D&D General Nobody likes an edition warrior.

[Zardnaar]

Yes. A built-in class benefit is specialization with rolled-up newspapers as clubbing weapons.

Higher-level EWs gain similar weapon specialization with hardcover books.

This is true. It's how Pathfinder won. Big book you can beat people with.

 

[MoonSong]

I think I'd rather have a dub/sub war, myself.

The answer is obvious, watch only the Latin Spanish dubs with subtitles on your local language!.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

” There's no "best" version of D&D. Just the one that's best for you.

Yeah, well, of course a person who liked [x edition] more than [y edition] would say that, wouldn't they?

 

[TerraDave]

4E being a smash hit the 5E playtest announcement was hilarious.

I

By that point we knew it wasn't a smash hit.

And the intra-4e conflict had gotten pretty nasty. I have never anything like it before or since, at least not here.

Which brings us back to the point of this thread.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Of course we all have our preferred editions. But I think that the way we talk about them is important. Whenever we launch into the story of, “I play XYZ games because reasons,” we’re talking about what we prefer, not what is objectively best. It’s about finding the right game for the right person, not about finding the right game period. That’s why, when it comes time to compare systems, I always try to speak in terms of “this edition delivers on these design goals,” not “this other edition is trash because it doesn’t do all the things I want.” There's no "best" version of D&D. Just the one that's best for you.

That is all. Soapbox dismounted.

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I've been avoiding this thread, but it keeps grabbing my attention. So here I go...

I do.



Seriously, I like "Edition Warriors". Why? Because they challenge my preferences and thoughts on various aspects of "The Game". Sure, I disagree with them quite often... I know what I like and why, most of the time. But every now and then, even when an edition warrior is being insulting or just downright rude/abusive, they may say something that has me pause and think... "You know what? I never thought of it that way before...hmmm....". That is ALWAYS a good thing. Me getting hot-under-the-collar from being insulted, offended or whatever is worth it.

Without Edition Warriors we'd all be treading on eggshells, paranoid about saying something "problematic" or "potentially offensive or hurtful", to the point of stagnation. With no advancement into new and interesting possibilities or ideas, rules, classes, etc, ...all for fear of being "called names". Actually, with todays 100/0, Yin/Yang, With us/Against us attitude, being called names is the LEAST of your problems. But I'm not getting into that here, obviously.

An Edition Warrior speaks his/her mind and puts forth why they love their edition...all skyclad and open...with a 'Come at me bro!' attitude. This is, as I said, a GOOD thing! Open discussion about the why's and wherefores of their Edition can yield some very interesting interpretations of rules, ideas or other such RPG related things. I've changed my stance on a few things over the years, and while I still may not like certain aspects of various 'styles' of gameplay, I at least can understand the draw (for example: Powergaming and Build Optimization; horrible things, to my preferences, but I understand why others may love them). A difference of opinion is never a bad thing, at least in regards to RPG's.

So, Edition Warriors, I may not like what you are saying, I may not like how you are saying it, but gosh durnnit if'n I don't appreciate your knowledge of your chosen Edition!

Fight on, brave (if sometimes annoying! Edition Warriors!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[ccooke]

Hiya!

I've been avoiding this thread, but it keeps grabbing my attention. So here I go...

I do.



Seriously, I like "Edition Warriors". Why? Because they challenge my preferences and thoughts on various aspects of "The Game". Sure, I disagree with them quite often... I know what I like and why, most of the time. But every now and then, even when an edition warrior is being insulting or just downright rude/abusive, they may say something that has me pause and think... "You know what? I never thought of it that way before...hmmm....". That is ALWAYS a good thing. Me getting hot-under-the-collar from being insulted, offended or whatever is worth it.

Without Edition Warriors we'd all be treading on eggshells, paranoid about saying something "problematic" or "potentially offensive or hurtful", to the point of stagnation. With no advancement into new and interesting possibilities or ideas, rules, classes, etc, ...all for fear of being "called names". Actually, with todays 100/0, Yin/Yang, With us/Against us attitude, being called names is the LEAST of your problems. But I'm not getting into that here, obviously.

An Edition Warrior speaks his/her mind and puts forth why they love their edition...all skyclad and open...with a 'Come at me bro!' attitude. This is, as I said, a GOOD thing! Open discussion about the why's and wherefores of their Edition can yield some very interesting interpretations of rules, ideas or other such RPG related things. I've changed my stance on a few things over the years, and while I still may not like certain aspects of various 'styles' of gameplay, I at least can understand the draw (for example: Powergaming and Build Optimization; horrible things, to my preferences, but I understand why others may love them). A difference of opinion is never a bad thing, at least in regards to RPG's.

So, Edition Warriors, I may not like what you are saying, I may not like how you are saying it, but gosh durnnit if'n I don't appreciate your knowledge of your chosen Edition!

Fight on, brave (if sometimes annoying! Edition Warriors!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

There's a big difference between an open discussion of preferences and a screaming match between increasingly codified "sides".
I have learned a lot from people with different preferences - and discovered a few things I wouldn't otherwise have known I liked - but I learn a lot more from people who are interested to explore the differences in systems and ideas than I do from people who want to shout the other side down.

I will say this, though - a prerequisite for an edition war argument is that the edition being warred about must have some really dedicated fans. If I see people arguing vehemently like that over two editions, I'm generally going to conclude that both options have value and are worth investigating. Preferably with people who aren't shouting, though!

 

[Emerikol]

One of the interesting aspects of forums is that without conflict they die. Conflict drives views. If there is a hot debate going on in a particular thread, everyone is checking it frequently. If everyone is just talking about happy pie in the sky stuff, it dies out pretty quick.

I agree with a poster above who said we learn more from conflict. I agree. I tend to seek out political shows where they have both sides battling it out. Now it doesn't mean I always come away satisfied but the chance I'll learn something is far greater. The same for game debates.

If some of the people playing a style I don't prefer didn't post here I honestly would never have heard of it. Honestly. Where I live and the circles I move in, there aren't many people playing like they do. I would be oblivious even to the concept. So it's a good thing to hear others opinions. It's like culture exchange.

Now we have referees here who will separate us if it gets too hot. But constructive debate is the best and it does drive views to this sight. They'd never want it to go away if they were wanting to make money and sell ads.

 

[Hussar]

Edition wars go away when people stop conflating personal preference for objective quality. "I don't like X" is pretty much the end of a conversation. You might dive down the rabbit hole of why someone doesn't like X, but, it's not really going to go anywhere. I don't like broccoli. Telling me how yummy you think broccoli is, isn't going to change my mind. I have no problems with you eating broccoli, but, don't give it to me.

The problem is, people can't leave it there. "I don't like (edition X) therefore (edition X) is bad" is where edition wars start.

The true irony of most of the 4e edition war talking points is that they exist in 5e without any problems. I honestly find that one of the funniest things in the world and so par for the course for so many things.

 

[ccooke]

The true irony of most of the 4e edition war talking points is that they exist in 5e without any problems. I honestly find that one of the funniest things in the world and so par for the course for so many things.

So, I think 5e has an absolutely massive debt to 4e. While mechanically it may not look it, it takes a lot of the core ideas in 4e and develops them into something different. In both editions, there is a central design that all of the mechanics conform to.

However, those central designs - and the way the mechanics conform - are very different. For all I love 5e, I can completely understand people who love 4e feeling that it's missing things. Because fundamentally, compared to 4e, it is - the central design of 5e does not have the precise balance that characterises 4e, the class design does not have the symmetry that flows from that, and the sets of abilities don't interlink in the same way to make for deep tactical battlemap use. The core design of 5e emphasises different things (which, personally, I prefer), so while it draws on a huge amount of ideas from 4e, it does so differently enough that it isn't really the same.

The unasked question¹ here is why didn't we get a continuation of the edition wars with 5e. I think that it's a combination of most people being sick of them, 5e actually doing a decent enough job of melding ideas from 4e in a way that looks more of an evolution of 3e that a number of the points of contention don't really work any more and - importantly - a much more positive introduction from WotC. Having a giant playtest, spending much less (sadly, not no) time trashing the previous editions, being very open about the design and changing things based on feedback.

That and - however you decide to put it - 5e ending up as an absolutely great mass-appeal ruleset.

¹ Unless someone asked it and I somehow skipped the discussion, in which case... oops

Edited to add footnote

 

[Zardnaar]

So, I think 5e has an absolutely massive debt to 4e. While mechanically it may not look it, it takes a lot of the core ideas in 4e and develops them into something different. In both editions, there is a central design that all of the mechanics conform to.

However, those central designs - and the way the mechanics conform - are very different. For all I love 5e, I can completely understand people who love 4e feeling that it's missing things. Because fundamentally, compared to 4e, it is - the central design of 5e does not have the precise balance that characterises 4e, the class design does not have the symmetry that flows from that, and the sets of abilities don't interlink in the same way to make for deep tactical battlemap use. The core design of 5e emphasises different things (which, personally, I prefer), so while it draws on a huge amount of ideas from 4e, it does so differently enough that it isn't really the same.

The unasked question¹ here is why didn't we get a continuation of the edition wars with 5e. I think that it's a combination of most people being sick of them, 5e actually doing a decent enough job of melding ideas from 4e in a way that looks more of an evolution of 3e that a number of the points of contention don't really work any more and - importantly - a much more positive introduction from WotC. Having a giant playtest, spending much less (sadly, not no) time trashing the previous editions, being very open about the design and changing things based on feedback.

That and - however you decide to put it - 5e ending up as an absolutely great mass-appeal ruleset.

¹ Unless someone asked it and I somehow skipped the discussion, in which case... oops

Edited to add footnote

The big problem and unsolvable to salvage 4E was the class design/power and role structure. Everything came back to that IMHO.

People may not be able to articulate it's(4E is an MMO) what they're really saying is the hate the powers.

4E isn't an MMO but encounter powers kinda come from it. So yeah powers and class design.