Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[Wicht]

But, there's simply no pretending that h4ters didn't hate on 4e, and 4vengers didn't defend it. By definition, the latter is reactive.

Only an equally-bad clone - Pathfinder - has successfully challenged D&D.

The TTRPG hobby is dominated by D&D, and D&D is dominated by fans in that first category, who demand it remain a bad game.

The above underlined quotes are merely "reaction" on your part then.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I honestly don't have the time for this tonight but Tony that is quite a distorted telling of the flame wars. Both sides behaved miserably. Both were attacking each other. You didn't have to unload a screed against 4E to be subject to abuse, all you had to do was say you weren't into it, or say why you didn't enjoy the edition (and people giving negative and positive reactions to things after release is normal, neither warrants abuse or aggressive questioning). People who enjoyed 4E didn't have to be doing anything but express their fondness for the game to be attacked. There were folks gunning for others on both sides long before Justin Alexander wrote about dissociated mechanics. I fully admit there was bad behavior on my side, and I said things that I should not have. But there was absolutely also plenty of folks on the 4E side who were aggressively proselytizing and attacking people who simply didn't like the game. No one looked good if you go back and read those threads.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The above underlined quotes are merely "reaction" on your part then.

It's an observation about the edition war, and what it illustrated about the D&D community - that, ultimately, it's a pretty toxic environment that repels potential new players, and isn't likely to change.

I honestly don't have the time for this tonight but Tony that is quite a distorted telling of the flame wars. Both sides behaved miserably. Both were attacking each other.

We are talking about 6 years of unremitting edition warring, afterall. You can't dismiss an invasion by saying 'well, both sides shot at eachother.' Once a war starts, it's pretty sucky for all involved.

There were folks gunning for others on both sides long before Justin Alexander wrote about dissociated mechanics.

In May 2008, before the game had even hit the shelves? I guess there may have been, the furor started with the announcement. Alexander started his campaign against it in Aug 2007, with nothing yet available to fabricate invalid criticisms of - all the more reason to discount the role the game itself played in 'starting' the edition war.

I fully admit there was bad behavior on my side, and I said things that I should not have. But there was absolutely also plenty of folks on the 4E side who were aggressively proselytizing and attacking people who simply didn't like the game. No one looked good if you go back and read those threads.

It wasn't called the edition war because it was polite. War (however metaphorical) is ugly, wasteful, and tragic on both sides - no matter who the aggressor was. That doesn't mean there is never an aggressor.

 

[Wicht]

It's an observation about the edition war, and what it illustrated about the D&D community - that, ultimately, it's a pretty toxic environment that repels potential new players.

So how does you calling a popular game, "bad," and mocking those who like it, help decrease the toxicity level?

And, in all honesty, the defense, "they started it," when trying to explain away poor, over-the-top behavior, is not normally considered a mature sort of defense.

 

[Wicht]

We are talking about 6 years of unremitting edition warring, afterall. You can't dismiss an invasion by saying 'well, both sides shot at eachother.' Once a war starts, it's pretty sucky for all involved.

It wasn't called the edition war because it was polite. War is ugly, wasteful, and tragic on both sides - no matter who the aggressor was.

Moreover, the term "war" when applied to online arguments or discussions over which edition of a game is to be preferred, is hyperbole, which is fine and legitimate, so long as you recognize its hyperbole. Justifying your behavior by likening the events to an actual invasion or war, so as to excuse any level of continued bad manners or hostility shows a surprising lack of perspective.

The so called "edition war" was an argument, pure and simple: nobody was shot, no homes were burned down, and there is no post traumatic stress disorder for the survivors. Furthermore, not everybody who expressed an opinion about which game they liked better was "warring." Some were merely expressing an opinion, which is a normal sort of behavior when presented with two different choices as consumers.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's an observation about the edition war, and what it illustrated about the D&D community - that, ultimately, it's a pretty toxic environment that repels potential new players.

We are talking about 6 years of unremitting edition warring, afterall. You can't dismiss an invasion by saying 'well, both sides shot at eachother.' Once a war starts, it's pretty sucky for all involved.

It isn't a real war. It is an argument by people on the internet. This isn't like each side is made up of people who share a culture or country. It is just a bunch of people and some of them were being jerks. Eventually anyone who got involved in the discussions found themselves taking mud and slinging it as well.

In May 2008, before the game had even hit the shelves? I guess there may have been, the furor started with the announcement. Alexander started his campaign against it in Aug 2007, with nothing yet available to fabricate invalid criticisms of - all the more reason to discount the role the game itself played in 'starting' the edition war.

Yes, people were debating the game long before it was released because the designers were talking about the changes they were making, their design philosophy and releasing previews. We didn't know exactly what it looked liked until it was released (and I had no opinion on the matter until at least a couple of months after it came out) but it was certainly being discussed with a great deal of passion. It wasn't like there was just this sudden discussion about 4E one day. It came after years of arguments over 3E and things like optimization. There was already a discussion brewing and when 4E was announced, it got incorporated into that dialogue.

It wasn't called the edition war because it was polite. War is ugly, wasteful, and tragic on both sides - no matter who the aggressor was. That doesn't mean there is never an aggressor.

Again this wasn't a real war. There wasn't an aggressor. It isn't like there was peace on the net, until some guy on one side threw an insult that demanded retaliation. This is an overly simplistic view to take of the conversation that was going on. It is pretty clear to me it is impossible to pin this to one side or the other.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So how does you calling a popular game, "bad," and mocking those who like it, help decrease the toxicity level?

First of all, it's a very unpopular game, RPGs are very tiny hobby. D&D is the biggest paramecium in a stagnant mud-puddle. That's not mocking, that's perspective. Secondly, the edition war demonstrated that there's tremendous resistance to changing the status quo that keeps the hobby small and unwelcoming. Pointing that out is a small first step to changing it. Probably futile, but it's not like the effort will kill me.

And, in all honesty, the defense, "they started it," when trying to explain away poor, over-the-top behavior, is not normally considered a mature sort of defense.

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] was wondering what it was about 4e that made it's proponents so 'passionate' about it. It wasn't anything about the game, itself, - it was the furor with which it was attacked, that provoked such responses. Bedrockgames backed that conclusion up when he noted the edition war got rolling before much at all was known about what 4e would be like. Also pretty conclusive.

It isn't a real war.

'War' is a dirt-common metaphor in English.

This isn't like each side is made up of people who share a culture or country.

They're fans. Hobbyists. The same kinds of emotions are involved, no matter how trivial the actual stakes.

(and I had no opinion on the matter until at least a couple of months after it came out)

Nod. I was suspicious of WotC rolling out another core set so soon, myself. It wasn't until I'd seen the PH that I started to notice how far off the mark a lot of the criticisms were.

but it was certainly being discussed with a great deal of passion. It wasn't like there was just this sudden discussion about 4E one day. It came after years of arguments over 3E and things like optimization. There was already a discussion brewing and when 4E was announced, it got incorporated into that dialogue.

There were criticism of 3.0 and 3.5 ongoing at the time, and there are, again, about 5e. None rose (or sank) to the level of the edition war, though. It wasn't just incorporated into the ongoing dialogue (or noise) surrounding the hobby. Outside the context of the edition war, someone makes some invalid or contrived criticism, it gets ripped apart, and he slinks off. In contrast, the edition war was relentless.

 

[Zak S]

Whatever edition warring is:

-it's not helpful
and
-what's going on right now in this thread is it right here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

First of all, it's a very unpopular game, RPGs are very tiny hobby. D&D is the biggest paramecium in a stagnant mud-puddle. That's not mocking, that's perspective. Secondly, the edition war demonstrated that there's tremendous resistance to changing the status quo that keeps the hobby small and unwelcoming. Pointing that out is a small first step to changing it. Probably futile, but it's not like the effort will kill me.

That is clearly a subjective opinion. You are free to have it but asserting it loudly and more confidently each time doesn't make it more true. It also isn't any more helpful in bringing people to the hobby by calling the flagship RPG "D&D is the biggest paramecium in a stagnant mud-puddle." Surely you can see that this only invites hostility from people who happen to like D&D and who think it is a well designed system. And I am sure you can also see that people who are just coming into the game but encounter that mentality are going to likely be put off by it.

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] was wondering what it was about 4e that made it's proponents so 'passionate' about it. It wasn't anything about the game, itself, - it was the furor with which it was attacked, that provoked such responses. Bedrockgames backed that conclusion up when he noted the edition war got rolling before much at all was known about what 4e would be like. Also pretty conclusive.

I think Zak is making a lot of sense that this stuff isn't helping. I just want to clarify that this isn't what I said. I never suggested people were talking about 4E before it came out in ignorance of its contents. I suggested people were being informed about the upcoming changes and debating those prior to its release. I entirely accept there was way too much hostility being directed at the people who liked the game. I also can say from my own experience there was plenty of hostility being directed at those of us who didn't enjoy the game as well.

 

[Wicht]

First of all, it's a very unpopular game,

You have this particular technique of debate in which you make up your own definitions and then proceed under the assumption that everyone agrees with your definition...

But, a word is only useful in a debate if everyone agrees with the term...

Its a bit of a non-starter when you take the #1 or #2 most popular role-playing game and manage to define it as being very unpopular.

By your definition there has never been a popular role playing game in the history of role-playing, which either means that you are saying that all role-playing games are fair game for rude and mocking attacks, or you are using a worthless sort of definition. If it is the former then you have no justification for your own irritation at perceived attacks against games you like. If it is the latter then you should acknowledge that you are merely trying to twist words for some sort of personal advantage.

Non of which even gets into your habit of begging the question when it comes to the other aspects of your argumentation. :/