No 5e threads for now, please

[Umbran]

1. This thread should probably be locked.

Perhaps, but not just yet. We like feedback, and someone might present a take that we hadn't thought of yet.

2. The problem with 5e threads is that people take them as a license to engage in what would otherwise be stunningly poor slippery slope reasoning and veiled edition warring

Yah. Folks seem to underestimate how... much we rubbed each other raw over the past months. Even if you had no intention of criticizing any particular prior edition, someone's going to take it that way. We're sorry that's how it turned out, but it is how things are.

Given that virtually any discussion of new possible mechanics can be had without any mention of edition, this isn't really much of a topic ban. If you want to talk about diceless combat mechanics, go ahead and start a thread on "Diceless combat mechanics". Just don't start one on "5e: Diceless combat mechanics"

Heck, I'd welcome discussion about new possible mechanics - let the homebrew roll! It isn't like worrying about 5e now is going to make your current game any better. Talking about interesting new mechanics might, though.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Its just that talking about 5E a little after the one year anniversary of 4E is a little bit in bad taste. Talking about the upcoming 5th edition kind of implies the death of 4th, be it for accidental or passive aggressive reasons.

 

[Bumbles]

The only thread I'd find interesting would be a pool guessing when it would be released, minimum X years in the future. But that'd probably violate some laws against gambling.

Contents of the edition might make for side-wagers, but could be difficult.

I don't see much to discuss that can't be handled elsewhere. Rules changes would just as easily fit in the house rules sections as anywhere.

 

[Piratecat]

By all means, someone start a thread on games that do not use dice to determine whether attacks hit or miss. I see no intrinsic reason why such a thread should mention 5e.

Me either. Someone, start one!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Given that virtually any discussion of new possible mechanics can be had without any mention of edition, this isn't really much of a topic ban.

Well, my own view -- and I preface this by saying that I am a wacky fringe group -- is that it limits conversation of D&D as a whole. We can't really discuss much of the "direction that the game is taking," or rampantly speculate about what Wizards sees as working or not working, or converse about the changes we'd like to see that would require a new edition, rather than just homebrewing (the benefits and drawbacks to the Powers system, for instance, or how to introduce more resource management without bogging down gameplay).

It's troublesome because, since 4e is still pretty fresh, what kind of direction the game might take (what innovations work, what doesn't, and why) is particularly fresh in the minds of a lot of posters.

Put another way, a conversation about no roll-to-hit mechanics in general is quite different from a conversation about no roll-to-hit mechanics in D&D.

Not that it's a bad thing to kibosh those latter conversations for a while, but I know people were vehemently arguing against the need for mechanical changes to 3e right up until the announcement for 4e, and still debating those changes today, so I do hope the conversation about where 4e might be headed can be permitted again at some close future point.

 

[Jack7]

Me either. Someone, start one!

Okay

 

[Noumenon]

talking about 5E a little after the one year anniversary of 4E is a little bit in bad taste.

I kind of expected Wizards to do like with Magic the Gathering and start having new editions regularly.

Folks seem to underestimate how... much we rubbed each other raw over the past months.

There's that "we" again, that isn't me. I think it's because I just don't keep reading those 20-page-long threads after they devolve into edition wars. So for me, the edition wars don't exist. At least not any farther than I'm willing to read them.

 

[Umbran]

There's that "we" again, that isn't me.

Wow. Sounds like you had the moral high ground, and you just squandered it in pointless nitpickery.

Folks, it doesn't matter exactly who did what. As a practical matter, we all need to deal with how touchy folks have become. You can be a constructive part of that, or not. Your choice.

 

[billd91]

Folks, it doesn't matter exactly who did what. As a practical matter, we all need to deal with how touchy folks have become. You can be a constructive part of that, or not. Your choice.

I'd rather say that it does matter who did what. That's the point of taking responsibility for our actions. What we really have to do is deal with how touchy we ourselves have become, and that includes moderation. Our reactions to people's posts are the root of the problem and the source of edition wars, not the trolling which should be ignored. Do we let a criticism slide, address it politely, or respond snarkily? Criticism will happen and should happen.

 

[Samuel Leming]

Folks, it doesn't matter exactly who did what. As a practical matter, we all need to deal with how touchy folks have become. You can be a constructive part of that, or not. Your choice.

Sure, but what's the plan?

The only thing I'm touchy about are the roving band of bi^h^hzealots that jump in on any mention of their pet peeves and use that as an excuse to spew their passive-aggressive hate for their fellow gamers. Call games I like crap? No problem. That's just opinion. Call my play style crap? Well, my skin should be thick enough to handle that. Call me crap because of my play style or what games I like? That's where I get touchy.