What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Dire Bare]

This all makes the very big and quite possibly wrong assumption that if-when I criticize an edition I'm talking to the designers. I'm talking to the consumers.

I'll disagree here too. If I'm a consumer interested in learning more about the new edition of D&D, the same types of criticisms that would be useful to a designer would be useful to me . . . to help me determine if I should spend my money and time on the product.

A lot of the negativity towards 4e that focuses on the "buzzwords" of videogamey, too anime, broken, etc, etc doesn't really tell me anything useful as to whether I'll enjoy the game or not.

 

[Dire Bare]

This reminds me of the time when I went out to a restaurant for a friend's birthday party. There were some people I knew and some people I didn't know. The guy sitting across from me I didn't know, and I happened to order the same thing as him. When we got our meals mine looked delicious and I was eagerly waiting to dig in. He looked at his plate and, without touching it, disgustedly told the waitress to take it back.

Oh yeah, I've had meals with that person too!!! I have some married friends who routinely criticize food and service at restaurants like this, stiffing the server and bewildering the staff and management. It's embarrassing and I avoid going out to eat with them and doing other public things with them.

And, oddly enough, I also avoid gaming with them also! Never correlated it before . . . .

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Again, you are taking a phrase that has been argued over and over and treating it as a new phrase suddenly dropped out of the blue.

The mere fact that the term has been argued over and over should clue you in that it isn't a useful term. When you use it we don't know what side of the fence you are on. We DON'T know what you mean. Only a touch of arrogance would lead one to believe that someone has kept tabs on every discussion they have been involved in and kept track of every opinion each person holds. "Too videogamey" is nothing more than a reductive slam and will inflame arguments whether you intend to use it that way or not.

 

[Garthanos]

That's my recollection as well...and a good reason not to go looking for a 4Ed conversion book.



I can convert D&D characters into HERO- I've done so. I can go the other way as well.

That's not the same as there being a D&D => HERO or HERO => D&D conversion guide being a real product.

My skill with doing such conversions also doesn't mean there isn't a desire for there to be such conversion guides, by me or by less system-savvy gamers.

There is a lot of art in this...

Best cases I have found revealed more about the character than was originally understood before the conversion but that doesnt mean a guide book is going to get you there and possibly some of the worst cases are formulaic methodical translations that fail to capture the feel.

Somebody translating a character currently might think they need to follow class names to take a D&D character from an earlier edition in to 4e..And now that they have a healthy chunk of classes it would be more possible but also very possibly - not recommended ...
For instance your Elf might have been a fighter wizard - may haps she ought to be built as bard with no multi-classing at all just re-flavoring a bit with feats which emphasize the arcane. Or might be best built as a ranger with ritualist training or hybriding might now be the best option. Or using the swordmage directly.

And your ranger perhaps a higher level one who liked his magical element ... might be better served as a seeker class character or even a nature themed paladin.

Races are similarly not one to one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The mere fact that the term has been argued over and over should clue you in that it isn't a useful term.

It is my experience that, when a term is argued over and over, it is because it is a useful term, describing what is meant very well, that simply carries implications someone doesn't like.

Controlling what terms can be used controls what can be discussed. For this reason, IMHO & IME, some folks like to declare certain terms ambigous, misleading, or not useful.

YMMV.



RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It is my experience that, when a term is argued over and over, it is because it is a useful term, describing what is meant very well, that simply carries implications someone doesn't like.

Controlling what terms can be used controls what can be discussed. For this reason, IMHO & IME, some folks like to declare certain terms ambigous, misleading, or not useful.

How can a term be useful if it means so many different things to different people? I would have to know your definition of "too videogamey" to find it useful for discussion. The term reduces one's opinion to two words that can mean too many different things. I would rather one expound upon their opinion than reduce it to a buzzword. Or, if one is offended that they are being asked to explain their opinion again, then put a link in your sig to a summary of the opinion. Otherwise I still believe it arrogant to assume that everyone understands what one means by "too videogamey."

 

[Garthanos]

It is my experience that, when a term is argued over and over, it is because it is a useful term, describing what is meant very well

Sloppy terms themselves take center stage in place of the content they hide.

Delving through terminology may be a necessary preliminary as KM is pointing out if somebody "in good faith" uses a term with a vague definition you can dig in to it and maybe find the content behind it... persistently using that term instead of more clear or enumerated ideas... is asking to rehash... after rehash after rehash.... it does not make the term good... it means its a sloppy term.

And if in context that term is used to rake coals in a hostile emotion tweaking fashion its just an edition war troll mantra.

Kamakaze M argues rather eloquently in favor of granting "the person" the benefit of the doubt. But "the ambiguous term" can get canned.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is my experience that, when a term is argued over and over, it is because it is a useful term, describing what is meant very well, that simply carries implications someone doesn't like.

Controlling what terms can be used controls what can be discussed. For this reason, IMHO & IME, some folks like to declare certain terms ambigous, misleading, or not useful.

YMMV.



RC

And mine is almost the reverse - that in many cases the definitions differ so widely as to make it meaningless. Of course there's a simple test as to which it is: will consensus arise from the thread asking what is meant by "Video-gamey". So far it's not looking hopeful.

 

[Ourph]

Which goes to prove, in my mind at least, that there is nothing at all at stake in the edition wars. Nobody can ever really be convinced of anything. If shown without question their claim was false, they will still find a way to shift their claim to something that cannot be proven false. Because, it's not about coming to the resolution of a debate.It's about engaging in the edition war itself.

Exactly. Just like Global Thermonuclear War and Tic-Tac-Toe the only way to win is not to play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

How can a term be useful if it means so many different things to different people?

Is "D&D" a useful term? It means so many different things to different people.......Because everything you said about "too videogamey" also applies.

Sloppy terms themselves take center stage in place of the content they hide.

It is a fallacy to imagine that most terminology is not vaguely defined unless read "in good faith"; and even then the usage is probably more vaguely defined than most users realize.

The only reason folks have to "rehash... after rehash after rehash...." is because, once they have said what they mean, the opposite side demands that, no, the first speaker means what the opposite side means by the same term. You can do that with anything, if the goal is to "win", to demonize the other side, or to take offense.

It doesn't make the term sloppy; it makes the argument sloppy.

And "canning the ambiguous term" means "canning the opinion", not the terminology, as every attempt to define the term also ends up being "too ambiguous". I have seen this on EnWorld (and elsewhere) again, and again, and again.

And mine is almost the reverse - that in many cases the definitions differ so widely as to make it meaningless. Of course there's a simple test as to which it is: will consensus arise from the thread asking what is meant by "Video-gamey". So far it's not looking hopeful.

Will consensus arise from asking what is meant by "D&D"? So far it's not looking hopeful.

But, then, honest discussion doesn't require that you and I mean the same thing by "D&D"; it only requires that I know what you mean, and that you know what I mean.


RC