Blog posts on DDI should be free

[jdrakeh]

Really? You don't really want to equate being disappointed that an RPG attempts to nix freeform RPGing as edition warring? C'mon.

I think his <cough> is a response to the fact that you're the proverbial pot calling the kettle black here. You've done nothing but dump on 4e in this thread, making explicit comparisons to previous editions of the game and alluding that 4e is somehow inferior due to the amount of errata that has been issued for it. Calling for somebody else to stop edition warring after posting what you have?

I'm no fan of 4e by any means, but this thread pretty much started out as edition war trolling, IMHO (by falsely claiming that DDI blog posts were not free content) and has devolved into the same old claims of past editions being mechanically superior to the current edition (apparently on the grounds that the current edition has 73 pages of errata).

 

[Mark]

Given that it had precisely nothing to do with the conversation at hand (. . .)

Please reread the posts above where someone else brought up skill challenges as an example of a "great idea." You'll find it quoted right above where you suggest my post had "nothing to do with the conversation at hand."

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

...



<cough>

Ok, I think I need someone to define what "edition war" means. I always (well, for the last year) thought it meant either
a) complimenting one edition by attacking another. Ex: "4E completely fixed grappling! It was such a mess in 3E that noone could even use it!"

b) In absence of promoting a particular edition, baselessly attacking an edition. Ex: "3E's grappling system is unusable!"

I never thought criticisizing an edition by way of making an argument or presenting facts was edition warring (for example, showing some mathematical projections that by level 12 in 3E, any melee monster had a grapple mod that was unbeatable for almost any PC, or Mark citing 73 pages of errata in just 1.5 years as "a lot"), yet apparantly that is.

 

[jdrakeh]

a) complimenting one edition by attacking another. Ex: "4E completely fixed grappling! It was such a mess in 3E that noone could even use it!"

Which is what Mark has been doing. His last page and a half of posts basically amount to an argument that D&D 4e is inferior to previous editions because it has 73 pages of errata. Deliberately comparing one edition of D&D to others and declaring it either inferior or superior to those other editions (i.e., making emotionally loaded value judgments) is pretty much exactly what "edition warring" is.

 

[Mark]

I think his <cough> is a response to the fact that you're the proverbial pot calling the kettle black here. You've done nothing but dump on 4e in this thread (. . .)

I don't thnk that discussing the problems of 4E is dumping nor that discussing it in the light of being sold as an RPG constitutes comparing it to other editions. I am discussing it on its own merits as an RPG. And, again, my posts are being made in response to subjects being brought up by people who have quoted me, so I'm not seeing any problem regarding the subjects I am discussing. Truly, if someone makes a claim that something is a "great idea" and I disagree, I am certainly allowed an opinion. And if someone claims "It's by far the most streamlined, robust and balanced set of rules made for D&D." and (while avoiding the obvious edition war baiting) I want to venture an opposing opinion, there is certainly nothing in the rules against such a thing. Not every discussion of a flaw in 4E is automatically an edition war and it really gets sad that EN World is becoming a place where people can keep trying to shut down opposing opinions by claiming that to be such.

 

[Mark]

Which is what Mark has been doing. His last page and a half of posts basically amount to an argument that D&D 4e is inferior to previous editions because it has 73 pages of errata. Deliberately comparing one edition of D&D to others and declaring it either inferior or superior to those other editions (i.e., making emotionally loaded value judgments) is pretty much exactly what "edition warring" is.

Saying that 73 pages of rules corrections is a lot has nothing to do with other editions. I am not saying it is inferior to other editions. I am saying that is problematic on its own merits.

 

[AllisterH]

Um, haven't we ALWAYS complained that the designers of D&D were bad people for NOT issuing errata?

Since when did giving out errata a bad thing?

(Especially given that many times they actually EXPLAIN why they are changing something?)

This is a BAD thing? Really?

EDIT: Mark, EVERONE has repeatedly pointed out those 73 pages included NOT only the original text of the power, the ENTIRE power rewritten but many times WHY it was rewritten.

 

[Jack99]

I think his <cough> is a response to the fact that you're the proverbial pot calling the kettle black here. You've done nothing but dump on 4e in this thread, making explicit comparisons to previous editions of the game and alluding that 4e is somehow inferior due to the amount of errata that has been issued for it. Calling for somebody else to stop edition warring after posting what you have?

I'm no fan of 4e by any means, but this thread pretty much started out as edition war trolling, IMHO (by falsely claiming that DDI blog posts were not free content) and has devolved into the same old claims of past editions being mechanically superior to the current edition (apparently on the grounds that the current edition has 73 pages of errata).

Thanks for saving me the time, jd.

This (above) is exactly my point, Mark. Difference is that before, you just did it in threads other people started, but apparently thats not enough, so now you start your own.

As for your weak attempt to blame me for starting an edition war - please try against next year. Saying that prior editions needed more errata than what has been done for 4e is not even close to being an edition war, or an attempt to start one.

 

[jdrakeh]

Not every discussion of a flaw in 4E is automatically an edition war and it really gets sad that EN World is becoming a place where people can keep trying to shut down opposing opinions by claiming that to be such.

Well, Mark, you were the person who first accused other posters of edition warring (unless somebody on my Ignore List went there first). Quoted for posterity:

I see you're just going to keep trying to make this an edition war.

 

[jdrakeh]

Saying that prior editions needed more errata than what has been done for 4e is not even close to being an edition war, or an attempt to start one.

No, but I'm pretty certain that the various incarnations of BD&D didn't need any more errata than what they got.