So it's the old "Edition War" excuse to dismiss people?

[Tony Vargas]

So anytime we say anything negative about 4th edition in relevance to a discussion it's labeled as a quick "Edition War" and we are demonized in threads.

Really? After 4e has been persecuted to it's grave, you feel criticism of 4e is being persecuted?

I know the truth isn't always easy to here but sometimes the things that are said is the truth and not "edition warring".

"The truth is the first casualty of war," it's said, and the edition wars were no exception. (As an aside, it's worth noting, lying is not against the CoC but calling someone a liar /is/, even if they're demonstrably lying, it's still an insult.)

All I mentioned was the fact that if 4th edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't be play testing 5th edition. The bottom line is this is a fact

We can speculate about the factors that led to the premature move to 5e. Quality of 4e could be one of them, except that, in the technical sense of what makes a high-quality game, 4e is the best version of D&D to date, and not by a narrow margin - that's a fact, if you evaluate the various editions dispassionately. There are many valid, if not exactly logical, reasons to dislike 4e, though, mostly dealing with tone, deviation from tradition (nostalgia), and, of course, the all-important-to-the-individual personal preference - as well as some more emotional rationalizations that don't hold together under scrutiny. Whatever the reasons, between the rejection of 4e by the so-called "h4ters" and the unrealistic revenue goals set it by Hasbro, 4e was not sufficiently successful in a business sense, and WotC is taking the risk of further fragmenting and alienating the community with yet another rapid rev-roll.

It's not a great situation, and making the best of it would require rational discourse - not snide pronouncements or other forms of edition warring. "It didn't sell well" isn't a constructive criticism of 4e that can be used to build a better 5e. Neither is general dislike, baseless innuendo, personal attacks, unverifiable anecdotal evidence, or general malice, baiting & trolling. Those may have been useful weapons in the editions wars, but they're of no help in building 5e. We have to beat those swords into plow-sheers and try to do something constructive. That's a major change of tone and strategy from the edition wars, and it's all too easy to backslide.


The "bottom line" is that the edition wars are over, and those who despised 4e have won. 4e is dead. It will never be supported again (thanks the restrictiveness of the GSL). Rather than continue to dance and spit on it's grave, try winning gracefully. Show some dignity and good sportsmanship in victory.





Drowbane: You don't think strident and persistent denouncement of a product couldn't, perhaps, impact sales?

 

[B.T.]

Really? After 4e has been persecuted to it's grave, you feel criticism of 4e is being persecuted?

I think describing a game as being "persecuted" may be a bit too much.

We have to beat those swords into plow-sheers and try to do something constructive.

Like what? I'm curious to see how 5e turns out (and I certainly hope it is a product that I want to play), but at this point, I think it might be better if the brand died out for a few years and was sold to a company who cared about it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think describing a game as being "persecuted" may be a bit too much.

The topic is a bunch of nerds disagreeing about the relative merits of different editions of the same game in internet discussion forums - and it's a being called a "War."

Like what? I'm curious to see how 5e turns out (and I certainly hope it is a product that I want to play),

Constructive discourse that might touch on past editions would obviously be the merits of those editions -thing that they did 'right' or that delivered desirable gains - like the popular setting of 2e, modular multi-classing of 3e, or class-balance of 4e. Likewise, the problems that past editions have had are worth examing, to avoid repeating them - such as, classic D&D's 'serial balance' (magic-user unplayably weak at 1st, 'balanced' by being overpowered at higher levles) or it's needlessly diverse and inconsistent subsystems, or 3e actually making casters even more overpowered, or the broader line associated with AD&D being over-extended to the point that TSR actually failed as a going concern, or the 'feat-tax'/math-kludges of 4e, or the proliferation of worthless 'trap feats' in both 3e and 4e, or even the ill-advised use of the GSL to try to bully 3pps into abandoning the d20 OGL, among many others.

I think it might be better if the brand died out for a few years and was sold to a company who cared about it.

First part of that would be consistent with Hasbro's past actions. It has often shelved under-performing properties for a time. The second is not - Hasbro's philosophy on IP seems to be adverse to selling it off are farming it out, something like, if I remember the quote correctly: "If someone else is willing to pay money for it, we should be able to make money with it, ourselves."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

@Morrus , I actually think its only two or three people saying that 4E is not an RPG/D&D, they just keep coming back for more .

Since this is a meta thread, this is something I've wondered about myself. I see some of the same people skirting the edge of the rules, usually staying inside them, but managing nonetheless to tear down conversation after conversation. It seldom quite reaches overt threadcapping, but it manages to derail the thread. It seldom quite reaches personal attack, but manages rile people up. Not infrequently, it gets a topic closed. It looks an awful lot like trolling from my perspective, with the apparent aim to stop certain conversations from happening at all.

I kind of got the impression that it was stuff like that which got the different editions segregated into different forums in the first place.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Really? After 4e has been persecuted to it's grave, you feel criticism of 4e is being persecuted?

He is out of line, in my opinion (and the mods, apparently).

"The truth is the first casualty of war," it's said, and the edition wars were no exception. (As an aside, it's worth noting, lying is not against the CoC but calling someone a liar /is/, even if they're demonstrably lying, it's still an insult.)

I think it's okay to say "you're wrong" though. And show why they're wrong. You can say "you're wrong, my experiences don't hold true to your post. Here's what I experienced." You can say "you're wrong, the mechanics work this way, and the thing you said doesn't exist actually does, and works this way."

The reason you can't call someone a liar is because it falls under the "assigning intentions" part of the CoC, and I'm glad it's there. I have a friend (and a player) who thinks this forum is way out of line for moderating as much as it does (and thus doesn't post here), but I'm very glad the forum takes the stance it does. He's not going to really add much to the discussion by calling people out and insulting them, and calling their opinions [enter vulgar statement here].

We can speculate about the factors that led to the premature move to 5e. Quality of 4e could be one of them, except that, in the technical sense of what makes a high-quality game, 4e is the best version of D&D to date, and not by a narrow margin - that's a fact, if you evaluate the various editions dispassionately.

Well, this is subjective, as much as people hate hearing that. "High quality game" has to be defined somehow, and that's where you can make it more objective. But, I can guarantee you that "high quality" to you will be very different than many others here.

Is it well designed? Yes. I'd say it's closer to accomplishing its goal than any other edition, but I can only state that as my opinion. Saying that you can somehow objectively do it based on a "technical sense" of a "high-quality game" as long as you evaluate it "dispassionately" is pretty off, from where I'm sitting. You can definitely evaluate how well it fulfills certain design goals, but whether or not those goals are "high-quality" in a "technical sense" is up for grabs (same as for 3.X, etc.).

There are many valid, if not exactly logical, reasons to dislike 4e, though, mostly dealing with tone, deviation from tradition (nostalgia), and, of course, the all-important-to-the-individual personal preference - as well as some more emotional rationalizations that don't hold together under scrutiny.

Well, this isn't exactly striking me as non-edition warlike. If people dislike 4e, it's "not exactly logical" for them to? It's "emotional rationalizations that don't hold together under scrutiny"? Again, from where I'm sitting, you contribute quite a bit to the war on these boards.

It's not a great situation, and making the best of it would require rational discourse - not snide pronouncements or other forms of edition warring. "It didn't sell well" isn't a constructive criticism of 4e that can be used to build a better 5e.

Agreed, which is why I did report certain posts. Those types of statements aren't productive and they're completely uncalled for.

Neither is general dislike, baseless innuendo, personal attacks, unverifiable anecdotal evidence, or general malice, baiting & trolling. Those may have been useful weapons in the editions wars, but they're of no help in building 5e. We have to beat those swords into plow-sheers and try to do something constructive. That's a major change of tone and strategy from the edition wars, and it's all too easy to backslide.

I'd say that general dislike is valid to voice, but not really productive. Saying "it just didn't click with me" is fine. But, where do you go from there? Sometimes that's all there is to it, and there's nowhere to go, and saying so is valid. It's a feeling. But, no, it's not productive. Unverifiable anecdotal evidence is extremely valid in my opinion, though, and also productive. Talking about house rules (especially common ones), how your group(s) have played the game, etc. all help us see bits and pieces of the community. I wish they didn't get such a bad rap on these boards.

But, the baseless innuendo, personal attacks, general malice, baiting, and trolling needs to stop. Civility needs to be paramount here, if we're to be productive and escape any edition warring. I hope we can get there, and I hope the mods stay on top of it. As always, play what you like

 

[B.T.]

The topic is a bunch of nerds disagreeing about the relative merits of different editions of the same game in internet discussion forums - and it's a being called a "War."

Well, that certainly sounds better than "edition slapfight."

Constructive discourse that might touch on past editions would obviously be the merits of those editions -thing that they did 'right' or that delivered desirable gains - like the popular setting of 2e, modular multi-classing of 3e, or class-balance of 4e. Likewise, the problems that past editions have had are worth examing, to avoid repeating them - such as, classic D&D's 'serial balance' (magic-user unplayably weak at 1st, 'balanced' by being overpowered at higher levles) or it's needlessly diverse and inconsistent subsystems, or 3e actually making casters even more overpowered, or the broader line associated with AD&D being over-extended to the point that TSR actually failed as a going concern, or the 'feat-tax'/math-kludges of 4e, or the proliferation of worthless 'trap feats' in both 3e and 4e, or even the ill-advised use of the GSL to try to bully 3pps into abandoning the d20 OGL, among many others.

That's fair enough, but I'm not sure we'd be covering new ground. Most of the flaws of 3e and 4e are well-known; it's just that people are unwilling to admit flaws in the system.

I mean, you have people on the Paizo boards who still don't acknowledge the fighter-wizard imbalance. No point in arguing with them, since their arguments come down to "I haven't seen it, so it doesn't exist" and "the DM should change the rules anyhow."

 

[Harlock]

[snip]... in the technical sense of what makes a high-quality game, 4e is the best version of D&D to date, and not by a narrow margin - that's a fact, if you evaluate the various editions dispassionately...

I have seen this said before, perhaps even by you, and it surprises me that you feel what makes a high quality game is objective and not subjective. What's more, it's made even more ironic by the fact that you use that to prop up your own subjective bias for a particular edition. Merely an observation from someone fairly dispassionate about D&D, but at least hopeful that WotC can achieve its stated goal of unifying the fan base, though at this point I am not certain I would play it as I am enjoying a different system thoroughly.

 

[Fifth Element]

4e is dead. It will never be supported again (thanks the restrictiveness of the GSL)

This is only true to the extent that 1E , 2E, OD&D etc. are "dead". And yet these games are still supported by fans and third-party publishers alike. 4E will not die. There's at least one "retro"clone in the works already.

On topic, the OP's premise is false. Some criticisms of 4E are met with "please no edition warring", but those are the ones with posts like, well, the OP's. It takes a biased eye to see only those, and none of the legitimate discussions of the edition in which no claims of edition wars are made.

 

[Someone]

I also have a sincere question: What non-combat rules or mechanics does 4e not have that previous editions did have?

As a matter of fact, as a compliment to the above quote, do the following excercise: Take a character sheet of any edition. Now pick a black marker and cross out anything that has to do more or less directly with:

a) killing things
b) taking those thing's stuff.

You'll end with a black sheet with only your name perhaps your Diplomacy score and maybe your aligment (but only if it's 4e because in other editions it determined what spells could affect you). People forget what kind of game we're talking about*. It's not like D&D has even been designed as a narrative game.



*I say this without decrying it. D&D is what it is. And it's very good at it.

 

[Lwaxy]

Back to topic, please, this is not about 4e, this is about edition warring perception.