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

[ForeverSlayer]

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

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

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

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

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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

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

 

[Morrus]

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

This belongs in Meta, so I'm moving it there. And if you have an issue with a moderation decision, there are very clear guidelines on how to approach that and very clear guidelines on exactly what not to do. No exceptions, even when you're that one-in-a-million* person who thinks they're right.

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

 

[Shadeydm]

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

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

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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

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

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

 

[JamesonCourage]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Shadeydm]

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

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

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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

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

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

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