What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[outsider]

Why I occasionally dip my toes into the edition war:

When you allow people to spread falsehoods and you don't call them on it, you run a serious risk of the audience starting to treat those falsehoods as though they are the truth. Much of the edition wars are subjective. However, there are some objective facts that are frequently ignored, and some subjective opinions that are treated as objective fact. If these things go unchallenged, they pollute and devalue the boards and the discussions we have here.

 

[billd91]

Why I occasionally dip my toes into the edition war:

When you allow people to spread falsehoods and you don't call them on it, you run a serious risk of the audience starting to treat those falsehoods as though they are the truth. Much of the edition wars are subjective. However, there are some objective facts that are frequently ignored, and some subjective opinions that are treated as objective fact. If these things go unchallenged, they pollute and devalue the boards and the discussions we have here.

I think there are also a lot of people who see someone post their impressions and treat them as if the poster was trying to post objective facts. I shouldn't have to say "In my opinion" before everything I post. There are some statements I make that should be pretty obviously my opinions or impressions. If I say that "4e plays like a glorified miniature skirmish game," there's no reason to assume that I'm stating an objective fact. It's obviously in the realm of subjective impression and needs no correction.

 

[WayneLigon]

My stake in an edition war is getting to play the version I like and want. If I can, through whatever means, convince others to go that route then I increase the potential players or GMs for the edition I enjoy most.

 

[Mistwell]

Those conversions were only available online. By the time the one you linked us to had been released, Dragon was 9 months out of print. The only people who got them were those who went looking on WotC's site.

The 2Ed-3Ed conversion was available in the stores.

So?

I won't get into the PHB/MM distinction again- its been covered ad nauseam. Suffice it to say, "They're in the MM!" isn't going to fly for everyone.

It was not perfect. Not perfect is different from claiming it cannot be done. It could be done, many people did it, it wasn't that bad.

However, the Druid and Barbarian aren't some "unusual later-splat-book-classes." The former has been in the PHB since the mid 1970s, and the latter was an expansion class in 1Ed and was a standard class by 3Ed.

Fortunately they were covered in those conversion articles. Again, not perfect, but doable.

I get that the conversion was more difficult this time around. I just object to people claiming it could not be done and that WOTC made no attempt at all to help people convert their games.

 

[outsider]

I think there are also a lot of people who see someone post their impressions and treat them as if the poster was trying to post objective facts. I shouldn't have to say "In my opinion" before everything I post. There are some statements I make that should be pretty obviously my opinions or impressions. If I say that "4e plays like a glorified miniature skirmish game," there's no reason to assume that I'm stating an objective fact. It's obviously in the realm of subjective impression and needs no correction.

Sure there is. People that are ignorant on the topic might actually take your opinion at face value and treat it as fact. While uninformed readers aren't as common as they were back in the lead up/early days of 4e, I'm sure there still are some lurking around the boards.

Something like "I dislike 4e" is completely harmless. Even "I absolutely hate 4e because I don't like tactical movement and miniatures in my roleplaying games" is fine, and is perhaps a very valuable statement to an uninformed reader. Neither of those statements misrepresents any facts. "4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game" misrepresents the facts and should be corrected.

 

[billd91]

"4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game" misrepresents the facts and should be corrected.

Unless I actually think it does play like a glorified miniatures game, in which case, anyone trying to correct my opinion can keep it to themselves. Any attempt at correction misrepresents and disrespects my opinion making it substantially more likely that any further discussion will be an increasingly heated edition war, even if hadn't been one before.

 

[outsider]

Unless I actually think it does play like a glorified miniatures game, in which case, anyone trying to correct my opinion can keep it to themselves. Any attempt at correction misrepresents and disrespects my opinion making it substantially more likely that any further discussion will be an increasingly heated edition war, even if hadn't been one before.

Whether it actually is an opinion or not is irrelevant, as the only clue on your intent is the words you write. When you choose to write your opinions as a declaration of fact, the reader is in the right when they treat your words as a declaration of fact. Language works the way it does for a reason, and when you use it improperly, you are to blame for any misunderstandings that arise.

Skipping "I think" or "in my opinion" is a good short cut amongst people that know you, and/or are looking you in the face when you say it. It is not, however, a good shortcut when using the written word to communicate with hundreds of complete strangers with varying levels of knowledge on the topic being discussed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game" misrepresents the facts and should be corrected.

I'm not so sure that it does misrepresent the facts. It's entirely possible for two people to play 4e and come out with different play experiences. Giving such a poster the benefit of the doubt, and saying "Really? It doesn't seem that way when I play. Why do you think that?" rather than saying "No. You're wrong. Stop posting lies!" can get closer to some real differences.

Saying "You're wrong, shut up," has never been a very good way to have a conversation.

Saying "I think differently. Why do you think the way you do?" is usually better.

 

[mudbunny]

I find it usually safe to assume that, unless written otherwise, everything someone posts on a message board is opinion. Makes for a much better experience.

 

[outsider]

Saying "I think differently. Why do you think the way you do?" is usually better.

And when you say "In my opinion 4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game", it's reasonable to expect such a reply. Basically, what you are suggesting is that I respond to somebody with patience, when they have deliberately chosen to post in an impatient manner(have no doubt that it was an intentional choice to do so, as the poster has already admitted as much). While taking the high road in such a situation is commendable, it should not be expected, and the one to instigate the confrontation is the one at fault.

"You're wrong, shut up" is clearly inappropriate. "You're wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z" is perfectly acceptable though. If the poster would like me to choose my words carefully and not flat out say he's wrong, he can choose his own words carefully.