D&D 5E Edition Wars, WHY?

Morrus · Jan 22, 2015

Paraxis said:
I never saw A-E-U-D as much of a departure from the norm.

Well, that's as may be. I mean, we could debate forever about whether 4E was an outlier or not (and I don't really care enough about that debate to do so), but that's not the point being made: the point was its outlierness or lack thereof isn't a value judgement, and isn't something to take offence at.

Dausuul · Jan 22, 2015

dream66_ said:
Weren't all of those things introduced in 3.5 with the Warlock in Complete Arcane and with Book of 9 Swords.

Yeah, and they were divisive then too. The Book of Nine Swords in particular generated quite a lot of heat for a mere splatbook. Some folks thought it was the best thing since sliced bread, others loathed it with a visceral passion. In retrospect, it was a preview of the edition war to come.

(Personally, I was closer to the "best thing since sliced bread" side than the "loathing" side. Bo9S gave much-needed depth to martial classes, even if the flavor wasn't quite what I would have liked, and if it didn't bring the martials up to par with full casters, at least it narrowed the gap. Bo9S and 4E were when D&D finally brought noncasters in from the cold.)

dream66_ said:
And 5e hasn't returned to Vancian magic it's definitely a Vancian-ish hybrid.

I continue to maintain that 4E didn't do away with Vancian magic at all; Vancian magic took over the entire game. What is the EDU part of AEDU, if not Vancian? You have a set of prepared "spells." Each spell can be used once, and then it's gone until you rest, at which point you get your spells back. You can't swap them out on the fly.

True, the definition of "rest" is variable depending on the spell, and you can't change your loadout the way you can with traditional Vancian, but the core "belt of grenades" concept is the same. You have some concussion grenades, some frag grenades, some smoke grenades. You can't turn a frag grenade into a smoke grenade. Once you've thrown a grenade, it's gone until you resupply.

5E is what I've taken to calling "neo-Vancian." It looks more like traditional Vancian magic than 4E, but its actual function is substantially different.

Olaf the Stout · Jan 23, 2015

Werebat said:
www.bbtactics.com is one of the nicest, most polite sets of forums you could ever hope to participate in. I recently had to ask if it was moderated, because I honestly had no idea. And it's a place for people to discuss a game where you regularly gangfoul our opponents' characters to death.

Well, you hope to, anyway.

Good to see a fellow Blood Bowl player here on EN World (I've only come across one other here in all the years I've been on EN World). I just played in a 24 hour Blood Bowl tournament last weekend!

Werebat · Jan 23, 2015

Olaf the Stout said:
Good to see a fellow Blood Bowl player here on EN World (I've only come across one other here in all the years I've been on EN World). I just played in a 24 hour Blood Bowl tournament last weekend!

You should pick up the online version (gotta be pretty cheap on Steam by now) and join us in the Big Crunch! Fifty teams in five divisions of the greatest guys you could hope to play with. Check out the Big Crunch forum over at www.bbtactics.com -- stop by the Wyrmwood clubhouse and we'll give you a free Toadbrew!

We're actually wrapping up our current season and are looking for new coaches, so you really should check us out if you have any interest.

Fralex · Jan 23, 2015

I remember Rich Burlew (the Order of the Stick guy) giving his own thoughts on the edition wars as a forward to a bonus comic where the main characters (based off 3.5e) get into a fight with their new 4e versions:

Rich Burlew said:
When you get right down to it, the so-called "Edition Wars" really amount to a battle not over which system is objectively better, but over whether or not the base of players needs to accept a new system just because that system is published. On one side of the debate, there's the knowledge that no one can break into your house at night and burn your existing books; if you want to play an old edition, nothing is physically stopping you. Heck, lots of people still play First Edition, or Original D&D! On the other hand, by doing so, you are making a conscious decision to separate yourself from those who are following the current product lines. If enough people refuse to convert, then it becomes harder for both sides to find people for their gaming groups. If you try to play both editions simultaneously, you end up splitting your gaming time such that neither game really gets your full attention. Few people have enough free time to play in multiple gaming groups. So, system aside, there are compelling arguments for either staying current or sticking with the one you love even if progress marches on. There are no easy answers.

As the hobby goes on and there's a Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh edition, probably all within our lifetime if the game doesn't die off, I expect the rancor between factions will become less intense. When there are a dozen different flavors of D&D to choose from, it will seem somewhat silly to fervently declare loyalty to one (and only one) of them. Gamers will need to be at least passingly conversant in all of the extant editions just to be able to move between different gaming groups. You'll have one group playing Third Edition but poaching the saving throw rules from Sixth Edition, another playing Fifth Edition but reinstating the alignment rules from First Edition, and a third group playing cutting edge Ninth Edition by interfacing their brainstems directly with the DM-O-Matic 4500 and using their actual psionic powers to tell their characters to manifest pretend psionic powers. It'll be crazy, you wait and see.

The fight ended with [sblock]the two parties deciding to stop fighting among themselves and just spread the word of how fun D&D is to all the gamers who've never played any edition of D&D before. The two fighters then have this entertaining exchange:
3.5e Fighter: There's room in the universe for both of our dimensions.
4e Fighter: Right! Because sometimes, you might want balance, and other times, you might not mind one member of the team solving all the problems.
3.5e Fighter: Right. Just like sometimes you might want a wealth of strategic options that reward creativity... And other times you just want to pick your options off a short menu without really thinking about it.
4e Fighter: And sometimes, you might want streamlined mechanics-
3.5e Fighter: -or some logical premise for how things function-
4e Fighter: -or the ability for warriors to contribute at higher levels-
3.5e Fighter: -or the ability to do the same thing twice in a row.
4e Fighter: Uniform structure!
3.5e Fighter: Everything plays the same!
4e Fighter: Clear-cut descriptions!
3.5e Fighter: Restricted options!
4e Fighter: Unplayable power creep!
3.5e Fighter: Enhanced customization!
4e Fighter: Defined tactical roles!
3.5e Fighter: Spoonfed strategy!
4e Fighter: Less emphasis on system mastery!
3.5e Fighter: Less emphasis on system mastery!
3.5e Fighter: I'll kill you, you second-rate video game hack!!
4e Fighter: You and what spellcaster, Feat-for-Brain?
3.5e Wizard: Perhaps we should permit them to settle this dispute on their own?
4e Wizard: I concur.[/sblock]

SirAntoine · Jan 23, 2015

GMforPowergamers said:
OK, since I was told earier in this thread not to take things in a bad light can someone tell me how a fan of 4e (who thinks it was the best edition so far) how I am supposed to interpret someone saying:

The 4th Edition is divisive because there are so many people who feel that way. It's a fact because it's an observation of what people have felt and said about it. The poster has honestly come to a conclusion based on evidence.

You are supposed to take that kind of post just like anyone else. If you care to say you liked 4th Edition the best, go ahead. If you would care to speculate why it's been so divisive, also go ahead, but try to be fair to all parties.

SirAntoine · Jan 23, 2015

GMforPowergamers said:
this seems so odd, what makes you think anyone anywhere would ever just want praise for anything??

this wasn't an indepth "Hey X was handled badly by Y and here is why I think that." it was "Hey X is an outlayer" witch to me is dismissive and in no way a vailid anything... it's the same as saying "All X are Y..."

I don't come here looking for 4e stuff, I come here to talk about 5e, some of that talk is about the best and worst of previus editions. And of course that is subjective, everyones favorite part of Edition X is someone else hated part... but I would expect people to not dismiss any one edition out of hand, and if they like or dislike part of an edition to be able to atleast someone what say why without insult or general use of terms used to insult that edition...

example: the roles talk, you don't have to like roles, you don't have to agree with any part of them, but when you dismiss that roles where ever in anything other then 4e with no reason other then 'it wasn't D&D" or something like it I think that comes off as edition waring...

4e was far from perfect, I bet 5e is too (still trying it out), I will go out an a ledge here and bet 6e, 7e, and 8e wont be perfect either, and I do so knowing that 2e, 3e, myth and magic, pathfinder, hackmaster, and every other version of the game I have ever played were far from perfect... some of them got stuff really right, and some got stuff very wrong. If you look hard enough there are even defenders of Thac0...and that has become a D&D joke.

I don't want to come here and find that tomorrow everyone agrees with me on everything, that would be boreing and weird. What I would like is for people to say if they don't like something, or disagree without adding "4e is the XXX of the editions"

1st this isn't about moderation by mob... I was told I read bad intnent where none exsiste (very well possible especially when I am depressed) so I am asking for an out side thought on what kind of intent and meaning I should read into this...

and since you seame to agree that 4 is divisive (although I was taking more offense to the outlier part) I wounder so in your mind is 3.5 or path finder divisive?

4e can be a great D&D gaming experience for anyone.

In general, without defining for whom, that is true. "It is divisive" is being heard like "it has something bad about it that makes it divisive for anyone."

SirAntoine · Jan 23, 2015

Morrus said:
4E is the game that dropped Vancian magic and created the encounter-daily-at-will action economy. It was a significant departure from the core system of editions 1-3, and to which 5E has since returned, and which Pathfinder retains. That's why it's an outlier - it's the one that's different.

I think you are if you're mentally adding words like "better" or "worse" to "divisive" and "outlier".

I think to fairly call 4e an outlier, you would need knowledge of the number of players it has compared with at least two other editions.

TrippyHippy · Jan 23, 2015

Post deleted.

Morrus · Jan 23, 2015

TrippyHippy said:
the expressed consensus was that it was fine as a game, but it wasn’t D&D.

Now that specific phrase, "it's not D&D", whether you mean it to be or not, was the triggering rally trademark phrase of the edition wars. Let's not use that phrase, please; it has its own life now, and only one effect, and it's not a good effect.

D&D 5E Edition Wars, WHY?

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Dausuul

Legend

Olaf the Stout

Hero

Werebat

Explorer

Fralex

Explorer

SirAntoine

Banned

SirAntoine

Banned

SirAntoine

Banned

TrippyHippy

Hero

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Similar Threads