D&D 4E So all these wacky arguments are still about 4e, right?

[Halivar]

The idea that 4e is an evolution is also offensive. IMO, 4e simply appeals to a different play-style.

But see, this is the very heart of edition warring: being offended by the preferences or opinions of others, whether they be for or against any game in particular.

If we're going to talk about games civilly, we must check our sensitivity at the door or there is simply no point is discussing. We're just engaging in thoughtless, rationalized-after-the-fact tribalism.

 

[Phototoxin]

But EN world is a sensible part of the internet with mostly sensible people. I'm sure I'll give 5E a look but am not sure if I'm going to switch as my group didn't like the playests

 

[dmgorgon]

This seems more like a shouting match than a debate, to be honest. It seems less, "the debate would not happen if WotC recognized playstyle differences", and more "the debate wouldn't happen if WotC did exactly what I say on every... single.... point....".

Yes, it has become a shouting match because people feel like their voice is falling on deaf ears.

I have to admit I was really encouraged by D&D Next when they introduced optional resting rules. They started off the play-test on the right foot and captured my attention. I just hope that most of the problems and shouting matches we have seen are simply the result of folks not understanding the nature of the play-test. My hope is that the developers are aware of these issues, but they are just keeping us in the dark for good reason.

Or, those things could be core, and your preferred stuff can be in the optional bucket.

Sure, we both should expect that.

IMO, what is default or core is largely irreverent. All I care is that I have the options I need to bring my play-style to life. I do know that if there are no alternative options that remove things like DoaM, Auto-Healing, Inspirational Healing, Director Mechanics, etc... then I'll have to create my own house rules. At that point I'll have to evaluate the viability of the game to determine if I'm really just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

 

[dmgorgon]

But see, this is the very heart of edition warring: being offended by the preferences or opinions of others, whether they be for or against any game in particular.

If we're going to talk about games civilly, we must check our sensitivity at the door or there is simply no point is discussing. We're just engaging in thoughtless, rationalized-after-the-fact tribalism.

Well folks are passionate about their editions. To be truly civil, we would do well to check our sensitivities and refrain from provocative statements that incite offense.

 

[ExploderWizard]

IMO, what is default or core is largely irreverent. All I care is that I have the options I need to bring my play-style to life. I do know that if there are no alternative options that remove things like DoaM, Auto-Healing, Inspirational Healing, Director Mechanics, etc... then I'll have to create my own house rules. At that point I'll have to evaluate the viability of the game to determine if I'm really just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Where that fine line exists will be different for many people and will probably end up having both a positive and negative impact on sales & general adoption of the system.

 

[Dragonblade]

Not all those things vacuum-fluctuated into D&D during 4e's development; the roots of them can often be found in 3e and even earlier. Really, it's more of a playstyle war than an edition war.

This is it, exactly. Emphasis mine.

The edition war was really a proxy for irreconcilable play-style differences. I honestly don't a see resolution other than creating two different game lines to appeal to the different styles.

I'd say you almost need a game line designed around a 1e/3e simulationist style that focuses on classic OSR style elements of strategic resource management, and "combat as war", but that cleans up and streamlines the rules bloat of 3e. Call it "D&D Classic".

Then you have a second game line designed around the 2e/4e paradigm where the focus is not on dungeon crawls, but on story-driven narratives, and set piece tactical combats. Call it "D&D Tactics".

Where it makes sense, try to standardize elements across the two versions like in monster design, so that players and DMs who want to, can borrow elements from the other product line with a minimum of house ruling to make it work.

This is what I would do with D&D instead of trying to make a compromise edition that no one wants. Give each camp what they want.

 

[Halivar]

Well folks are passionate about their editions. To be truly civil, we would do well to check our sensitivities and refrain from provocative statements that incite offense.

When someone's very opinion or ideas are offensive to some, it is unreasonable to expect them to remain silent. The ones taking offense are in the wrong, IMHO (again, regardless of position).

EDIT: Of course this excepts histrionic and emotional rhetoric, but this usually springs IMXP from being inappropriately offended anyway.

 

[Emerikol]

Where it makes sense, try to standardize elements across the two versions like in monster design, so that players and DMs who want to, can borrow elements from the other product line with a minimum of house ruling to make it work.

This is what I would do with D&D instead of trying to make a compromise edition that no one wants. Give each camp what they want.

I would love that approach.


Personally the reason many 3e things were ignored but hated in 4e was that most people view splat books as optional rules for whoever wants them. You have this solid core book and you pick and choose the splat book options you want. My group wouldn't touch Bo9S with a ten foot pole but so what. We just didn't use that book. We still had a functional game.

The battle is what goes into the core books and how much of a job is going to be required to houserule out what you don't like.

I disagree that 2e was more like 4e but that is beside the point. I don't want silence to imply agreement on that point is all.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, its playstyles no editions.

Basically D&D is a game with no hard background. The group chooses its themes, foci, and style of play. As the editions went on, the games started supporting and unsupporting different styles and themes. High vs Low fantasy. Gritty vs Herioc. Multiple type of magic vs 2. Small #s vs Big #s. Mind vs Grid vs Mixed vs Whatever is approriate.

It is like sports team. As players grow old or are traded, the team changes. And fans have their own favorite era. AND at the same time, they see other teams and wish their team could be like other teams. And if they get it, they will fight for the team to stay the same way they like it. D&D fandom is just Sport team fandom with dice and elves.

 

[dmgorgon]

When someone's very opinion or ideas are offensive to some, it is unreasonable to expect them to remain silent. The ones taking offense are in the wrong, IMHO (again, regardless of position).

EDIT: Of course this excepts histrionic and emotional rhetoric, but this usually springs IMXP from being inappropriately offended anyway.

Provided the statement isn't chauvinistic and/or discriminatory towards a particular edition and its players I agree.