D&D 5E 5E, The Edition Wars, and Shooting Ourselves in the Foot.

[Dausuul]

What I mean by "It doesn't matter" is as far as the mechanics of the next edition are concerned. If what is said here has no impact on WotC's decisions, then all it accomplishes is at best wasting time and engaging in wishful thinking/speculation; at worst it accomplishes poisoning the well. Therefore most of the discussion is pointless to begin with. And if it's pointless, then the only thing that can come out is a net loss.

Where do you get "what is said here has no impact on WotC's decisions?" If WotC is soliciting community feedback, then the tenor of the community affects that feedback. Moreover, if WotC people are reading ENWorld threads (and we know they have done in the past), what is said in those threads may influence their thinking and hence their decisions.

No, Wizards is never going to say "The poll on ENWorld says we should embrace the d17! Guess we'd better call up the folks at Chessex and tell 'em to get cracking." But indirect influence is still influence.

 

[Bedrockgames]

,
Fans of 3E and 4E that aren't caught up in playstyle conflicts or mad at some company or any number of such things--already get along just fine. Some of them even play both. And a great deal of the ones that seem to not get along are doing mostly ok talking about serious differences in playstyle and such, but because of the sharp disagreements find themselves drug into these proxy conflicts on a regular basis.

I think this is true. I think it is even true that folk who detests 3E or 4E get along just fine with each other. One can have preferences but not worry much about how others feel about those preferences. Usually the nasty conflicts come when one side or the other can't stomach the existence of "x mechanic" or a playstyle that focuses in Y.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

See, you just attacked me.

I have expectations of what will happen when I sit down to play "D&D".
The 4E skill system directly undermines that and causes the experience to NOT meet the standards of what I consider to be "D&D". You have challenged my right to express that opinion. Therefore you have ATTACKED me.

No, I said that self absorbed people who refuse to talk civilly and insist that their rights to express their opinions somehow trumps the conventions that would help with civil discourse should be discouraged from doing so.

 

[kinem]

There are two problems that I see with 'staying positive'.

1. It's important to say what we don't want to see for there to be any chance of getting an overall game that we like.

For example, suppose that chicken and shrimp are being considered to add to a Ceaser salad that we will all eat. I like chicken OK, but I can't stand shrimp; perhaps I am allergic to it. I need to be able to say "No shrimp!", not just "add chicken". There is at best a thin line between doing this and 'going negative' on shrimp.

2. Frankly, IMO 3.X was not a very good rule set. It had many broken bits, many aspects that led to a less than optimal playing experience (such as problems with skills), combats that were not interesting enough, and too steep of a power curve.

It was BADLY in need of a MAJOR overhaul.

It was also the best edition of D&D ever, and I really like playing D&D.

Now, given those facts, if that's all I said, you might think that taking some bits from 4E might please me. But I STRONGLY dislike almost EVERY change from 3.X to 4E. 4E went in very much the wrong direction for me. Compared to 4E, 3.X was WAY better for me. How would you know that's my preference, if I don't mention it? Sure, I could try to say what I would like to ADD to the game, but that's much more vague and you would really never know that adding in bits from 4E would displease me unless I MENTION it.

 

[CleverNickName]

I chose not to pledge, because negative feedback is equally important as positive. But that said, I will try to be optimistic as much as I can, and I will try to hold my tongue when I get emotional. That's about the best I can do. I am human, after all.

 

[Oni]

I don't believe "stay positive at all times" is a good approach. If people don't like something, they should say so; that's the only way their concerns will ever get addressed. I prefer "stay polite and don't get personal."

Just for clarity I don't believe I made quite so absolute a statement, at least it wasn't my intent. "Focus on the positive" meant we should try to spend the lion's share of our energy there, not that we should never deviate from it. I do think there is room for improvement though, and a little concerted effort to avoid going negative isn't likely to hurt anyone.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Just for clarity I don't believe I made quite so absolute a statement, at least it wasn't my intent. "Focus on the positive" meant we should try to spend the lion's share of our energy there, not that we should never deviate from it. I do think there is room for improvement though, and a little concerted effort to avoid going negative isn't likely to hurt anyone.

That's true. It's also true that fear of confrontation and all the dancing around it can cause as much or more trouble as actual diagreement. When people try to justify things that don't require any justification, it seldom comes out well. "They'll think ill of me if I express a preference for X or Not Y. So I'd better explain why my tastes are good tastes." It's the latter part that causes sparks.

No one has to justify their roleplaying preferences to anyone else. Unless you like Fatal--and then none of us want to know anyway.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm supportive of this topic.

 

[Cybit]

I don't think a poll that is functionally saying "we are the single biggest reason for the tenor of the D&D community, and, with that, the following fall of D&D as a whole" is going to go over well here.

Leave it this way; if folks are aware enough to understand this is an actual problem, odds are, those aren't the ones you need to worry about. It's those who tie their identity with the game they play, and thus, an attack on part of the game gets taken as an attack on them.

That said, it saddens me that we blame WotC for a lot of what we ourselves started, fanned, threw gasoline on, and have nurtured for years.

 

[BryonD]

No, I said that self absorbed people who refuse to talk civilly and insist that their rights to express their opinions somehow trumps the conventions that would help with civil discourse should be discouraged from doing so.

I've been assured of my "edition warrior" status for less than what you did.

 

[Umbran]

The choices become "embrace surges" or "edition war".

Nope. There's a third option - walk away from the conversation. Do not admit defeat, but do not press either. Allow what you've said to stand on its own merits.

Remember that whether or not BryonD (or any other individual) "wins" an argument on the internet is not going to influence the designers over at WotC. The soul of D&D will not be won like leadership of the Drazi people on Babylon 5: Purple! Green! PURPLE! GREEEEEN!!!! thumpthumpthump... and the last one left standing gets what he or she wants.

The most efficient way to shoot yourself in the foot is to pretend that something that sucks doesn't suck.

With respect, that is incorrect. The fastest way to shoot yourself in the foot is to mistake, "I really don't like it," with, "it sucks."

There are posters here who will argue that, "in my opinion," should be taken as understood in all internet discussion. In doing so, they overlook some important bits.

In discussion, some folks will take the position that they know THE TRUTH, as if some aspect of the game were some objective reality, rather than an aesthetic preference. Given that such people do exist, a speaker cannot leave out the, "in my opinion", or "I feel that...," clause, and still expect readers to differentiate the speaker from a OneTrueWayist. The audience requires that we be explicit about it. Repeatedly.

This should not be surprising. If you want to communicate what you actually think, you must say what you really mean, in full, right? The more you leave as assumptions, the more chances you give the reader to guess the wrong way.

Moreover, the *speaker* needs the speaker to be explicit about it, repeatedly. When you speak, your words tends to shape not just your audience's thoughts, but your own - you influence yourself. Once you've committed to an objective wording, you're more likely to defend it as objective, rather than subjective, point.

Better to not go there at all, unless you really mean it.

 

[Roland55]

I don't take pledges.

But yes, I am not going to war.

Well, not over D&D.

 

[OnlineDM]

I answered yes before reading the thread.

I think it's fine (and in many cases helpful) for people to say what they do like AND what they don't like.

I don't think it's fine for people to criticize ONE ANOTHER for having different preferences.

Fine: "I don't like healing surges."
Fine: "I don't like the way healing was handled before 4e."
Not Fine: "You're so stubborn for not liking healing surges."
Not Fine: "Anyone who doesn't like pre-4e healing is an idiot."

 

[Oni]

I answered yes before reading the thread.

I think it's fine (and in many cases helpful) for people to say what they do like AND what they don't like.

I don't think it's fine for people to criticize ONE ANOTHER for having different preferences.

Fine: "I don't like healing surges."
Fine: "I don't like the way healing was handled before 4e."
Not Fine: "You're so stubborn for not liking healing surges."
Not Fine: "Anyone who doesn't like pre-4e healing is an idiot."

Ideally people should be able to make criticisms without the wheels coming off, but it's no longer a neutral environment. I think if we are actually interested in repairing some of the damage that has been done then a higher standard may be in order. I'm worried the momentum of ill-will is going to carry on through to the new edition when it really doesn't have to. No matter how good a game WotC makes they still have to clear the hurtle of the fans and the toxicity of the environment will influence how high that hurtle is.

 

[amerigoV]

I vow to win the Internet. This time, I will not be denied.

 

[Oni]

""Would the game even survive if every five or six years it just splinters into smaller and smaller groups?" -Mike Mearls

That's a good question, and I'm glad someone at WotC is asking it, they have their part to play, but so do we.

 

[BryonD]

With respect, that is incorrect. The fastest way to shoot yourself in the foot is to mistake, "I really don't like it," with, "it sucks."

I think you miss the point that some things DO still suck when it come to the big picture of creating success (or "unity") and any individual loving it or hating it is quite irrelevant to that.

You incorrectly presumed I was mixing the two things.