud of.




A petty evil? If you are simply calling it a petty amusement, I will not be ashamed of that. But if you think I have done harm to someone who did not deserve it, even in a small way, I would be glad to hear your perspective and consider whether I owe some sort of redress.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 26, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> A petty evil? If you are simply calling it a petty amusement, I will not be ashamed of that. But if you think I have done harm to someone who did not deserve it, even in a small way, I would be glad to hear your perspective and consider whether I owe some sort of redress.




I'm not really going to go into it. Needless to say, when I looked up the definition of petty moments ago, one usage stuck out to me, and confirmed that "petty" was indeed the word I wanted.

But hey, it's all good man. I have no intention of getting into a fruitless debate, when I'd much rather get into fruitful ones.

As always, play what you like


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 26, 2011)

Putting it all in perspective -



Joel by TheAuldGrump, on Flickr 

Image stolen from Were Geek.
(I identify with Joel for some reason....  )

The Auld Grump


----------



## pemerton (Jun 27, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Yes we have. I did not change my opinion then and I will not change that opinion now.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to change your mind. Apart from anything else, your opinion of those books is none of my business.

My concern is to set out clearly a different opinion and interpretation of the books you're criticising. (And I guess, thereby, to also explain why I don't regard myself as a sucker, which is how you implicitly described me upthread.)



TheAuldGrump said:


> The preview books were an outright money grab with people paying for the advertising. Taken as a whole they were a second rate con job that should never have been run by a first rate company.
> 
> The books attempted to paint previous editions of the game in a poorly fashion, dismissed styles of play that did not fit the limited paradigm of their forthcoming edition



See, in the case of Worlds and Monsters I don't agree with this. It's not (just, or primarily) an ad. It's GM advice, on how to use the fictional elements of the game. And I'm happy enough to pay for good GM advice, whatever title is on the cover.

As for the painting of previous editions in a poorly fashion, that didn't strike me as a very prominent feature of W&M. Nor did it have much to say about styles of play, except as is implicit in giving advice on how to use the game's fictional elements in setting up scenarios.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 27, 2011)

I bought the preview books and don't regret a penny of it. Excellent products. Clearly I should feel resentment at the money grabbed from my wallet, and curse my own stupidity for being taken in. I'll get right on that.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 27, 2011)

In what way was it _not_ intended as an advertisement?

Much of the advice was recycled from Idiot's Guide to DMing, and much else was 'Hey look! The old way sucks! Try our new product!'

A paid preview _is_ an advertisement, and one paid for by the consumer in this case. W&M was, perhaps, not the worst example (R&C was much worse in this regard as far as I am concerned) but too much time was still spent trying to tear down the old model rather than build up the new.

Had this been a series of articles in Dragon it might not have irked so much, but, if I recall correctly, they had already ended the print edition of Dragon....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Stoat (Jun 27, 2011)

I purchased both W&M and R&C and in do way did I feel conned or suckered into doing so.  WotC was upfront about what these books were -- preview material that contained fluff and designer comments but no rules or crunch.  I knew that I was paying for, essentially, an advertisement for 4E.  I did so because I was interested in the new edition and because I wanted to be able to follow along with the various 4E threads on the various messageboards that I frequent.  IMO, they were worth the price.  

If Auld Grump or whoever has a beef with the content of the preview books, that's fine.  However, I think it is entirely inaccurate to call them a con.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 27, 2011)

Stoat said:


> I purchased both W&M and R&C and in do way did I feel conned or suckered into doing so.  WotC was upfront about what these books were -- preview material that contained fluff and designer comments but no rules or crunch.  I knew that I was paying for, essentially, an advertisement for 4E.  I did so because I was interested in the new edition and because I wanted to be able to follow along with the various 4E threads on the various messageboards that I frequent.  IMO, they were worth the price.




I have to agree that they were pretty up front that they selling a marketing package. That's why I didn't buy them. I wasn't going to pay top dollar for an ad.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 27, 2011)

Stoat said:


> I purchased both W&M and R&C and in do way did I feel conned or suckered into doing so.  WotC was upfront about what these books were -- preview material that contained fluff and designer comments but no rules or crunch.  I knew that I was paying for, essentially, an advertisement for 4E.  I did so because I was interested in the new edition and because I wanted to be able to follow along with the various 4E threads on the various messageboards that I frequent.  IMO, they were worth the price.
> 
> If Auld Grump or whoever has a beef with the content of the preview books, that's fine.  However, I think it is entirely inaccurate to call them a con.




If you liked some of the early peeks of 4e, I think it could conceivably be a worthwhile purchase. However, even in that case, there is a fair amount that changed, IIRC, between the preview books and the final version.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 28, 2011)

Stoat said:


> I knew that I was paying for, essentially, an advertisement for 4E.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> IMO, they were worth the price.



I flipped through both books in my local game store. I didn't buy R&C as did seem to me to be primarily an ad for 4e - a preview of how the races and classes would be rebuilt. That was something that I was happy to wait to learn from the PHB.

W&M, on the other hand, had a lot of interesting discussions about the rebuild of the fictional elements of the game, the rationale behind it, and how the designers envisaged the new elements being used. This looked good to me - and some of the ideas seemed useful even for the RM game I was GMing at that stage - and so I bought it. It cost me $20 - not nothing, but about the amount I might spend on lunch and a coffee if I eat with colleagues rather than just pick up something to take back to my office.



Stoat said:


> WotC was upfront about what these books were -- preview material that contained fluff and designer comments but no rules or crunch.



And those designer comments are what I paid for. I find it useful, as a GM, to know how the designers envisaged the various fictional elements in the game being used.



TheAuldGrump said:


> In what way was it _not_ intended as an advertisement?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A paid preview _is_ an advertisement, and one paid for by the consumer in this case.



Isn't all advertising paid for by consumers?

In any event, I can't comment on WotC's intentions, only on content and the use to which I've put it. W&M discusses various categories of monsters - dragons, giants, fey, mind flayers, undead, devils, demons etc. It also discusses other fictional elements - gods, settlements, the wilderness etc. In each case it explains why the designers have chosen various ficitonal elements to be as they are - including explaining departures from previous iterations of those elements - and what role those elements are envisaged as usefully serving in encounter, scenario and campaign design.

Whether or not that counts as advertising - and it's not clear to me that it is, in any but the most generic sense of being advice on how to make use of a product that the company is selling (much like many pages of any DMG) - that's not why I think it was worth buying. It's the scenario and campaign design ideas that I paid for, and have used.

And the book is not just preview. One of the reasons I bought it was that I had a feeling that the actual rule books and DMG wouldn't be so candid in their discussion of the non-tactical metagame on the GM's side, and I was right (the discussion of languages in the DMG being the one exception I can think of). D&D rulebooks have a history of timidity in frankly engaging the GM at the metagame level (elements of Gygax's DMG are a notable exception, and modules occasionally have some metagame advice peculiar to their own content).

On the other hand, it was fairly clear from the previews on the WotC website that the 4e PHB would engage players in quite a metagamey fashion. Which is one reason why I _didn't_ buy R&C.



TheAuldGrump said:


> Much of the advice was recycled from Idiot's Guide to DMing



That may be so, although I don't recall reading that that book had much detailed discussion, from the metagame perspective, of the various fictional elements of D&D.

In any event, that's a book that I've flipped through once in a bookstore before concluding that it wasn't worth buying. (And I'm pretty sure it would have cost me more than $20.)



TheAuldGrump said:


> Had this been a series of articles in Dragon it might not have irked so much, but, if I recall correctly, they had already ended the print edition of Dragon



Well, the only recent copies of Dragon I have are the 3E launch one, #300, and the four (or so) free digital ones from the 4e launch period. So W&M suited me far better as something I could buy as a discrete publication, than as a series in a journal to which I have never subscribed, and which I wouldn't have bought just for these articles.



pawsplay said:


> there is a fair amount that changed, IIRC, between the preview books and the final version.



In the case of the various fictional elements discussed in W&M, WotC has mostly followed through as foreshadowed. One matter on which I recall there is a difference (and I think the confusion over this might persist into 4e books themselves) is whether the gods made the angels, or whether the angels emerged spontaneously from the astral sea.


----------

