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

[Herremann the Wise]

You could talk about not liking surges or 3e multiclassing and why, but my contention is that you could convey the same information in a more positive manner by talking about why you like the old HP system, or how you might like the concept of surges and what changes you might make and why you would enjoy those changes or how you not having multiclassing improves the game for you, or the reasons you liked a different version of multiclassing or what changes you might make to 3e style multiclassing and why that would improve you enjoyment, et c., et c., et c.

I can understand where you are coming from here with your thread. But limiting commentary to positives is not going to solve the edition war problem. People should be able to say that they like or dislike something, so long as they don't use such comments to frame an attack; for example I don't like x because it purely caters to dumb people. Any time somebody feels inclined to use or imply the terms "us" or "them" rather than "we", it is a sure sign that they have lost sight of the big picture of our wonderful hobby.

What really causes the edition wars however (which your original post kind of omits) is the defensive behaviour. We should all be able to accept that somebody doesn't like (or even hates) something that we do like. It's not because they are doing it wrong. It's certainly not because their dumb. We just simply need to accept that other gamers are entitled to have different preferences. We don't need to go into bat for something. We don't need to don the defensive shields. Far better just to let it go. Don't think you have the right to try and change other peoples minds - it simply does not work. I suppose it just comes down to respect and according it to the posters here who love the same hobby you do.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mattachine]

I don't see that a pledge to remain positive is the same as refraining from attacking others' preferences.

I refrain from attacking others, but I don't pledge to remain positive. If I don't like something, I would like to discuss it. Maybe I can be convinced otherwise.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

If only it were that simple.
Just to reference one of your examples here, I have described in great detail how I like HP and how surges are simply not compatible with HP as I like them. And people will respond to me with absolute assurance that surges do nothing whatsoever to change what I like about HP, and/or HP are abstract therefore it is completely unreasonable to not embrace other abstract things. The choices become "embrace surges" or "edition war".

This exactly.

It's okay to constantly say that 3e was "broken" or "unplayable from the core rulebook" and things of that nature. Despite the fact that there are plenty of people STILL playing and enjoying 3E or Pathfinder.
But start to talk about things that don't float your boat in 4e? Youre starting an edition war if you dont agree with the 4e faithful who say the problem is YOU (i.e you dont like change. You're a grognard if you dont automatically adapt to a new edition) if you dont like it, not the game.

 

[Oni]

I feel that the waters have already become so poisoned that if we want to reverse the situation we have to take extra care and make a very deliberate shift in focus, and yes that does mean maybe we should be more restrained that we would usually be. The conversation isn't taking place in a neutral environment, the needle on the gauge has long since been buried in negativity.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I enjoy the discussion of topics that I don't always agree with. How are we to judge the positive without the negative?

If we can keep the focus of discussion on ideas and express our opinions (positive or negative) on them rather than the people posting them everything should be fine.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I think it is a perfectly fine thing to say that I dislike, say the 4e skill system, due to the inability to represent differing amounts of investment in different skills.

However, saying that the 4e skill system is stupid or not D&D for that reason is slightly problematic, and should be discouraged.

The poll says "I will not attack others preferences." Not I will not criticize a version of D&D that someone prefers. I just won't attack them for liking something I dislike.

 

[billd91]

I think it is a perfectly fine thing to say that I dislike, say the 4e skill system, due to the inability to represent differing amounts of investment in different skills.

However, saying that the 4e skill system is stupid or not D&D for that reason is problematic. And that's without getting personal.

I would also add that just because someone is criticizing the object of your preference, they're not criticizing you for liking it. That too has been problematic.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I voted no.

I don't like the binary and judgemental positions put forth in the poll, frankly. (The frowny face was particularly unhelpful.)

I will pledge to try my hardest not to edition war, to couch things as my opinion rather than as fact, to back up my opinions, where possible, with actual evidence, facts, etc., and to try not to criticize what I do not understand.


However, I think there is plenty of room between "not being positive" and being a jerk. I also think it's acceptable to critique someone's preference so long as 1. you are critiquing the game element, not the person and 2. you are not calling it badwrongfun.


I also would prefer and expect that others would do the same regarding my own preferences. It is in the realm of discussing conflict that conflict resolution lies...not in the realm of being positive all the time.


(Note that I don't think "conflict resolution" will occur on a regular basis, or sometimes/with some individuals at all. However, I will say that in critiquing with an open ear, I've learned quite a bit about different editions, incuding strengths I hadn't been aware of previously.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would also add that just because someone is criticizing the object of your preference, they're not criticizing you for liking it. That too has been problematic.

Pretty much what I was going to say. Ad hominem attacks are a problem. Uncivil language is a problem. Opinions about the game (even negative ones) are not.

I try to write clear and strongly but fairly worded posts that are about ideas, not individual people on the boards. That's my pledge.

 

[Ratskinner]

Modularity to the rescue

I feel that the way they are designing 5e with modularity makes this far easier than rather hard-to-modify-a-lot cores of the previous two editions. Love or hate MechanicX, I find it easy to agree or suggest that at least a module should cover it (or the playstyle it supports.) We already know that the core is going to be very "stripped down" so my guess is that a lot and perhaps even the majority of GMs will be picking modules to tailor their games.