[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?

[Relique du Madde]

And yes I know- you guys also insist that it's the mean old 4e fans who keep the wars going, but that's just another side of the argument.

Not to interject, but I don't think everyone is insisting that its only 4e fans who are only ones that keep the edition war going. In fact Sadly, fans on both sides are what is keeping the war going, and all it takes is one snide or edition biased comment to start an edition war.

 

[catastrophic]

Not to interject, but I don't think everyone is insisting that its only 4e fans who are only ones that keep the edition war going.

Actually several people in this thread are clearly heavily implying just that.

And to be frank, it's disingenuous to argue for some equal share. I challenge you to go to any news item on the web relating to dungeon and dragons, and read the comments section. You'd be amazed at how quickly you come across people posting about how 4e sucks and nobody should play it. To say nothing of how people act on forums. The edition wars over 4e have never been an equal conflict, and that platitude only encourages the real instigators, who are often, although not always, people who dislike 4e.

In fact Sadly, fans on both sides are what is keeping the war going, and all it takes is one snide or edition biased comment to start an edition war.

Once again, you can look at the thread this topic was forked from and pretend it's an equal conflict, but that's not really what's going on. It's not as if the thread didn't have merit, I especially liked the mention of angel summoner and bmx bandit, but the attitude is still there in the background.

I stand by my original post in this thread. An edition war happens when 4e fans put up too much of a fight.

When they don't, there's an endless, self perpetuating, snide subtext on the issue. Occasionally fans of 4e get sick of that and ask the other side if they want to make something of it, and that's when something is labeled an edition war, and hence bad.

And frankly, why should people put up with it? If people went around the general forum making endless snide comments about 3e and how much it looks like a dumb baby puzzle in comparison to the other editions, i'm pretty sure the mods would get on it pretty fast.

 

[Kannik]

These probably would be my “litmus tests” for whether a conversation is leading towards an edition war (as opposed to a discussion of gaming mechanics or even styles):

• An absolute statement is made about the game (“You cannot do X in this game at all” vs “I do not see how the system might elegantly support X")
  
• A statement is made about the players of an edition (“Only simpletons could like this system” vs nothing – there is no reason for ad hominem statements)
  
• A statement is made about the designers of an edition (similar to above)
  
• A post is made only to say how much they dislike a system or everything that is wrong with it (“I do not like this system because of X, and I thought I would just share it with you for no apparent reason” vs "I have a question" or "I am soliciting suggestions/advice/insight/other experiences")

I'd assert it's perfectly possible to have a great conversation and discourse on the plusses and minuses of a system, as well as our own experiences about it, and gain excellent insights and even respect for each other. Being steadfast to your opinion or experience as the only possible one, not being willing to see the other person’s point of view (ie, expecting the other to “see the light” with your post, and not willing to do the same in return), or relying on any of the above bullets as ammunition will derail it beyond conversation to a fight.

Peace,

Kannik

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And frankly, why should people put up with it? If people went around the general forum making endless snide comments about 3e and how much it looks like a dumb baby puzzle in comparison to the other editions, i'm pretty sure the mods would get on it pretty fast.

People do make such comments, and the mods move on such posters in exactly the same way they do on those who do so about 4e.

The very offensive Bellhop post is still in the Pictures thread - and that is exactly the type of thing that you are weeping about, only it singles out 3e and Pathfinder, not your oh! so defenseless, 4e.

4e is not defenseless, neither is 3.X - both sides need to stop acting like their opponents are the only offenders. I don't have to like your game, nor do I need to agree that it is in any way a better or equal game to my poison of choice. You, in turn, do you need to respect the obvious superiority of my game, even though angels choir when its name is spoken.

Early on I think that the mods were more likely to move on folks bad mouthing 4e, in part because there were some very obnoxious folks who hated 4e. Once Pathfinder started doing well some of the more vocal 3.X trolls lumbered back to their dens, happy that a game they enjoyed continued. Some 4e goblins then took the success of Pathfinder as attack on their spiky fortress and began lobbing slings and arrows of passive aggressive pain.

Seeing only one side of the edition war as the aggressors is part of being an edition warrior. I find that it saves time to just hate everybody.

The Auld Grump

 

[Terath Ninir]

Hey! First day back and I've already added someone to my Ignore list. Cool, man.

Well, you could also count 1e AD&D vs. 2e AD&D, aforementioned Hero/Fuzion, various World of Darkness edition wars (oWoD vs. nWoD and Mage in particular), Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Exalted..

Okay. For the last 6 or 7 years, I've been playing Exalted. We started with 1e and switched to 2e for our current campaign. I can NOT imagine anyone saying 1e is better. ~shudder~ 2e still has some major design flaws and... eccentricities... but it's WAY better than the first edition was. No comparison to the different D&D editions. 1e Exalted was flat out retarded in a lot of ways.

The essential problem here is that human beings will not accept the fact that you can not change someone's opinion with an argument. (And I'm not saying I'm any better. I've been in more pointless flamewars than most people in my day.) Maybe Redbadge could convince me 4e is a good game if he sat me down, went through the books and showed me the cool parts, and then ran me through one of his games. But can his logical arguments on a message board ever change my opinion that Pathfinder is better than 4e in every way? No. Flat out no.

Edition wars are exactly the same as any other flame war on any other subject. You really want to change other people's opinions with your reasoned arguments. And you really, really aren't ever going to do it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Actually several people in this thread are clearly heavily implying just that.

And to be frank, it's disingenuous to argue for some equal share. I challenge you to go to any news item on the web relating to dungeon and dragons, and read the comments section. You'd be amazed at how quickly you come across people posting about how 4e sucks and nobody should play it. To say nothing of how people act on forums. The edition wars over 4e have never been an equal conflict, and that platitude only encourages the real instigators, who are often, although not always, people who dislike 4e.

Once again, you can look at the thread this topic was forked from and pretend it's an equal conflict, but that's not really what's going on. It's not as if the thread didn't have merit, I especially liked the mention of angel summoner and bmx bandit, but the attitude is still there in the background.

I stand by my original post in this thread. An edition war happens when 4e fans put up too much of a fight.

When they don't, there's an endless, self perpetuating, snide subtext on the issue. Occasionally fans of 4e get sick of that and ask the other side if they want to make something of it, and that's when something is labeled an edition war, and hence bad.

And frankly, why should people put up with it? If people went around the general forum making endless snide comments about 3e and how much it looks like a dumb baby puzzle in comparison to the other editions, i'm pretty sure the mods would get on it pretty fast.

The simple solution is to put the people that make the snide remarks on ignore. It will do wonders for your blood pressure and reduce the number of edition war threads becasue you willl not feel tempted to respont to them.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hey! First day back and I've already added someone to my Ignore list. Cool, man.

But, but, but you can't ignore me! I'm the hero!

You may want to remove the Ignore comment, I got thumped by mods for that. I won't say that it wasn't a deserved thumping, it was deserved, but I won't say that I might not do it again, under the same circumstances. Best to avoid the circumstances.

And not all the arguments used to try to change minds fit the descriptor 'reasonable'.
Though at other times 'silly' works better than any other method.

The Auld Grump

 

[Aberzanzorax]

You say this:

Also as noted earlier, it's easy to act like everything is just a matter of opinion- but that doesn't lead to good game design. Sooner or later if you want good games, and you want games to be better, you have to get down to brass tacks instead of indulging in easy platitudes.

But then all you offer is this:

Just because people refuse to accept any proof of an argument contrary to their own, doesn't mean none exists- it also doesn't mean somebody should go through the time and effort of providing such proof when it's so clear that you aren't interested in that kind of discussion. You want to act like everything is subjective? You go right ahead. That doesn't mean other people have to think about things the same way.

Platitudes.

You say proof exists. But all you give us are platitudes about how proof exists, without any proof at all.


You've been saying 4e is the best game. Ok, how? Where's that objective proof that extends beyond your own platitudes?



I gave you a pretty lengthy response here about how there ARE some objective measures:

I agree with the part of your post that I quoted.

I disagree with most of the rest.

that you seemed to just ignore or brush off.

In fact, the only "objective" evidence you've provided has been:

<snip> The previous editions of D&D did nothing of the sort, and 4e is certainly better than them in that respect, due to the quality of it's DM advice about story, campaign, play styles, ect.

(Again, without evidence, only platitude.)

To which Imaro disproves your assertion with:

You know, after going back and re-reading the 3.5 DMG 1 & 2 along with the PHB 1 & 2 and Unearthed Arcana for 3.5... I'm going to call bull on this... <snip>

So you scale back your objective claim that earlier editions didn't do it at all to:

<snippy sarcasm>
It does not suprise me to see people reject this argument.
But the DMG's for 4e have been fantastic and blow the advice in the previous game's books out of the water. It's not just about depth of breadth, but quality. The quality of the advice is better, and makes for better play.

It's discussion of play types comes straight from the guy who literally wrote the book on the subject. It touches on issues like shared narrative, which have only been managed in a remidial fashion in the past. Those are just two examples.

I say this as somebody who considers the campaign sourcebook and catacomb guide one of my favorite books from the old days, but each edition has been better than the one before it in this respect, and 4e is miles ahead of it's predecessors.

Ok, so 4e is miles better. (Another platitude.) Where? How? I thought the other editions didn't do it at all? The fact that you make that claim, which was quickly and easily disproven, makes me wonder how knowledgeable about earlier editions you are to actually make a fair comparison.

Finally, Imaro asked you for some objective evidence. You seem keen on this, since you claim both the existence and importance of objective evidence.

Please enlighten us... since it's an argument could you give some concrete examples where 4e gives objectively better advice on roleplaying and such... Here's a question for you... have you even read the advice in the 3.5 books I listed?

Yet we've still seen no objective evidence from you, Catastrophic. All we've seen are platitudes.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think Aberzanzorax is quickly turning into my favorite non-mod poster (because my love of the mods knows no bounds ).

You completly missed the point of the conversation. We were talking about wether or not a given edition provided better support for the playstyle you don't like. You don't like that playstyle? Fine, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Also as noted earlier, it's easy to act like everything is just a matter of opinion- but that doesn't lead to good game design. Sooner or later if you want good games, and you want games to be better, you have to get down to brass tacks instead of indulging in easy platitudes.

Just because people refuse to accept any proof of an argument contrary to their own, doesn't mean none exists- it also doesn't mean somebody should go through the time and effort of providing such proof when it's so clear that you aren't interested in that kind of discussion. You want to act like everything is subjective? You go right ahead. That doesn't mean other people have to think about things the same way.

Well, in the case of play style, there's no objective measurement. Period. It's hit or miss with people's preferences. The same even goes for things like the layout of books. Some people like X layout style, while other people like Y layout style.

I don't think there's any way to objectively show that one set of advice is better than another set of advice unless you look at the outcome after the advice is given. If the advice worked, then it was good. If it didn't, then it wasn't.

Since fun is subjective, and the promotion of a narrative style of play is advice, it will work for some people, and not for others. You can only judge the advice in a subjective manner, as fun will vary from group to group.

Now, is there objectively more narrative advice in the 4e book compared to 3.X? Probably (but I'm not positive). However, you still must apply the advice, then objectively judge it based on subjective views of fun. To that end, the measuring stick remains subjective, not objective.

So when you make statements like the following (which I originally replied to):

But the DMG's for 4e have been fantastic and blow the advice in the previous game's books out of the water. It's not just about depth of breadth, but quality. The quality of the advice is better, and makes for better play.

... then it makes me think, "that can only be subjectively true."

As always, play what you like

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It makes me think, "that can only be subjectively true."

No, it can also be subjectively false!

[EXAMPLE]So, when's the next edition of FATAL due out? It's the best game EVER!

Remember, no matter how much you may dislike 4e/3.X/BECMI there is always... worse. Much worse.

The Auld Grump, now Spawn of Fashan on the other hand... pure win.