On the brand VS the game...

[thecasualoblivion]

You know what? It does have a bearing on me. If 4e is D&D, it means WotC has shifted an element of my identity away from me that I've had for 30 years: my identity as a player of the AD&D line enthusiastic about new materials. Now, they've made a game that no longer fits the line the way the others did, they've seduced players away from me with their online character building tool, they've made it harder for me to find players of the editions of D&D I like best.

So don't tell me that people like me can't express how we feel about 4e on a board for gamers because you have a different opinion of 4e. You're right, we can't both be right about 4e. And, from my perspective, you're wrong. But I'm not going to hound you every time you say something nice about 4e. I'm not going to accuse you of trolling because you say that 4e is the best edition of D&D in your opinion. I'm not going to accuse you of starting trouble because I don't believe 4e is a good edition of D&D at all and your statement is clearly designed to insult my game of choice. Why is it I don't receive the same courtesy?

Life sucks, does that make it right to crap on someone elses hobby? If the fact that me and people like me enjoy and play 4E as D&D hurts you, I think thats more a you problem than any fault with me. You also miss my point. If I say that I like 4E, I'm not talking about you or your game. If you say that 4E isn't D&D, you are talking about me and my game. Now, if I say that 3.5E is an unwieldy mess that falls apart under any sort of stress, with balance issues that ruin the game, I am talking crap on somebodys game. I've made that statement many times, and I mean it. When I make an agressive statement of opinion however, I don't expect people of the opposite opinion to stay quiet and not argue with me.

If you want to make an aggressive and opinionated statement(saying that 4E isn't D&D would certainly qualify as such), thats all well and good. God knows I have. You shouldn't complain when people respond in the same manner though, or claim that you have the right to complain without response.

Also, we go back to the context issue. There really isn't an anti-3E(or anti-1E/2E/whatever) edition war going on. As you say, the older editions are just getting pushed aside by circumstances. There is however, an anti-4E Edition war that has been running hot and cold for years now, and posting angry, aggressive, opinionated statements is going to fan the flames of such, whether you intend to or not.

 

[Mercurius]

Errrr...no.

Again, some (like myself) feel that 4Ed does not have certain crucial elements that make the feel of the game resonate with our past experiences with the game. 4ED isn't D&D for us, except in name.*

That 4Ed is D&D for you doesn't change or invalidate or is in any way "superior" to my personal experience with the game.

Agreed, but you may be mistaking what I am calling "superior."

Again, I am not saying that you should believe that 4E is the game for you; that is not what I'm calling a lesser perspective. What I am calling a lesser perspective is seeing 4E as not a valid form of D&D. I am saying this is essentially a fallacious opinion.

But let's be clear: when you say "4E isn't D&D for us," are you saying:

A) 4E is not my preferred form of D&D; or
B) 4E is not a form of D&D.

I have no problem with A, but I think B is erroneous, that is, a false belief.

Because what we're talking about is something that is entirely subjective: matters of taste. There is no universal, objective truth to be found here.
.

Again, you could apply this to anything, including my example of segregated bathrooms. Is that "entirely subjective"?

I am not talking about universal, objective truth, by the way. I do not hold that truth is either subjective or objective; there is also intersubjective truth, which is the truth that is collectively shared by many subjects.

It is your subjective truth that 4E is not your preferred form of D&D. You could also say that there is an intersubjective truth that holds that 4E is not real D&D, and why shouldn't this be just as valid as the intersubjective truth that 4E is real D&D? This is where the debate lies, and where we're on even footing in terms of "proving" our viewpoints. Of course I'm biased, but I think there have been many good arguments as to why 4E is a valid form of D&D but very few as to why it is not; most of the arguments against it being a valid form of D&D have been rather vague, dependent upon a narrow definition of D&D, or that it doesn't include enough of the classic tropes (which has been countered, time and time again), or simply falling back on "we're all entitled to our opinions."

If we can all agree that we're entitled to our own subjective opinions, and that there are intersubjective truths at work and that we are not talking about "objective truth," and if there are people that actually feel 4E is not a valid form of D&D, why don't we discuss that? It is not enough to say "because I think so."

In other words, show me the money

 

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]

Because after a while it's time to get over it and focus on the things you like rather than the things you dislike.

Enough people get tired of hearing the negativity at some point where a threshold is reached, and it's time to cut back on the negativity.

People got plenty tired of hearing the 2e people complain about 3e, until finally the 2e people mostly stopped (with extremely rare exceptions) and focused on boards and sub-forums and threads where people agreed with their views, and they could say positive things about their edition of choice (2e) without constantly having to deal with comments about the edition (3e) that in their opinion killed their favorite game.

It took a while with the 2e to 3e transition, but it did finally happen after a few years. And, for 4e, we're starting to reach that time I think too. A time where the generalized criticisms have all been stated and restated. Where the complaints about initial marketing have all be heard and reheard. Where the use of those criticisms goes past the point of diminishing returns into on-balance negative returns for the community in general.

And if you have not personally found a way to get over it yet, then your time is best spent trying to figure out a way TO get over it (since others found a way, making it possible). Because continuing to rehash how hurt you are about a couple of marketing events that took place 2.5 years ago isn't helping you move on with it and be satisfied with saying positive things about the stuff you like. Continuing to state how the current edition doesn't feel like D&D to you doesn't help you move on. None of it is productive anymore. It's not accomplishing anything that hasn't already been accomplished, usually by others, quite some time ago. It's not a communication of something useful.

The bottom line is, few like to hang out with a person who is usually negative, but many like to hang out with folks who are usually positive. So whatever it is that compels you to be more negative than positive, it's time to find a way to get over that thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Perhaps this is included in your meaning, but I think it valuable to be specific:

(2a) The fault lies with how the opinion is expressed.

(3a) The fault likes with how the response to the opinion is expressed.

For some, perhaps the word "diplomacy" has only negative connotations, but the fact remains that how you choose to say something influences (but does not completely determine) the response it gets from the other side.

Clashes on EN World are most usually (but not exclusively) a combination of 2a and 3a - it takes two to tango.

Umbran,

This I have no argument with, so long as dealing with "how the opinion is expressed" and "how the response to the opinion is expressed" do not, in fact, become either a prevention of expressing the opinion or the response.

Overall, I think the EN World mods do a great job of dealing with the "how expressed" rather than the "what expressed". The fact of the matter is that, although I mean to be, I am not always properly appreciative of just how good you guys are.

Your post that I initially responded to, though, seemed to be addressing what is expressed rather than how. And there I have a difficulty. I do, of course, realize that failure to express certain opinions would make moderation easier, but I also think that it would make EN World a poorer community.

"Unity Through Intolerance" is something I will always post against, whenever I see it raise its head, until the point where I am banned and unable to do so. Addressing the "how" instead of the "what" fosters tolerance, and is the mature response I was suggesting earlier.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

But let's be clear: when you say "4E isn't D&D for us," are you saying:

A) 4E is not my preferred form of D&D; or
B) 4E is not a form of D&D.

I have no problem with A, but I think B is erroneous, that is, a false belief.

Identity is subjective. Always has been, always will be.

Even my self-identity is subjective, to a degree.

Also, while it might not be immediately obvious, "X isn't Y" doesn't inherently carry any statement as to the value of either X or Y. It is quite possible to believe that 4e isn't D&D and enjoy it equally -- I know people who do. Likewise, it is possible to believe that 4e isn't D&D and think it better.

Ultimately, all the person is saying is "I don't think that is the same game I am playing". And, in fact, it is not, or it would not be "4e". The degree of divergence is all that is actually in question, and that is a pretty small thing to get riled about, isn't it?

OTOH, it is a very interesting thing to discuss calmly!

IMHO. YMMV.


RC

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Life sucks, does that make it right to crap on someone elses hobby? If the fact that me and people like me enjoy and play 4E as D&D hurts you, I think thats more a you problem than any fault with me.

You know, someone could easily flip this around and say that the fact that you and others get enraged over the fact that some people see 4E as a different animal and dont consider it D&D to them as more of a problem with you.

I mean the bottom line is that it has the D&D brand and is the current D&D that a lot of people loyal to that brand are playing. In essence, YOU'VE WON.

If I say that "4E isnt D&D to me". How does that affect you in the slightest? Really? Your player pool is bigger than mine. The amount of resources that you have available to help you with your game is bigger than mine and certainly the press and exposure to your game is more than mine. D&D is the 800lb Gorilla of RPG's.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

So again, how is it that you and more than a few others are actually threatened when a few of us, who have actually given the game a shot and decided that it was not to our liking, voice that one of the things that we felt while playing or running it is that it "didn't feel like D&D". I cant speak for DannyA, but I'm not saying that to stick it to the 4E proponents. I'm saying that because that's how I felt after playing the game. I've said this in meat space in a room full of 4E proponents and I'll state it here if anyone asks why I dont play 4E as one of the reasons.

The bottom line is ANY of the reasons that I list for not adopting 4E will be seen as an attack of some kind no matter how diplomatically I put it. If not by you then by some other poster looking to score points in the Edition Wars.

Do I get offended and need to post every time someone posts that 4E is the best edition of D&D? No. I just shrug and move on. I'm happy that that poster thinks that and enjoys their game. I was here during the height of he edition wars, with the 4E people and their new toys and the incessant crapping on of 3E and 3.5 and the mostly one sided moderation. I also saw people trying to light 4E and it's proponents afire over petty BS and weak arguments.

Me saying "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me" isn't an attack on people who like 4E. It's a deranged stretch to even see it that way. I could see if someone said "4E isn't real D&D" or ""people who play 4E stink and their mothers dress them funny". But saying "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me" isn't an attack. It's a statement. Now you and others are right you can call it into question if you want. It's a discussion board. But dont claim that there is only one side with issues about feeling a certain defensiveness about their edition of choice.

 

[billd91]

If you want to make an aggressive and opinionated statement(saying that 4E isn't D&D would certainly qualify as such), thats all well and good. God knows I have. You shouldn't complain when people respond in the same manner though, or claim that you have the right to complain without response.

I don't have a problem with people engaging in discussion about any opinion I state or that anyone else states. What I have a problem with is the automatic characterization that the opinion is aggressive and warrants an aggressive response simply because it is critical of your game when the opinion, as posted, follows board rules. I expect a response that also follows board rules, isn't sniping, and isn't based on the assumption that the opinion is somehow a troll. That is the courtesy I expect and should be able to expect.

 

[billd91]

All conversations can be ended with the trump card, "but that's just your opinion, I'm just as entitled to mine as you are to yours." On one level this is true--we are all entitled to our opinion. The simple logical fallacy with this kind of thinking, however, is that it implies that all opinions are equal, which they are not.

Opinion A: Black and white people should have segregated bathrooms.
Opinion B: Black and white people should not have segregated bathrooms.

Obviously that is an extreme example, but you get my point. If we say that all opinions are equally valid (which some on this board have directly said) then we end up supporting any kind of atrocities as "equally valid."

Yes, I'd say that it's a bit extreme going from an argument about opinions in gaming tastes and proper use of trademarks to racial superiority. The dominance of one of those opinions was involved in tremendous political and economic injustice for decades. The stakes in gaming opinions is... what? A whole lot less. That should buy us a lot more freedom to tolerate controversial opinions without hostility.

My opinion about where Peyton Manning should throw the football is not as valid as Peyton Manning's. This is not to say that credentials equate with validity--that is another problem, and becomes its own kind of absolute that isn't always true--but another way of pointing out that not all opinions are equal, especially when we look at specific contexts.

We're all gamers. Should we compare how long we've been gaming, what we've been playing, to determine credentials and contexts to see whose opinion is "superior"? While context, experience, and knowledge may make sense about certain sorts of opinions, like where to throw the football or what business strategies to favor, we're really talking about taste and affectation here. It's not like there's anything practical or with a specific, measurable goal in mind.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, I'd say that it's a bit extreme going from an argument about opinions in gaming tastes and proper use of trademarks to racial superiority.

Moreover, in my Options (1), (2), and (3), expressed earlier, this clearly falls under Option (1):

(1) The fault lies with having the opinion.

(2) The fault lies with expressing the opinion.

(3) The fault lies with response to expressing the opinion.​

And, are we really going to say that it is a problem for anyone to hold the opinion that Edition X isn't D&D? What about Game X? What about Object X?



RC

 

[thecasualoblivion]

So much to reply to...

I'm at work right now and posting a 1000 word response on my phone isn't practical, but I'll say this:

I play 4E. You say that to you, 4E isn't D&D. What that tells me is that as far as you're concerned, I'm not playing D&D. Hence, I call it an aggressive statement.