[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?

[catastrophic]

The simple solution is to put the people that make the snide remarks on ignore. It will do wonders for your blood pressure and reduce the number of edition war threads becasue you willl not feel tempted to respont to them.

I don't usually participate in these threads, and my blood pressure is fine. The problem with ignoring people and ending debate is that they then declare victory, other people assume their viewpoint is far more wide-held than it actually is, and mike mearls starts doing colums about how much of a self-loathing 4e dev he is.

It has other effects as well- such as threads full of people smugly arguing about how everything is subjective and a matter of opinion and nothing can ever be described in any concrete terms. You can see that kind of thinking being echoed in Mearl's artiles, as well, and i'm sure fifth edition will bear the scars of trying to design to fit the absurd demands of such people. I'd predict that 'YMMV' will be a keyword in 5th edition, but then again, keywords are far too coherent and 'gamist' a mechanic for a suitably gygaxovancianarritivist design.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't usually participate in these threads, and my blood pressure is fine. The problem with ignoring people and ending debate is that they then declare victory, other people assume their viewpoint is far more wide-held than it actually is, and mike mearls starts doing colums about how much of a self-loathing 4e dev he is.

It has other effects as well- such as threads full of people smugly arguing about how everything is subjective and a matter of opinion and nothing can ever be described in any concrete terms. You can see that kind of thinking being echoed in Mearl's artiles, as well, and i'm sure fifth edition will bear the scars of trying to design to fit the absurd demands of such people. I'd predict that 'YMMV' will be a keyword in 5th edition, but then again, keywords are far too coherent and 'gamist' a mechanic for a suitably gygaxovancianarritivist design.

There is no victory, you cannot win.
Other people don't give a damn, 4 months later most of the particpants will not remember the thread.

 

[dagger]

I don't usually participate in these threads, and my blood pressure is fine. The problem with ignoring people and ending debate is that they then declare victory, other people assume their viewpoint is far more wide-held than it actually is, and mike mearls starts doing colums about how much of a self-loathing 4e dev he is.

It has other effects as well- such as threads full of people smugly arguing about how everything is subjective and a matter of opinion and nothing can ever be described in any concrete terms. You can see that kind of thinking being echoed in Mearl's artiles, as well, and i'm sure fifth edition will bear the scars of trying to design to fit the absurd demands of such people. I'd predict that 'YMMV' will be a keyword in 5th edition, but then again, keywords are far too coherent and 'gamist' a mechanic for a suitably gygaxovancianarritivist design.

Welcome to the war soldier.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I don't usually participate in these threads, and my blood pressure is fine. The problem with ignoring people and ending debate is that they then declare victory, other people assume their viewpoint is far more wide-held than it actually is, and mike mearls starts doing colums about how much of a self-loathing 4e dev he is.

It has other effects as well- such as threads full of people smugly arguing about how everything is subjective and a matter of opinion and nothing can ever be described in any concrete terms. You can see that kind of thinking being echoed in Mearl's artiles, as well, and i'm sure fifth edition will bear the scars of trying to design to fit the absurd demands of such people. I'd predict that 'YMMV' will be a keyword in 5th edition, but then again, keywords are far too coherent and 'gamist' a mechanic for a suitably gygaxovancianarritivist design.

You clearly have no interest in responding to actual content in posts.

I've attempted to address you directly more than once.

Enjoy your platitudes.


By the way, I never claimed that my favored edition was best. I don't think that claim can be made. In this thread, the ONLY person/people who have claimed their edition to be BEST were 4e people. It's great to think 4e is best. IT IS, but only for you and others like you. 1e or 2e or 3e or Pathfinder are also BEST for people who find them to be so. If that's offensive to someone.....well....gosh.....that someone is someone who clearly thinks there are objective reasons for their edition to be BEST (which they damn well better provide if they expect to be taken seriously) or that person is someone whose emotion is overriding their reason.

Edition wars happen when someone decides that, in fact, they have the best edition. If anyone wants to claim superiority, that's more of a problem than a discussion point, unless they can actually back it up with, well, unless they can back it up with anything at all.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

No, it can also be subjectively false!

[EXAMPLE]So, when's the next edition of FATAL due out? It's the best game EVER!

Remember, no matter how much you may dislike 4e/3.X/BECMI there is always... worse. Much worse.

The Auld Grump, now Spawn of Fashan on the other hand... pure win.

I dunno man. I usually agree with yout, but not so much here.

I sorta went where you went here with my somewhat silly example of "Romper Stomper Teddy Bears".

I meant it as a sincere (and hopefully not biting) example of how a very horrible game could, in fact, be "the best" depending upon what people are looking for.


For instance, let's take HOL. It's somewhat polarized in its love/hate. It might be the best for some people while being the worst for others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hol_(role-playing_game)



My point about every game and every edition of every game is that it can only really be measured against what it sets out to accomplish. It can utterly fail at doing what it isn't trying to do, but be fantastic at what it attempts to do.

"Hamlet? That movie wasn't very funny at all."
"Die Hard? Where was the plot?"
"Dangerous Liasons? Ummmm. No action."

You know this, of course. I'm not directing this at you, but I'm responding to your post to make a point.


I mean... If it's a parody game, then it should be a good parody. People playing it seriously should be dissapointed if they do so -- as it is a parody. If it's a drama game, the combat might be nonlethal...people playing it might find the combat boring or "not intense enough" or whatever. If it's a D&D game people might get upset if it's too hack and slash or not enough hack and slash.

An intense shift in focus is an intense change in the game.

Part of comparing editions also necessitates understanding what the game as a whole (WoD, D&D, GURPS, etc) and the specifiic edition are aiming for and how well they accomplish it. Measuring this can be complicated in that if different edtions of the same game set out to accomplish different things, then we are grading them against different measures.

That can be a part of the edition warring as well. What if the designers decided "this combat game is now a narrative game...to hell with balance, let's tell a story!" (or vice versa, or some middle ground where the shift of focus was real, but much more subtle).

If the focus of a game is changed to such a degree that it no longer represents the same "purpose" in playing, it's not unreasonable, in my opinion, to claim "this doesn't feel the same to me" if the purpose was the reason for playing the game. If one played the game for the theme or "dressing" or whatever else was maintained, then this argument doesn't hold much water. In fact, a change in purpose with similar dressing could radically change the game and actually be an improvement! (e.g. "I always played D&D for fantasy tropes, but really wanted more balance." versus "I always enjoyed the realism of D&D and hoped it'd give worlds that much more verisimillitude next edition.")

And then edition warriors on both sides discuss how much and how little a game has changed...and what that means...and if it's always been that way or if it SHOULD always have been that way...and so on and so on, and honestly, as someone (maybe Umbran) said (and I'm paraphrasing with my own words...sorry to Umbran if I'm putting words in your mouth)...

It's mostly about forming an opinion based upon "feeling" and enjoyment of a game/edition and then subsequently justifying that with reason and logic.

I'm pretty sure I do it, but I also do it having given 4e a real solid chance. It's not "bias" so much as "taste".

I like it. I have friends who play it. They LOVE it. They wish I'd play it more with them. I like playing with them. I like playing with my 3e friends, not because they're better gamers (they're not), but because I like that game better...it meets my preferences.

I don't hate 4e. I just don't prefer it.



My point? For me 3e is better than 4e. I have given both a very fair shot. I went into Pathfinder, 4e, Iron Heroes, Arcana Unearthed, and others with an open mind.

I can be comfortable with that. I don't understand people who are angry with me for this expression and I don't understand people who claim that any one of these games are superior to others.


Hell, I LOVED the innovations of 3e over 2e...but I respect the opinions of 2e players who want to stay old school and enjoy their game as superior (to them) over 3e.



I don't understand the schism between 3e and 4e in the same context...

...Claim your game is best for you, but don't claim your game is best for everyone.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I was joking.

As far as I am concerned the only way to be 'Subjectively wrong' is to deny that you are being subjective, and that other people's subjective views are also valid.

I have objective preferences for my subjective liking and disliking of games - I can point at those objective preferences and say 'this is why my game is better'. But the game is better because I have a subjective liking for those objective causes.

I like handling NPCs and monsters in the same fashion as PCs, I prefer long stat blocks - it was why I liked RuneQuest and it was why I liked 3.X..

The games handling PCs, NPCs, and Critters the same way is objective, it can be measured and demonstrated.

If I say 'that is why I like 3.X better' I am being objective. I like the game, and it can be demonstrated that I do.

If I say 'that is why 3.X is better' then I have started being subjective. Liking long stat blocks is a subjective preference.

And if you then say '4e is better because it has smaller stat blocks!' then you are being subjective.

And if we begin arguing about it... welcome to the war, soldier!

If you say 'I like 4e better because it has shorter stat blocks' you are being objective, both are quantifiable.

But if I counter with 'you're wrong, you silly ninny-hammer! Long stat-blocks FTW!!1!!!' then I am provoking an edition war. (And I will be grammar clubbed by my fifth grade English teacher.)

And, as an aside, I played HOL, and did not much like the game as it was run. Whether I would have liked it better with a different GM?... I dunno. (The same GM ran a really good Nephelim game, though.)

I think that the designers of 4e did focus over much on combat and encounter. But I also think that what the designers envisioned may not be what folks are running.

The Auld Grump

 

[catastrophic]

You clearly have no interest in responding to actual content in posts.

I'm under no obligation to pretend you're being more rational or reasonable than you actually are.

I have seen the debates go over and over and over, even on really clear cut things like how absurdly underpowered 3e fighters are in later levels- and yes, I know many people argue that that is not a bad thing, or isn't true, or is a good thing, but guess what? They're wrong.

I'm not going to contribute to the edition wars by going line by line while you insist that whatever information I offer is no match for your subjective old school renaisance sandboxing skill or whatever flavour you're peddling.

Everything is not subjective. Everything is not just a matter of preference. It's very easy to hold that position when arguing on the internet, but it's not very constructive to do so when talking about the design, wich needs actual goals, and neesd to be able to talk about mechanics and wether they fail of suceed.

It's not as if we're talking about radically different games here, and again, I know people argue otherwise, but their opinions do nto determine reality. The editions have not shifted that far in the playstyle they are servicing.

There is no victory, you cannot win.
Other people don't give a damn, 4 months later most of the particpants will not remember the thread.

I'm not trying to win anything.
I won when I stoped playing 3e and started playing 4e.
Game, Set, Match, me.

 

[Lanefan]

I won when I stoped playing 3e and started playing 4e.
Game, Set, Match, me.

By the same token, then, I could say I won when - after buying and checking over the first round of core books - I decided to not play 4e at all. Around the same time I also decided to bail on 3e.

My only question is, given that I won, who or what did I defeat?

Lan-"we are all winners"-efan

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm under no obligation to pretend you're being more rational or reasonable than you actually are.

Well, what about having a conversation with me? I think I've tried to be reasonable. I'm not trying to make you defensive of your preference. I'm not aligned with many other posters here in terms of preferred play style, so it's not me and others against 4e, or any other edition.

I think it's possible to have a constructive (or at least informative) conversation without becoming defensive, or without implying that others are acting irrationally. Even if you view it as such, it doesn't add much to the conversation by voicing it.

I have seen the debates go over and over and over, even on really clear cut things like how absurdly underpowered 3e fighters are in later levels- and yes, I know many people argue that that is not a bad thing, or isn't true, or is a good thing, but guess what? They're wrong.

In terms of potential power, yes, casters can be much more potent in 3e at later levels. I think the average game doesn't deal with the optimization or system mastery that most forums maintain, though. I also think that even with that system mastery, many people don't use that power divide against their teammates.

At any rate, I think claiming that somebody is wrong for stating a preference is probably a bad statement to make. I could claim that my favorite cheese was processed American cheese, and someone could say "but that's not real cheese, so you're wrong." But, really, if it's my preferred cheese, then I'm not wrong in expressing my taste. Taste is subjective.

Now, if you're talking about balance, or some other design goal that has yet to be expressed as the topic of conversation, I think you'll find many people in this thread will agree with you that 4e seems much more balanced than 3e. And as I said, if there's another design goal you want to discuss, we can talk about the implementations without getting defensive.

I'm not going to contribute to the edition wars by going line by line while you insist that whatever information I offer is no match for your subjective old school renaisance sandboxing skill or whatever flavour you're peddling.

I don't want an edition war, either, but I think making statements such as the following really contribute to the edition war:

I have seen the debates go over and over and over, even on really clear cut things like how absurdly underpowered 3e fighters are in later levels- and yes, I know many people argue that that is not a bad thing, or isn't true, or is a good thing, but guess what? They're wrong.

Since you've mentioned no design goal, such as game balance, the above statement looks like you're condemning other people's enjoyment of a particular play style. Preferred play styles are innately subjective. I think that having a possible misinterpretation of your words (if you meant the above statement to be in response to balance, for example) is going to contribute more to the edition war than other ways to communicate your thoughts on the matter.

Everything is not subjective. Everything is not just a matter of preference. It's very easy to hold that position when arguing on the internet, but it's not very constructive to do so when talking about the design, wich needs actual goals, and neesd to be able to talk about mechanics and wether they fail of suceed.

Everything isn't subjective, you're correct. I'd like to talk about more of the objective parts of game design, rather than about play style preferences, which are subjective. I think implying that people are wrong by enjoying the game (even if that's not what you mean) smacks of "badwrongfun" and many people here understandably don't like it, or don't agree with it (much as you disagree with people when they unjustifiably say the same to you).

If you want to talk about mechanical implementation, and which edition came closer to achieving their goals, I'd like to. We can do so in a way that is reasonable, and doesn't cause either one of us to become defensive about our preferences.

It's not as if we're talking about radically different games here, and again, I know people argue otherwise, but their opinions do nto determine reality. The editions have not shifted that far in the playstyle they are servicing.

Well, forgive the poor analogy, but to me, it's like two people talking about the best way to get down a mountain. The mountain has two ways down: a trail that takes 4 hours walk at a leisurely pace, or an elevator that'll get you down in 2 minutes. People can debate which way is better for getting down, because, subjectively, there's been no stated objective goal yet. No one has said "what's the best way to get down the mountain quickly?"

If that's the question, it suddenly becomes obvious. However, if the question is "what's the best way to get down the mountain?" then I can say "the trail" because I love walking in nature. I could also say "the elevator" because obviously, when it comes to getting down the mountain, the elevator is the fastest.

I think that stating a goal a little more clearly before saying someone is wrong about something would greatly help people from getting defensive, as well as avoiding edition wars. It's also a lot more reasonable.

I'm not trying to win anything.
I won when I stoped playing 3e and started playing 4e.
Game, Set, Match, me.

If you're having fun, then yeah, you're winning D&D. As always, play what you like

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Remember, some of the most entrenched and recalcitrant Edition Warriors are the ones who either claim that they are not participating in the war (while shouting how [insert edition here] is the one true game/most flexible/has evolved beyond petty concerns of proof or basic evidence), or are claiming to fight only a war of defense.

When dealing with such a mindset the thing to do is ignore, if not Ignore, them. Fully a quarter of this thread has been spent arguing with one such myrmidon. Let such call themself victor while you and I go back to arguing with folks who actually have something to say. You'll have more fun that way, I'll have more fun that way, and nothing of value will have been lost.

Though, in honesty, I think that it is fair to state that the term 'edition war' has been pretty well defined in this thread, by concrete example. So what say that we all agree that I/we/you have won the war, or at least this battle, and have iced tea with cookies?

The Auld Grump, the problem with arguing with a wall is that sometimes the wall wins....