D&D 4E 4E Dislike - a hypothesis

[Diamond Cross]

The only reason why I get hostile to 4e players is because of their idiotic attitudes of "I am superior because I play something shiny and new and only my shiny new thing is the proper D&D game because I am a Gawd" and their wanting to demean anybody who is different or older than them.

I'm not hostile to the game itself. I don't begrudge people if they want to play a specific edition because it's their favorite.

I'm just tired of stupid attitudes towards wanting to do something different.

And it always surprises me because being gamers and playing games like D&D means to most other people we're not socially acceptable and shouldn't be associated with. You'd think that experiencing this kind of social outcast we'd learn from the mistakes of others and be more tolerant of other people.

But tribalism is in humanity's blood and anything different is just too scary and should be demonized.

We must all be exactly the same as each other so as there is no threat to one's safety.

After all, if you like 3e then you are threatening to me and I must demean you.

If you like any other edition other than mine then you are just too scary and I must demean you.

Screw that.

But it's never going to end.

Ever.

People just have too much fun tearing each other apart in order to feel superior.

 

[Mercurius]

Because there is no one definition- beyond the one that says "it has D&D on the cover and is produced by those with the legal rights to make products by that name (the valueless tautological truth)- that we could all agree upon.

I still think it would be an interesting exercise to discuss the question, "what must D&D include to be called D&D"? And other similar questions: "What can D&D not include and be called D&D?" "What are the minimum number of elements for a game to be D&D"? Etc.

The analogy holds- please take a read to see how Aristotle, Heraclitus and others wrestled with this.

I think you're missing my point, which is not that the analogy doesn't have some value--it does--but that your reference to the "same ship" changes it because the answer is simply that, of course, it is not the same ship. 4E is not the same ship as 3E, which is not the same as 2E, 1E, BECMI; ultimately, nothing is the same as OD&D, so is that the only real form of D&D?

In other words, why isn't it enough to say "4E is not my preferred version of D&D but I still recognize it as a valid form of D&D"? Why is it actually necessary to negate its status as a valid form of D&D? Doesn't this only cause problems interpersonally?

So if we took your question, that is at what point is D&D no longer D&D, and we accept that everyone has a different answer, can we then say that because of that simple fact, all versions of D&D are true/real forms of D&D?

You're fine with 4Ed only sharing the same final cause with earlier editions and calling it D&D; others are not.

Does 4E only share the same final cause with earlier editions? Doesn't it share a lot more? That's my view, that 4E shares enough with previous forms to still be D&D, and that to say otherwise is to follow a definition of D&D that is too narrow and subjective to be essentially useless. It is basically saying that "D&D is what I want it to be." On one level that is true in that we all make D&D the game that we want it to be; but if anything, again, that basic fact--that we all have different ideas about what D&D is--should unite us in saying, hey, we're all playing D&D!

That said, the differences between position 2 and 3 are not as subtle as you suggest. Someone fitting into the position 2 argument is essentially saying that they feel that 4E represents a dramatic break from what they consider to be their ideal of what D&D is or should be. Position 3 on the other hand is a much more mild stance and is more like someone saying "I didn't care for 2E because they got rid the the assassin" or "4E is lame because the classes are too bland" or "3E is too hard to run at high levels so I don't like it".

Position 3 is a matter of simple preference whereas position 2 (and of course position 1) is a much stronger statement of personal belief around their ideal of what D&D is - it's not just a simple matter of preference to them.

Yes, you're right, which is why I'm saying that, in the end, position 2 is less true than position 3. All three positions are "true" from a particular way of looking at things, but I'm saying that 2 is more true than 1, and 3 is more true than 2.

D&D in my mind is a concept of fantasy based RPG. Its almost a generic term to describe all RPGs. When discussing Pathfinder, I often say 'D&D games' interchangeably with Pathfinder games.

Yup. This points out that there are numerous possible definitions, some broad ("all RPGs") and some very narrow ("OD&D only"). My view is that the term "D&D" can accurately be used in two ways--the broad one, and the general one to the game itself in all of its editions. That to go narrower than that is to be falsely exclusive and inflate one's personal preferences with reality.

In a way saying "4E is not D&D" is fighting against reality. It is based on denial. I mean, one doesn't have to like it--just as I didn't like The Phantom Menace all that much--but I cannot say that it is not Star Wars.

 

[DumbPaladin]

So, here's my question:

The thread is called "4E Dislike" -- and therefore geared towards people who actually don't enjoy 4th Edition. It was a hypothesis (not likely correct, as far too many people have stated this isn't why they like 4E) on why the current edition is not popular with some people.

... why is anyone who LIKES 4E posting in this topic?

 

[Mercurius]

Diamond Cross, I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I have never met or seen on a forum any 4E player that says what you said. This doesn't mean they don't exist, but I just don't see any 4E players saying that 4E is the only "proper D&D game." I am sure that some 4E players say annoying things about non-4E D&D (players), just as some 3E say annoying things about non-3E D&D (players), but I haven't seen what you are talking about. The vast majority of the "Your version of D&D is not real D&D" type of stuff seems to be waged at 4E folks.

Now I do see 4E players saying "My edition is the best edition" or even "Your edition sucks," but that is different than saying "Your edition isn't real D&D."

EDIT: DumbPaladin, because this thread was meant as an inquiry into a question that could be interesting to 4E players. I don't see why this is odd to you.

 

[M.L. Martin]

The only reason why I get hostile to 4e players is because of their idiotic attitudes of "I am superior because I play something shiny and new and only my shiny new thing is the proper D&D game because I am a Gawd" and their wanting to demean anybody who is different or older than them.

This is about as accurate as saying one should get hostile to old-school players because of their attitude of 'I am superior because I've been playing longer and only my old and hard-to-find thing is the proper D&D game".

Personally, I was kind of hoping that 4E, 3E and the OSR would destroy one another in the endless edition wars, but now I don't have Star Wars Saga Edition to replace D&D in the market and maybe make this a healthier, more heroic hobby.

 

[prosfilaes]

Saying that 4e is not D&D is a lot like saying that The Phantom Menace isn't a Star Wars movie based on personal dislike. It's a fine opinion, but ultimately we don't have the right to say what D&D (or Star Wars) is. There are people that own the property, like it or not, and they decide.

If Willow was rereleased as Star Wars: Willow (because, of course, it's set in the prehistory of Tatooine) , would the moviegoers not have the right to object that it's not Star Wars? Did not soda buyers have the right to object that New Coke was not Coke--and really, in what objective universe would New Coke be Coke?

Like Pepsi is also coke, in the parlance of many, what is and isn't D&D in the mind of many is far more complex then the trademark. I have no hesitation calling Pathfinder and OSRIC D&D, and little more calling (the original) Hackmaster D&D. Deep down, I've got to call D&D 4e, a D&Dish game, like Palladium Fantasy, and Hackmaster Basic. They ripped off quite a few of the details, but it's not quite the same.

 

[prosfilaes]

Yup. This points out that there are numerous possible definitions, some broad ("all RPGs") and some very narrow ("OD&D only"). My view is that the term "D&D" can accurately be used in two ways--the broad one, and the general one to the game itself in all of its editions. That to go narrower than that is to be falsely exclusive and inflate one's personal preferences with reality.

Definitions aren't reality; they're the way we carve up reality. It is entirely valid to define "soda" as Moxie; it's just idiosyncratic. (And most people have such phrases in their idiolects; your friends may know that when you say "let's get pizza", you're talking Pizza Hut.) In some cases, it's not idiosyncratic, like the use of D&D for Pathfinder and coke for Pepsi.

It's perfectly valid to have a functional definition for D&D, where we try and distill what D&D is down to a set of features, not labels. In a functional sense, if I include D&D 4E in the set of what I feel to be D&D, I have to include Palladium Fantasy, Hackmaster Basic, and Warhammer Fantasy. It's certainly debatable, but it's not prima facie wrong.

I expect most people to have a line where they feel that Hasbro calling something D&D, doesn't mean it is. If they dissolve WotC and start putting out a D&D 5ed, which is a standard Monopoly board with prices in GP and pieces spare D&D miniatures, I don't expect people to swallow that as D&D.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

If you like any other edition other than mine then you are just too scary and I must demean you.

In my experience, this has been the mantra of most of the pathfinder and 1E players at my FLGS. Most of my friends and I resorted to trolling them about the new essentials books just because they would constantly attack the 4E guys about having to buy new books and supporting the evil empire etc.

Perhaps instead of getting hostile, you could put down the stone and help repair the glasshouse?

 

[billd91]

Perhaps instead of getting hostile, you could put down the stone and help repair the glasshouse?

You certainly could, and I think one step toward that would be killing this sort of thread. People who don't like 4e don't need to have people who do like it try to analyze why they don't like it. Why not just ask them and accept their response?

 

[Diamond Cross]

Perhaps instead of getting hostile, you could put down the stone and help repair the glasshouse?

Been there, tried that, doesn't wash.

But yes, this tribalism crap works both ways, and it's a shame. It really shouldn't happen.

It really shouldn't be that big of a deal if someone likes a different edition. It's stupid to get bent all out of shape for something like that.

Personally I like the three editions with 2nd Edition being my favorite, and I do feel 3e is a superior system to the previous ones because it goes a long way to streamlining many of the rules, especially THACo and Saving throws.

however, I haven't read 4e so I can't make a comparison nor can I form an informed opinion on that edition.

As I've said, I'm just really burnt out from rules changes, which is why I won't try 4e.