D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[FrogReaver]

This.

This I 100 % agree with. I endorse this entirely. I think someone who doesn't endorse something and someone who does endorse that something (especially friends) should be able to have respectful, functional conversation about it. This can be a corrective process where misconceptions are resolved and/or it can be someone removing an information deficit that the other party was working off of. Maybe one party softens their positions or changes it entirely (or perhaps both soften in different ways). Its constructive.

But "voicing your opinions in a respectable manner" are not what we're talking about here.

Voicing opinions in a respectable manner is part of what we are talking about. No one ever said - it's okay to say you hate something so long as it's done respectfully (other than me). Instead it was - "all you can ever say is you love something - never that you hate something"

 

[Charlaquin]

I can say I hate banana popsicles. Doesn't mean I'm trying to force you to hate them.

There is a huge difference between “I hate banana popsicles” and “banana popsicles are disgusting.”

The problem is when there's a zero sum situation and it's everyone either gets banana flavored popsicles or everyone gets cherry ones. I'll be complaining the whole time if we get stuck with banana flavored ones no matter how much you love them.

That’s a false equivalence because it was never “everyone has to play 3.5 or everyone has to play 4e.” Thanks to the existence of Pathfinder, it was only very briefly even “3.5 of the only supported edition or 4e is the only supported edition.” And these days, when 4e is no longer supported, the analogy is even less apt. It’s more like 4e detractors are still going on about that time that mom came home with only banana popsicles and you had to ride your bike all the way to the store to get cherry ones, 10 years later.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The problem is we don't each live in separate bubbles. It's like if you sit down at a table and had to eat what everyone else was eating. If everyone voted on naga chili that's all you could have. You'd be very outspoken about your hatred for it and justifiably so.

The problem is that we do live in almost separate bubbles. I almost certainly have never met you, I almost certainly will never meet you, and I'm extremely unlikely to even play at the same table as someone who plays with you. The only place we are ever likely to interact is this message board so far as I am aware.

The D&D community in particular is very full of separate bubbles, with lots of tables almost being their own bubbles.

The problem is when there's a zero sum situation and it's everyone either gets banana flavored popsicles or everyone gets cherry ones. I'll be complaining the whole time if we get stuck with banana flavored ones no matter how much you love them.

The problem is it is not a zero sum situation. In the last week I've played multiple different RPGs. And 4e didn't cause the WotC ninjas to break into your house and steal all your old 3.5 books. I didn't stop playing 4e when what I consider the vastly inferior 5e was published even though that flooded the market. If your group almost immediately stopped playing 3.5 for 4e then that was a matter of your personal bubble not liking 3.5.

The only D&D game that new groups have a hard time setting up if that's what you want to play is 4e - and that's because D&D Insider and the Compendium have closed down and so the only way to get a character builder is the illicit offline one.

Which means that you are literally inventing connections and zero sum games to justify your spreading hatred.

 

[Garthanos]

I can’t give you a comprehensive list of everything I think a human is capable of, and it is not reasonable to ask me to do so.

In part that is the point. Why should I be asking you this in session zero and the reason is human understanding is incredibly variable. You cant even given me ballpark on broad categories of things nor can I not within taking large amounts of time effort.
additionally even with the vague book method.

Do you include legendary figures in your thinking? For instance Atlanta Beowulf Cu Cuhlain or just regular people the ones just like a Dragonborn you knew in Highschool for instance.

You’re a human (as far as I know), your own human experience will be a far more reliable metric than any list I could give you.

And almost certain that without something to help mine would be utterly different than yours... we have humans that think elder berries reduce aging because they are antioxidants

 

[Manbearcat]

Voicing opinions in a respectable manner is part of what we are talking about.

Its not a part of what I've been talking about. I've had plenty of functional conversations (corrective even) with people who either didn't like 4e D&D or didn't play it. I'm not talking about that.

Again, I'm talking about "active hate." I'm talking about:

• Relentlessly flooding message board topics with active hate, drive-bys, and misinformation. For years.
• Standing in line next to people at nerd movies and dealing with active, unsolicited hate.
• VLOG book burning.
• Social media harassment.
• Websites and Blogs which are overwhelmingly dedicated to screeds and invective.
• Harassing people or being a willful disruptive force at gaming stores or cons where folks are either trying to purchase materials or trying to play the game.

None of that is "voicing opinions in a respectable manner." That is a campaign of willful disruption and hate...for a very specific end.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is a huge difference between “I hate banana popsicles” and “banana popsicles are disgusting.”

I don't think so.

That’s a false equivalence because it was never “everyone has to play 3.5 or everyone has to play 4e.” Thanks to the existence of Pathfinder, it was only very briefly even “3.5 of the only supported edition or 4e is the only supported edition.”

Possibly on an objective level - but not on an emotional one. And probably not even completely on an objective level. As we all understand, playing fairly unpopular rulesets makes it extradionarily hard to find players to play that ruleset with. By moving to a vastly different new version that player X didn't like - such a player could take the view that such a game and direction was an existential threat to him being able to play his preferred game, especially if it grew popular enough. I think the lashing out was justified. That's why I blame the game - it was not designed to accommodate such players at all - which is what drove the extreme hatred that we seen at that time. IMO.

And these days, when 4e is no longer supported, the analogy is even less apt. It’s more like 4e detractors are still going on about that time that mom came home with only banana popsicles and you had to ride your bike all the way to the store to get cherry ones, 15 years later.

To them it's a tale of caution.

But more importantly - not everyone who looks back at 4e and admits things weren't perfect is a 4e detractor. I liked 4e. It was a great game for it's time and very innovative. In hindsight it's easier to see flaws though, but just because I can see flaws in it doesn't mean I don't think it was a good game.

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem is that we do live in almost separate bubbles. I almost certainly have never met you, I almost certainly will never meet you, and I'm extremely unlikely to even play at the same table as someone who plays with you. The only place we are ever likely to interact is this message board so far as I am aware.

The D&D community in particular is very full of separate bubbles, with lots of tables almost being their own bubbles.



The problem is it is not a zero sum situation. In the last week I've played multiple different RPGs. And 4e didn't cause the WotC ninjas to break into your house and steal all your old 3.5 books. I didn't stop playing 4e when what I consider the vastly inferior 5e was published even though that flooded the market. If your group almost immediately stopped playing 3.5 for 4e then that was a matter of your personal bubble not liking 3.5.

The only D&D game that new groups have a hard time setting up if that's what you want to play is 4e - and that's because D&D Insider and the Compendium have closed down and so the only way to get a character builder is the illicit offline one.

Which means that you are literally inventing connections and zero sum games to justify your spreading hatred.

And I thought we were talking about the past, regarding when the wars first began. It was a zero sum game then - or at least seemed so to many people. That's the explanation for why it got as heated as it did. IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

Its not a part of what I've been talking about. I've had plenty of functional conversations (corrective even) with people who either didn't like 4e D&D or didn't play it. I'm not talking about that.

Again, I'm talking about "active hate." I'm talking about:

• Relentlessly flooding message board topics with active hate, drive-bys, and misinformation. For years.
• Standing in line next to people at nerd movies and dealing with active, unsolicited hate.
• VLOG book burning.
• Social media harassment.
• Websites and Blogs which are overwhelmingly dedicated to screeds and invective.
• Harassing people or being a willful disruptive force at gaming stores or cons where folks are either trying to purchase materials or trying to play the game.

None of that is "voicing opinions in a respectable manner." That is a campaign of willful disruption and hate...for a very specific end.

I'm not concerned about flooding message boards. People flood message boards because they are passionate about the topic. When different passionate people come to a similar realization but not all at the same time you see message boards repeat the same discussions again and again.

I am against social media harrassment
I am against getting in someones face in person and displaying active hate
I am against harresing people in public and willful disruptive forece and game stores and cons

If that's what you mean by hate then I agree. That's not all hate means though.

 

[Charlaquin]

In part that is the point. Why should I be asking you this in session zero and the reason is human understanding is incredibly variable. You cant even given me ballpark on broad categories of things nor can I not within taking large amounts of time effort.
additionally even with the vague book method.

Do you include legendary figures in your thinking? For instance Atlanta Beowulf Cu Cuhlain or just regular people the ones just like a Dragonborn you knew in Highschool for instance.

And almost certain that without something to help mine would be utterly different than yours... we have humans that think elder berries reduce aging because they are antioxidants

And so, skills would probably be able to achieve different results in your game than in mine. And that’s ok! This is the fundamental shift in thinking between 4e and 5e. Consistency between tables is no longer the goal. 5e embraces the fact that each group’s experience will be unique and tailored to their participants’ interests and preferences. There is no objective standard for what skills are capable of nor should there be. You are no longer bound by someone else’s idea of what a skill should be able to do. It’s your game, do with it as you will.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And I thought we were talking about the past, regarding when the wars first began. It was a zero sum game then - or at least seemed so to many people. That's the explanation for why it got as heated as it did. IMO.

They were categorically wrong about that. And should have known that not everyone played the same game and the WotC Ninjas weren't on the way.

To me with hindsight it feels as if it was GamerGate v0.1. And people actively enjoying hating.