4e: The final word

[Phaezen]

How many Edition Warring Gamers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Three - one to change the lightbulb, one to decry that this lightbulb as not being a "real" lightbulb, and one to complain that previous versions of lightbulbs were much better.

Oh, and a dragon. Just 'cos.

But 4 changing the lightbulb is so much cooler. And fun. Also, how is that a dragon? You did the wings all wrong, it could never fly looking like that

Phaezen

 

[delericho]

Damn him for trying to end division.

You're never going to end division by starting threads saying, "Your opinion is invalid and wrong, because...", regardless of what the opinion is, or what follows the because.

If you really want to end the edition wars, the way to do it is to stop starting threads like these, and absolutely refuse to reply to threads started by 'the other side'. You may not like giving 'the other side' an open forum to say whatever they want, but you'll find that in short order the threads wither and die, because the discussion (such as it is) needs both sides present to give it life.

In other words, while trying the end division is a noble aim, posting this thread to do so has had the opposite effect.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How many Edition Warring Gamers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Three - one to change the lightbulb, one to decry that this lightbulb as not being a "real" lightbulb, and one to complain that previous versions of lightbulbs were much better.

Oh, and a dragon. Just 'cos.

What about the one saying that this lightbulb is the bestest ever?
Or the one saying that candles are the only true way to lighten up a room, and all others are just glaring imitations of the real light?
Or the one saying that the sun is the only true way to create light, and everything else is just a pale imitation of the real thing?

 

[rounser]

I'm not talking about people not liking it, criticizing it, or not purchasing it. I'm talking about severe disrespect to the writers and designers by pretending that the community (as powerful, important, and vital as they are) retains more authorship than the authors.

Authorship of 4E, sure. Authorship of D&D as a whole, no way, especially in the case of a game which requires so much personal investment from it's players.

So I think that your statement makes little sense in the context of 30 years of D&D history, except in a technical legal sense.

 

[Andor]

You're never going to end division by starting threads saying, "Your opinion is invalid and wrong, because...", regardless of what the opinion is, or what follows the because.

If you really want to end the edition wars, the way to do it is to stop starting threads like these, and absolutely refuse to reply to threads started by 'the other side'. You may not like giving 'the other side' an open forum to say whatever they want, but you'll find that in short order the threads wither and die, because the discussion (such as it is) needs both sides present to give it life.

In other words, while trying the end division is a noble aim, posting this thread to do so has had the opposite effect.

What are you talking about? I didn't tell anybody they were wrong! Arrghhh!

Look, when D&D 5e comes out some people are going to hate it and complain it's not D&D. This will happen even if it comes with a portable holoprojector, a pet dragon, and a never ending pez dispenser that looks like E.G.Gygax. This is the nature of fandom.

Now why does WotC get to call 4e D&D? Because they legally own the trademark, production rights and copyright. They do this under domestic and international law. Domestic law has the backing of the U.S. goverment and if this fundamentally silly arguement is carried all the way to 'You and what army?' the answer is the U.S. Army. As Peter Griffen said "That's a good army."

So to argue that WotC can't decide to call whatever they like D&D is pointless philosophical babble.

What WotC cannot do it tell you what to play when you invite your friends over to play D&D. You can play 4e, you can play 3e, you can play the Red Box basic edition, you can play strip twister for all I or anyone else cares. What you call D&D in your own house is up to you.

Word.

 

[justanobody]

I'm not talking about people not liking it, criticizing it, or not purchasing it. I'm talking about severe disrespect to the writers and designers by pretending that the community (as powerful, important, and vital as they are) retains more authorship than the authors. Yes, there is an emotional claim that is completely valid. I'm not asking you to be soft on them. Say what you like, but be decent and respectable.

Because it's just absurd. Let me demonstrate the absurdity of it:

Kanye West releases a new album on the 25th called "808s & Heartbreak", which is going to be more of a pop album than his usual rap albums. He's doing this as a rebellion against the pop stereotype that just because it's pop, it's bad (tell that to Michael Jackson). I, however, don't like this new direction, and it offends the sensibilities of my experience with Kanye West.

Therefor, it is not Kanye West!

[PS: The new album is sick ]

1. I have equal respect for Dave and Gary. Likewise for Wies, Hickman, Greenwood, Salavtore, Moore, etc.
2. None of these and even combined, have authored more D&D material than the 30+ years worth of DMs out there that were NOT a part of the company making and selling D&D products. So if you are trying to say who wrote more, it was and will always be the community.
3. I give the material every bit of respect it deserves, and that just happens to carry back to it. Look at Uwe Boil and the flak he has got because people don't like his movies. You create garbage, and people will treat your creations like garbage, and probably question why you are still allowed to be creating the garbage. That is the way the world works. Consumers have every right to state they are displeased with the material and blame the one who wrote it. Just like anyone that doesn't like Harry Potter can attribute it to JKR and her bad writing skills. Just like LW was criticized for her bad management skills, etc. It is called accountability. Randy B. has made several forum posts on the WotC forums and even in Insider updates thingy, that takes responsibility for what the consumer sees as a screw up. From that there is now an Editorial Calendar for DDI. Randy noticed something went wrong and chose to fix it.
   
   Does that mean the consumers shouldn't criticize? Does that mean they should sugar-coat their criticisms? Does it mean every criticism will be answered like randy putting together the calendar?
   
   The answer to all those questions is No.
   
   Just because a critic gives you a bad review, doesn't mean they are showing disrpect, they are doing their job of giving something and someone for the efforts on that thing a critical review. Even giving a good review does not mean they respect the subject of the review.
   
   Mearls has been around here lately and criticized about a few things and some kitten scared him. Criticisms may dishearten the authors of D&D, but it shouldn't send them into depression if they are professionals. Mearls is still working on fixing things in his replacement in the position Andy Collins stepped down or switched with him for I am sure.
   
   So has anything changed in the relationship between critic and author? I don't think so, and authors shouldn't need to be pampered and should be able to handle a critical review because it comes with the job.
4. I have no idea what your little music thing has to do with D&D as they are not even close to being able to discuss in this situation as critics of music are not allowed to rewrite the music and make it their own, like those who houserule D&D to fix problems with the game they find, or just adjust things for there own groups.

What I find is absurd is the need for sugar-coating a criticism because someone might just get upset that everyone does not hold their creation in the highest of praise.

If I ever read my copy of Pathfinder I downloaded a while back and forgot about until I was cleaning up my flash-drive, and think it is a pile of crap, then I will state it is a pile of crap. Paizo will probably not care either way what a single person thinks, but when masses state there is problems, then they wull likely alter the design in order to get the masses to more agree with wanting to purchase the product and more likely to see future products as being something worth purchasing as well.

There is the real crux of what a criticism is and does, be it light or heavy handed.

You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

Maybe the original, before "please" replaced "fool", would be a much better quote to end this post with, but I think the "please" version works quite well to deliver the point.

 

[Mallus]

Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson wrote D&D.

The initial version, yes. And for that they deserve a lot of credit.

Look, either D&D is the actually meaningful artistic work of its actual authors...

D&D is a game, not a "meaningful artistic work". Calling D&D a "meaningful artist work" stretches the definition of "artistic work" beyond it's breaking point, and I say this as a guy who has no problem calling a urinal on display in a museum art.

 

[The Highway Man]

WotC is not evil for producing 4e.

WotC is ultimately responsible of the divisions many fans of the game want to see end, not by publishing 4E per se, but because of the way 4E was sold to the fans.

You can't basically tell people who like 3rd ed that they are irrelevant to the future of D&D and that changes will happen from the top-down whether they like them or not, and then cry because of a divided fanbase and frustrations errupting on all sides.

 

[JackSmithIV]

1. I have equal respect for Dave and Gary. Likewise for Wies, Hickman, Greenwood, Salavtore, Moore, etc.
2. None of these and even combined, have authored more D&D material than the 30+ years worth of DMs out there that were NOT a part of the company making and selling D&D products. So if you are trying to say who wrote more, it was and will always be the community.
3. I give the material every bit of respect it deserves, and that just happens to carry back to it. Look at Uwe Boil and the flak he has got because people don't like his movies. You create garbage, and people will treat your creations like garbage, and probably question why you are still allowed to be creating the garbage. That is the way the world works. Consumers have every right to state they are displeased with the material and blame the one who wrote it. Just like anyone that doesn't like Harry Potter can attribute it to JKR and her bad writing skills. Just like LW was criticized for her bad management skills, etc. It is called accountability. Randy B. has made several forum posts on the WotC forums and even in Insider updates thingy, that takes responsibility for what the consumer sees as a screw up. From that there is now an Editorial Calendar for DDI. Randy noticed something went wrong and chose to fix it.
   
   Does that mean the consumers shouldn't criticize? Does that mean they should sugar-coat their criticisms? Does it mean every criticism will be answered like randy putting together the calendar?
   
   The answer to all those questions is No.
   
   Just because a critic gives you a bad review, doesn't mean they are showing disrpect, they are doing their job of giving something and someone for the efforts on that thing a critical review. Even giving a good review does not mean they respect the subject of the review.
   
   Mearls has been around here lately and criticized about a few things and some kitten scared him. Criticisms may dishearten the authors of D&D, but it shouldn't send them into depression if they are professionals. Mearls is still working on fixing things in his replacement in the position Andy Collins stepped down or switched with him for I am sure.
   
   So has anything changed in the relationship between critic and author? I don't think so, and authors shouldn't need to be pampered and should be able to handle a critical review because it comes with the job.
4. I have no idea what your little music thing has to do with D&D as they are not even close to being able to discuss in this situation as critics of music are not allowed to rewrite the music and make it their own, like those who houserule D&D to fix problems with the game they find, or just adjust things for there own groups.

Missed the point entirely. I'm not saying people shouldn't criticize the product, or even the authors. I'm saying it's disrespectful to undermine the legitimacy of their work in a way which I have stated repeatedly. My "little music thing" demonstrates the point pretty well, but you seem to have extended the analogy poorly. People make remixes all of the time, and usually play only the songs they like. Also, I'm discussing authorship.

Late tonight, Poison Ivy Press releases it's first product. It is a licensed product of 4th edition, and I'm honored to be releasing a product which will forever be part of the canon of 4th Edition materials. I do not, however, have any delusions that I am one of the authors of the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons core game. Those credits may be found within the first 3 or so pages of the Players Handbook. Those guys do the work that gives guys like me the opportunity to contribute.

Oh hell, this arguement is spiraling out of control. I may not visit this thread much anymore. Someone had a great point up above about ignoring edition wars threads to make them go away. I suppose that might work.

They created the idea of it, and they wrote a great many parts of it. But D&D has been written, refined, and elaborated on by a fantastic number of writers, who all share in and deserve the enjoyment of having been part of D&D's continual evolution.

Are you seriously telling me that Monte Cook, Mike Mearls, R.A. Salvatore, thousands of freelance and third party publishers, and everyone who's had the guts to share a homebrew setting here on ENworld shouldn't take some pride in helping grow their favorite hobby?

That's absurd, man. That's just patently absurd.

Quoted for help with point.

 

[rkwoodard]

I have a bumper sticker that says DUNGEONS & DRAGONS on it. I had a beach towel when I was a kid that had some illos from the MONSTER MANUAL superimposed over a generic sort of dungeon map that said ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS on it. These two items were not the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game - but by your definition they were.

Assuming they were offical (and/or licensed products) you had a D&D bumper sticker and an AD&D beach towel.

WOTC has put the D&D logo on a rpg. since that is thier right, that is a D&D rpg.

You may hate it. But it is D&D, it may not be good. I have only played once and had a pretty good time, but have gone back to 3ed for my ongoing campaign. But it is D&D.

RK