A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[Mercurius]

No, it looks to me as that your own narrow minded inflexibility has gotten the better of you and you are either incapable or unwilling to admit as much. Your rabidly blind defense of all things 4E is admirable but your inability to see that people have points different from your own on 4E doesn't help any argument that you might put forth. It just makes you the worst kind of edition warrior, the one who blasts or is dismissive of someone else's (in this case quite a few people's) opinion and then is completely incapable from walking away.

You know, Shin, pretty much no one considers themselves an "edition warrior" yet it is exactly these kinds of statements that are most exemplary of "Edition Hatred" and that keep the fires burning.

It is a rather ironic statement considering that you always seem to pop up in these sorts of squabbles. Maybe it is time to take a step back and look at your own involvement in the "edition wars"? Hey, I don't even have a problem with you engaging in this conversation, just as I don't really mind "edition wars" if they can remain relatively civil, but I find it rather hypocritical for you to throw out accusations of others being "the worst kind of edition warrior."

You can't have it both ways, Shin.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think Dannager's pie analogy has been adequately negated, btw. And no, AuldGrump, it doesn't matter that Boston Cream Pie isn't really pie (or was that entirely a non sequitur?); cut-and-paste in Blueberry or Key Lime and the analogy works the same. And I think Dannager accurately answered Pawsplay's reply - not to mention that what he is protesting against is not the reaction of people like the Bob in Pawsplay's analogy who don't say "I don't like this Boston Cream Pie therefore it is not Boston Cream Pie."

As I see it, the point that Dannager is trying to make (afaict), and which I agree with, is that everyone is completely free to think and feel what they want about 4E (or pie, for that matter), but that there is a funny kind of psychology in holding to a view such as "4E isn't real D&D" or "4E isn't D&D to me." Why not just say "4E isn't my preferred form of D&D" or "I don't like how 4E does D&D"?

To put it another way, why is there the need to negate 4E's status as a valid form of D&D? You don't lose anything by acknowledging that it is, in fact, D&D, but just not your preferred version.

I mean, I get not liking it. It is my D&D of choice but I find it to be deeply flawed. I'm one of those seemingly rare birds that likes all forms of D&D, although prefers some to others (as the saying goes, all editions of D&D are equal, some more than others).

Of course everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe, and I'm not going to say that you have no right to believe that "4E is not real D&D to me." I also have the right to believe that Barack Obama is the Antichrist or that the government is trying to poison us through chem-trails or that homosexuality is a sin. The problem becomes in the impact it has on one's mentality and experience of life, and relationships with others. If you're on an online forum that is dedicated to all forms of D&D and recognizes all forms as valid, and you go around saying that one form is not real D&D then there are going to be consequences.

 

[billd91]

To put it another way, why is there the need to negate 4E's status as a valid form of D&D? You don't lose anything by acknowledging that it is, in fact, D&D, but just not your preferred version.

But there's nothing to really lose by acknowledging people's opinions that 4e isn't D&D to them, either.

The problem becomes in the impact it has on one's mentality and experience of life, and relationships with others. If you're on an online forum that is dedicated to all forms of D&D and recognizes all forms as valid, and you go around saying that one form is not real D&D then there are going to be consequences.

Just as there are going to be consequences for not acknowledging other people's opinions. Or dismissing them as close-minded. Or calling them wrong. I'd even say that the consequences are more serious because they indicate that lines of communication and understanding are being willfully shut down. And that's the real problem with edition wars, not debates over the merits of particularly game mechanics, marketing strategies, or game styles and focus. The real problem and driving force behind edition warring is bad behavior.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To put it another way, why is there the need to negate 4E's status as a valid form of D&D? You don't lose anything by acknowledging that it is, in fact, D&D, but just not your preferred version.

I mean, I get not liking it.

As both ByronD and I have pointed out, there is no neccessary correlation between like/dislike of 4Ed and being of the opnion that it doesn't feel like D&D. We've been clear on this: I myself have stated IN THIS THREAD that I find 4Ed to be an enjoyable game to play. It still doesn't feel like D&D to me. ByronD noted that even though he harbors some dislike of 2Ed, it still feels like D&D to him.

(And we both managed to do so without insulting, dismissive language.)

There is also no real way to be more precise about "feel" because it is entirely subjective: the change of one element may disrupt that perception for one consumer while alterations of hundreds may not. In fact, the change of hundreds of elements may not make one feel that way while one particular change may.

You see discussions of "feel"'all the time in product reviews, especiallmthings like cars. When a car reviewer says a particular model doesn't have the "feel" of a Ferrari (or Porsche, Fiat, Ford, etc.), it's pretty much understood that he is NOT negating the car's identity, but rather that something about the car is at perceptible variance with his expectations of what he expects from the badge. (And in fact, that may even be a positive- context matters).

 

[shadzar]

Why not just say "4E isn't my preferred form of D&D" or "I don't like how 4E does D&D"?

Because for communication to happen you must have common ground understanding the terms another is speaking.

If one asks if you play D&D, and you are then interested in the dialog about it, then get hit with things about powers and healing surges, but you don't think 4th edition is D&D, the dialog then can go nowhere for you. It is no longer about D&D.

By stating "4th edition isn't D&D to me", you can prevent useless conversations about things you have no interest in. Just like in a forum someone not wanting to talk about say, alingment, can jsut avoid such threads on the subject knowing in advance that that is what is being talked about.

To put it another way, why is there the need to negate 4E's status as a valid form of D&D? You don't lose anything by acknowledging that it is, in fact, D&D, but just not your preferred version.

Actually you do lose things, as you lose that common ground again which is the basis for communication.

The above discussion about D&D can start the same way, and then someone go on to talk about Castle and Crusades, or Lejendary Journeys.

Neither of these could be considered D&D with the definition that it has the name on it as neither of this does have the name on it.

In order to communicate, you must be able to define your terms. Something as simple as "4th edition is not D&D to me" sets up your definition of the term D&D at least in regards to one parameter. If the other party wishes to continue discussing D&D, then they must either accept that definition and its parameter, or must find someone else with whom they can agree upon the language with.

No communication or discussion can be had until all parties are speaking the same language.

Someone had to learn English first, or Japanese first in order for the two to communicate. Until at least one learns the language of the other, then you might as well be talking to a wall because neither will be able to understand what the other is saying.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think you might be confused. It doesn't matter how many different systems you've played.

Nice choice of neutral, non-inflammatory language there.

Experience most certainly matters.

Whose opinion would you trust more on the definition of pie: 5 year old Bob, 25 year old Bob who has never left Twin Peaks, or Bob the 55 year old, world renown pastry chef, restaranteur and founder of the global chain, "Bob's International House of Pies" (which has earned mentions in Zagat's and a Michelin Star)?

Please.

 

[BryonD]

GURPS fantasy does not feel like D&D to me. It is a great RPG, IMO.
D&D is to fantasy role playing like Rocky Road is to ice cream.
Not all fantasy role playing is D&D and not all ice cream is Rocky Road.
Saying Strawberry is not like Rock Road does not make Strawberry not ice cream, nor not very good. But saying you must accept Strawberry as being like Rocky Road because they are both ice cream is just silly.

It won't happen in a million years, but hypothetically, Steve Jackson Games could buy the rights to D&D. If they did that tomorrow, they could slap a new cover on GURPS Fantasy and put "Dungeons and Dragons, 5th Edition" on the cover the next day. GURPS fantasy doesn't feel like D&D today, GURPS fantasy won't feel any different in two days whether it becomes 5E or not.

Different fantasy RPGs feel different than each other. That feeling is not subject to the whims of what brand name is slapped on the cover.

There are enough differences between 4E and other games with the D&D brand name, particularly those old school versions, that saying they don't feel the same is highly reasonable.

Or, someone can just insist that all ice cream is close enough to Rocky Road.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Your Bob is just switching bakeries. Which is more or less what I'm advocating: enjoy your pie/cake/whatever, and let's not whine about how this pie isn't real pie because it uses 77% cocoa chocolate instead of 70%.

You insist on making up arbitrary conditions that prove your illogical point.

Of COURSE 77% cocoa isn't that different than 70%. How about if instead of 70% cocoa, the pie maker decides to use 0% cocoa and 85% strawberry--would THAT be sufficiently different for you?

Not that it matters either way. It would be just terrific, though, if you'd stop setting up imaginary situations in an effort to prove why other folks' opinions are badwrong.

 

[BryonD]

To put it another way, why is there the need to negate 4E's status as a valid form of D&D?

Simple. Because some people find that it is not a valid system for creating the feeling that they expect from D&D.

Why do some people seem to be unable to see the difference between "4E doesn't provide the same feeling to me." and "4E is invalid as a game."?

Can you accept the idea that 4E doesn't produce the same gaming experience that some people expect from the specific idea of D&D? If not, why not?

As a huge 3E fan, I realize that a lot of people don't think 3E feels like D&D. That has been true for a very long time. My reaction to this is: ok.

 

[Mircoles]

Considering how heavily house-ruled AD&D was, saying 4e isn't D&D is infantile.

If it makes you feel better then think of it as a heavily house-ruled version of D&D, which pretty much is what it is.

And whether you like it or not it is the current version of D&D and is therefore D&D which pathfinder isn't.

Reality won't change just because you don't like it.