D&D General Did You "Return" because of some Edition of D&D?

[Zardnaar]

Yes. But I won't say more here, trying to avoid injecting any further edition warring into the thread.


Your criticism would be more effective if I were not aware of your posting history (here and elsewhere) regarding 4e. As it stands, it seems to me you're just continuing the edition war (not that that surprises me, given your lopsided criticism of it in rhe past.)

I think you, like me, could do with a reminder that we were asked not to engage in edition warring here.

See above post.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

See above post.

Then you know that Mr. Mearls explicitly and intentionally used an edition warring comment, both as a joke, and as a serious reason why certain 4e content should not be included in 5e.

I hope you can see why people like me, who liked that content, felt we were being told that our preferences were bad and did not belong in D&D.

 

[Morrus]

I think you, like me, could do with a reminder that we were asked not to engage in edition warring here.

We haven't prohibited or enforced rules regarding anything called 'edition warring' in over a decade, and isn't something that should be reported unless it breaks some other rule (such as civility). It's not the problem it was 10 years ago. Should it become so again in 2024, we might have to start using that term again, but right now people can express a dislike of D&D editions as long as they remain within the rules.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We haven't prohibited anything called 'edition warring' in over a decade. It's not the problem it was 10 years ago. Should it become so again in 2024, we might have to start using that term again, but right now people can express a dislike of D&D editions as long as they remain within the rules.

It was a request made by the person who posted the thread. I was reminded of it several pages back. Specifically, "Also, it shouldn't need to be said, but PLEASE no Edition Warring. Your battles are over, my friend. Find peace now."

 

[Morrus]

It was a request made by the person who posted the thread. I was reminded of it several pages back.

It also got reported; this is a friendly note to the thread that there's no need to do so unless it breaks some other rules.

 

[Zardnaar]

Then you know that Mr. Mearls explicitly and intentionally used an edition warring comment, both as a joke, and as a serious reason why certain 4e content should not be included in 5e.

I hope you can see why people like me, who liked that content, felt we were being told that our preferences were bad and did not belong in D&D.

It's also why I said criticism wasn't allowed.

People were so obsessed and nitpicky that it was easy enough to understand what that comment originally meant and the context in which Mearls used it.

In either case it doesn't really matter because it's an opinion if someone doesn't like something no matter how poorly they express themselves you can get the gist of it.

 

[Nightfly]

We haven't prohibited or enforced rules regarding anything called 'edition warring' in over a decade,

Hooray! Bust out the pitchforks, everyone, it's gang warfare time!

So Jack the Ripper was definitely a Castles & Crusades guy, right?

 

[Reynard]

Hooray! Bust out the pitchforks, everyone, it's gang warfare time!

So Jack the Ripper was definitely a Castles & Crusades guy, right?

There's nothing worse than a rock chewing, pond water drinking, flatulant Black Box Basic player.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Your criticism would be more effective if I were not aware of your posting history (here and elsewhere) regarding 4e.

Mod Note:

YOUR criticism would be more effective if you simply addressed the content of the posts in question instead of going after the poster. STOP.

 

[GreyLord]

There's nothing worse than a rock chewing, pond water drinking, flatulant Black Box Basic player.

I didn't know any of the original Traveller players were still around. I thought we had flayed them alive for flatulence decades ago.