[C&C] Why the edition wars?

[Breakdaddy]

I say we just give them time like we did with the AU fans. Eventually, they shall be forced to learn that they are not important at all. Just like us SWd20 fans.

lol, I wish I could get a large enough group together to play SWD20!

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I say we just give them time like we did with the AU fans. Eventually, they shall be forced to learn that they are not important at all. Just like us SWd20 fans.

You spoke in the plural 'us'. Isn't that a tad optimistic?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

You spoke in the plural 'us'. Isn't that a tad optimistic?

I've got three(well...four) SWd20 games running on these boards AND the WotC SWd20 board is active enough. So yes. Us.

Nyah!

 

[Mythmere1]

Changed the thread's title to "Why the Edition Wars," to try and lessen the negativity. :\

 

[Breakdaddy]

Changed the thread's title to "Why the Edition Wars," to try and lessen the negativity. :\

Hehe, of course you know what they say. "There is no such thing as bad publicity"!

 

[Krieg]

Nicely played insult. Asserting that the fans are zealots and suggesting that they examine their beliefs is always a very persuasive argument (I particularly applaud your use of nice buzzwords like "prosyletizing". It always makes people feel good when they are talked down to by their peers!). I like C&C. I like 3.5e. A lot. Once again: BOTH systems are nice in their own way. Now, Im not saying that beginning this thread with such a potentially adversarial query was particularly wise, but I dont think mythmere meant it as a dig on the fans of 3.x, but as an honest means to assess his perceptions. But honestly, some people are doing EXACTLY what mythmere meant. So then, the question is aimed at YOU. Answer it and you might help the situation.

I did answer the question specifically and to the point.

Some fans of C&C have gone to ridiculous extremes to defend various criticisms of the game. When folks criticised C&C for not being a "complete" game as it was advertised to be, the arguments were long & vigorous that it was in fact a complete game. The strawman argument that the D&D PHB was not a complete game was also used....and yet the designers themselves have admitted that the C&C PHB is not in and of itself a complete game and that the marketing tagline was a relic that should have been altered before going to print.

Should the game have received as much flak as it did for not being "complete"? Not at all. Likewise there is no reason to push the boundaries of credulity to defend a point that the makers themselves concede.

When people do deign to say something negative about the book their arguments are dismissed out of hand with unfounded claims of "you obviously haven't read the book" or "you are missing the point".

As evidenced by MoogleEmpMog treatment in this very thread the real question being asked is "Why doesn't everyone agree with my opinion about C&C"?

I stand by my original post and the choice of terminology as it adequately illustrates how the matter is being handled by some.

 

[Akrasia]

D&D 3.x ....

Some ...

Unfortunately ....

Thank you all for illustrating perfectly the tendency of some posters on these boards to leap upon C&C with great (and often poorly informed) hostility.

 

[Krieg]

Thank you all for illustrating perfectly the tendency of some posters on these boards to leap upon C&C with great (and often poorly informed) hostility.

No, thank you for proving my point.

 

[Akrasia]

No, thank you for proving my point.

Strange. In my post I did not engage in any 'zealous prosyletizing'.

... The C&C supporters in a relatively short period of time have quickly begun to take on the roll of prosyletizing zealots rather than as mere fans of a game.
...

In short: your point has not been proven.

As for your vulgar ad hominen attack on C&C players -- well, it speaks for itself.

 

[Krieg]

Strange. In my post I did not engage in any 'zealous prosyletizing'.

Your sole contribution to the thread is a comment singling individuals out as showing "great hostility" towards C&C.

Psi displayed absolutely no hostility towards the system, he merely expressed a difference in philosophy. As for myself I did not one negative word about C&C as a system despite your spurious claim to the contrary.

Once again the same pattern developed, someone dares to disagree with C&C and they are labeled "poorly informed" & "hostile". Whenceforth come ad hominem attacks?

As for your vulgar ad hominen attack on C&C players -- well, it speaks for itself.

Not an attack at all. I have no doubt that the vast majority of folks playing C&C are having fun and could care less what others are playing. It was merely a statement about the behavior of a very small minority of C&C players.