What defines the "edition war" and why are participants / moderators opposed to them?

[howandwhy99]

Well, yes. But "cannot" is an absolute, too. "We cannot know," is as dogmatic as anything else.

Beyond that - there's another thread for this discussion.

Thanks. I'm over there too. I was just answering some questions from this thread first.

I do agree there is a Cartesian circle fallacy in the work of modern day Pragmatists such as Rorty, but the whole of it works more on a pragmatic level. I.e.: If our best understandings of "reality" shows we are all brains and not omniscients, then we are limited to the capacities of a brain. In other words, we may posit a fundamental reality exists, but then we quickly come to the conclusion that no human can fundamentally know it as our understanding of reality lies exclusively as a mirror or map in our heads and is not that reality in-and-of-itself.

You can check out "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" for more on Rorty's theory, but one of his later works might be better. That one is hard core Analytic Philosophy geared to professionals working in the field, but is the definitive text. He was arguing therein for western academics to give up their "transcendental pursuit" for truth using logic alone.

And feel free to respond to me in the other thread instead of this one.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Logic is just another form of religion because it claims to have the absolute truth and that truth can only come through logic and the correct way of thinking can only come through logic.


People can lie about it all they want, but when anything makes a claim of absolute truth, it then becomes a crutch and is treated no differently than a religion.

Somewhere, 99 philosophy students just exploded. You know what´s also just another form of religion? Apples.

No, think about it.

 

[rounser]

Because I really do loathe hypocricy.

How about facetiousness in order to make a point, then? Do you loathe that too? Might want to spellcheck it before loathing it, for that matter.

(And I think that Gary was right when he said that hypocrisy was a mere canard, unjustly elevated to the level of a sin. Every parent and boss is a hypocrite, for instance.)

 

[Snoweel]

How about facetiousness in order to make a point, then? Do you loathe that too?

Ah, I see what you've done.

In that case I should point out my loathing for people who misread others' posts. Did I mention how much I detest hypocrisy? (thanks for the spelling tip)

 

[Ariosto]

It's just a fact of life that if I happen to prefer X to Y, then someone else may well prefer Y to X for the same differences.

You can't reasonably have your 'better' -- a matter of opinion -- without having a 'different' as a matter of fact. If it's not different, then it cannot be better in any way that has an objective referent.

There may be a few who honestly have no preference for one E over another, but that is hardly a compelling argument for shelling out cash for any particular one. Odds are that such indiscriminate D&Ders bought whichever one they're going to buy some time ago.

Those who "gotta get 'em all" get to experience the existential angst suffered by every pitiful soul whose beloved E happens not to be the darling of someone somewhere. For them, let there be rendings of cloth, and gnashings of teeth, and castings unto the outer darkness of ... all the rest of us, I guess.

People stayed away in droves from Metamorphosis Alpha. Some of them (as well as many others) bought Gamma World, though. A lot of people disliked the price of Empire of the Petal Throne too much to find out how much the contents of the box did not suit them.

Some would never play a 'historical' RPG such as Boot Hill or Top Secret, while others balked at the comic-book antics of Marvel Super Heroes.

Star Frontiers or Buck Rogers? Heck, a lot of avid players of (A)D&D turned to GDW's Traveller for adventures in the far future.

If you just cannot be satisfied unless everyone else shares your preference, then here's a news flash: You are going to be disappointed.

It is (literally!) the business of Wizards of the Coast to slap the D&D trademark on whatever they think they can sell that way. Soda pop? Yep -- As Seen On TV, or at least in the ads here on ENworld.

None of us has any obligation to like Jones Cola, or anything else just because it has the 'D&D' label on it, any more than because it had the 'TSR' label on it.

It would be the same if it were titled Dragonquest or Lords of Creation. "But those are Hasbro trademarks, too!" (Well, they would be if they had not lapsed -- which Advanced D&D apparently has.) "How dare you prefer D&D to DQ or LoC? What sort of twisted vileness could lead to you consider them actually different?"

They were designed to be different, to appeal to different markets. Big surprise: The effort was successful!

Other firms choose other approaches. Some shoot for keeping one market segment while reaching for another.

So what? D&D was a hobby before it was a business. It would not be a business without the hobby. It may well be a hobby when it is no longer a business. It may turn into a business that has sweet kiss-all to do with fantasy role-playing as we have known it.

If it turns into a religion with thought police hunting down heretics, then you can count me out.

It's just a game!

 

[Paradox]

You're trying real hard to make me look like the aggressor, here, when I was simply delivering a rebuttal. Go talk to Paradox about his philosophy of assigning "base motives" to others he doesn't agree with and the finer points of calling people "jerks" because of that.

At the risk of turning the thread into one about me, I certainly didn't assign motives to people I don't agree with. I suppose I could say "That person that's reporting every post by someone who doesn't like 4e, including posts 6 months old; including posts in threads that have been closed, including posts that have nothing to do with D&D is NOT a jerk" if you want, but IMO, that is jerky behavior.

As a moderator, it's not my job to take sides, only enforce the rules. Trolling is against the rules. The person doing the trolling thinks it's fun, but most people don't like to be trolled.

Geeze, I didn't even give my opinion of 4e and I already earned the label "Biggest 4e supporter" just because I closed threads that were nothing more than "4e sux". There is a difference between statements like "4e = WoW" and "I don't like the tiered system of gaining a paragon path as I prefer getting a prestige class once I qualify it; most times it's by level 5." The former is just trying to get a rise out of the community. The latter is a valid reason and something that can be discussed. A flame war is not a discussion, just people yelling at each other.

I don't have to agree with someone to value their opinion, and I'm sure most community members are the same. Case in point- I don't have every rule memorized. People that don't like an edition will point out every flaw there is and basically, work out the flaws for me. Assuming they give the game a chance and not just repeat what they read online.

Speaking of repeating, there are many of us who have played D&D for a very long time. We've been through edition changes before. And we've seen the very same exact arguments and fights each time. If I didn't know better, I'd swear people were just bumping threads when 3e first came out.

While "edition wars" may seem new to newer players, those of us that have been through it before are just sick of the cyclic fighting that never seems to end. The fights are with people you will never play in a D&D game with, so it doesn't matter which edition they like best. It's pointless to try to force them, and everyone to play Your One True Way.

I had problems with OD&D, but the games were still fun.
I had problems with AD&D 1st edition, but the games were still fun.
I had problems with 2nd edition, but the games were still fun.
I had problems with 3rd edition, but the games were still fun.
I'm still working on 4th edition, so I'm not sure what problems I'll come across, but in the meantime, the games are still fun.

 

[rounser]

None of us has any obligation to like Jones Cola, or anything else just because it has the 'D&D' label on it, any more than because it had the 'TSR' label on it.

Yes, you can view D&D purely as a branded money-making mechanism, just as you can view it as something bigger than that. I suspect that the core of the D&D phenomenon is slowly divorcing itself from the D&D brand, as the schism created by 4E and the advent of Pathfinder and myriad tiny retroclones suggests. In short, edition wars may exist because of dissatisfaction with the owner's current use of the D&D brand.

 

[Garthanos]

...And why engineering is about deciding, "Eh, close enough."

That makes for a fun series of quotable... quotes.

 

[N0Man]

Reasons why people may be against editions wars? Take your pick:

Because it's as pointless as arguing about which is better, Coke or Pepsi? Red or Blue?

Because we've all heard the arguments before, but yet a jaded and bitter minority (or individual) will end up saying something to offend someone or interpret something as offensive and make things go sour.

Because it's difficult digging up 10 year old posts off the internet making nearly the exact same arguments going from 2nd to 3rd as they now make 3rd to 4th. (Seriously, it's frighting just how close they are)

Because it takes valuable time away from wars on who the best Starfleet captain was.

Arguments don't convince people that their tastes are different, and rarely convince them of the existence of any biases and misconceptions they may have.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Yes, you can view D&D purely as a branded money-making mechanism, just as you can view it as something bigger than that. I suspect that the core of the D&D phenomenon is slowly divorcing itself from the D&D brand, as the schism created by 4E and the advent of Pathfinder and myriad tiny retroclones suggests. In short, edition wars may exist because of dissatisfaction with the owner's current use of the D&D brand.

So, edition wars are created because people who are angry at a company are angry at a company because they think that company did something to anger them?
Makes sense.