[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?

[pawsplay]

Something that I've never really understood, and it bugs me when I see someone doing it: Why comment at all on an edition that you don't like? I'm not even talking about "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I mean, why even enter those threads on subjects you're not positively interested in?

I don't care for cats, and so I wouldn't bother reading a thread on them. And I definitely have no reason to add a comment on them, especially a negative comment in any form. Why pee in someone else's sandbox?

That's an interesting question, and I can offer a partial answer. Sometimes bad design is interesting. If you are a game designer, bad design isn't "someone else's sandbox." In fact, the people who really don't belong in an edition comparison are people who are invested in one game, but not the other games in the discussion. To me, edition criticism is more like saying, "Uh, there's some pee in this sandbox, you might want to think twice before hopping in."

Plus, if you're going to illuminate how a game works and what it does, you really can't make a division between good/bad. You can talk about what is, and what you think about it. In fact, every new game edition is an implicit criticism of every previous edition. I could certainly describe some problems I see with, say, Pathfinder, or D6, but I don't think many people would actually be interested. From what I've said, if a 4e player starts to voice criticisms of 4e-isms they don't like, the usual response is for the 4e fans to say, "No, no, no, that's not really a problem, and we'll tell you why."

EN World is unfortunately uniquely posed in the Blood War between 3e and 4e, because it started as a 3e site, then had some majority or at least plurality convert over to 4e. It's neither a pure 3e site nor a pure 4e site, nor is it united by the lonely love of those who play vintage editions, nor is it (yet?) a generic vehicle for RPG discussion. It's like a club that plays rock on Fridays and disco on Saturdays. EN World is like an oldies station that just nudged their playlist forward a decade. It's like a "new rock" station that's still playing stuff from Soundgarden because their old listeners never stopped listening. Basically, real neutrality is hard to find here.

On the plus side, as a fairly D&D-centric site, with a lot of crossover with various OGL games and "lite" games, there is the potential for a collegiate, congenial atmosphere. However, for that to work, people have to get used to hearing things they don't like. I think with time things have definitely improved. Certainly, you don't see the venom you used to when someone posted an example from the "wrong" edition.

I mean, there is very little about the coming of 4e I liked at all, but you would be hard-pressed to get me riled up about anything edition-specific at this point... unless you decided you still had to persuade me that I believe 4e is a superior game. I'm sure it is... for someone else.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Something that I've never really understood, and it bugs me when I see someone doing it: Why comment at all on an edition that you don't like? I'm not even talking about "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I mean, why even enter those threads on subjects you're not positively interested in?

Because it is oh so VERY easy to take your anger out on the faceless denizens of the internet. 90% of a message board's population lurks and never posts. If you're moved to post, you're likely to be more passionate in your opinions than the average person, so it stands to reason that many threads will get heated. That's why we have moderators around.

I will poke in the 4e forums from time to time, but not to provoke. I'm happy with Pathfinder, but it's always fun to learn new things. They don't make me want to play 4e any more than I do now, but so what? As long as we're having fun, what do the details matter?

 

[Ettin]

I think that's a misuse of Occam's razor.

(...)

No. I think he was clearly looking for a deeper meaning than simply carrying the other PCs' gear.
Same with his choice of user name.

I think if you are looking for a deeper meaning in a Pathfinder gag and a 4chan meme you probably need some Occam's Razor all up in your business.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

While some folks will claim all trouble lies with one side or another, from the moderator's view, that's just not true.

We are in "Hatfield and McCoy" territory, and have been there for quite some time. Both sides behaved shamefully, and neither is willing to forgive or forget slights, or forego vengeance. So, on occasion, someone on either side will take a pot shot, and start a flareup.

You best have been smilin' when you say that.

Ol' Devil Anse was waitin' by the lonesome river ford,
When he spied a Mackey cap'n, with his pistol and his sword....

The Auld Grump

 

[Umbran]

Unfortunately, there seems to be a dichotomy with regard to edition love. Some seem to believe that to like one edition, you must actively dislike another.

I think there are at least two effects here that partially overlap, neither of which is specific to D&D. They're common to the human condition.

One is that humans are tribal creatures. We draw dividing lines between each other. There's X-fans and Y-fans, and folks will take nearly every opportunity to reinforce the distinction. If you are a Y-fan, you're a Y-fan all the way. You can only be critical of Y to other well-established Y-fans. Otherwise, speaking in less than glowing terms of Y means you are not a Y-fan, and the only other choice is that you're an X-fan, and they are the Enemy....

Another is that these days, being critical is cool. I don't mean giving good critique is cool - that's a skill we need more of, not less. I'm talking about just not liking things, and being vocal about it. It is cool (and easy) to rip things down, especially things others like. Tearing things down is a time-honored way of building yourself up, after all.

 

[DoctorNick]

the usual response is for the 4e fans to say, "No, no, no, that's not really a problem, and we'll tell you why."

Maybe I'm missing something but I really don't see a problem with this at all. I mean, isn't this the definition of discussion? You say maybe people should be willing to hear things they don't like. That door swings both ways, my friend.

 

[pawsplay]

Maybe I'm missing something but I really don't see a problem with this at all. I mean, isn't this the definition of discussion? You say maybe people should be willing to hear things they don't like. That door swings both ways, my friend.

I'm just saying that a conversation has to move in two directions. I don't object to discuss countepoints (ha! check my posting history), I was simply indicating my impression that I am in the minority in finding such discussions interesting.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think there are at least two effects here that partially overlap, neither of which is specific to D&D. They're common to the human condition.

One is that humans are tribal creatures. We draw dividing lines between each other. There's X-fans and Y-fans, and folks will take nearly every opportunity to reinforce the distinction. If you are a Y-fan, you're a Y-fan all the way. You can only be critical of Y to other well-established Y-fans. Otherwise, speaking in less than glowing terms of Y means you are not a Y-fan, and the only other choice is that you're an X-fan, and they are the Enemy....

Common to most trouping primates. (Ook!) We are the Banderlog. Trespass not against us.

Another is that these days, being critical is cool. I don't mean giving good critique is cool - that's a skill we need more of, not less. I'm talking about just not liking things, and being vocal about it. It is cool (and easy) to rip things down, especially things others like. Tearing things down is a time-honored way of building yourself up, after all.

The major difference is that good critique can be used to rebuild the subject in a, hopefully, more robust fashion.

I think that is also a part of the edition war - the perception (accurate, I think) that WotC was doing as much by way of tearing down older styles of play as promoting the new style in the run up to release. That in a demonstrable fashion the opening salvo was not fired by fans of either style (excepting, possibly, the playtesters) but by the folks from WotC itself.

4e fans, and those introduced to gaming by 4e, came into a barrage already fired. The fact that the target was the game and the company promoting that game does not change the fact that they came, blinking, into the middle of an artillery battle.

Like the fans, the game designers themselves behaved like trouping primates, and the we-know-what has been flying hard and fast between the two tribes ever since.

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Maybe I'm missing something but I really don't see a problem with this at all. I mean, isn't this the definition of discussion? You say maybe people should be willing to hear things they don't like. That door swings both ways, my friend.

Because, all to often, it is prefaced by 'No, you're wrong' - when there is no right or wrong in this instance. Just because something is right for you or me does not mean that it is right for Charlie down the street.

And given that Charlie is just as likely to have 'No, you are wrong' as the preamble to why he isn't wrong....

If I perceive something as a problem then it is a problem - do not assume otherwise. It raises my hackles.

In turn the changes made to the system were directed at what someone else saw as a problem, even though I know full well that it wasn't a bug, it was a feature! (Phrasing chosen for ironic effect.)

If you like a system my telling you that you are wrong will raise your hackles in like manner.

The Auld Grump is a long winded sort, isn't he?

 

[Griego]

Because, all to often, it is prefaced by 'No, you're wrong' - when there is no right or wrong in this instance. Just because something is right for you or me does not mean that it is right for Charlie down the street. (snip)

So, if I say that Synnibarr or FATAL is right for me, then there is no criticizing them? No, I disagree, there is good and bad design, the problem is when edition warriors of either "side" choose to ignore criticism of poor design in their game of choice. That's when a thread devolves from a discussion to an edition war, I would say.