[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?
- Thread starter Aberzanzorax
- Start date
What sort of stuff specifically? From what I've seen, the DMG and DMG2 are some of the highlights of the edition. DMG2, in particular, introduced several concepts that may have been obvious to other DMs (in-game flashbacks, off-player activity during a solo mission, etc) that were breakthroughs to me.
Or were you referring to advice given out on forums and such?
While some folks will claim all trouble lies with one side or another, from the moderator's view, that's just not true.
We are in "Hatfield and McCoy" territory, and have been there for quite some time. Both sides behaved shamefully, and neither is willing to forgive or forget slights, or forego vengeance. So, on occasion, someone on either side will take a pot shot, and start a flareup.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
This is true. And it leads directly to a very common tactic, shown here in its baldest and most extreme form (it is often more subtle):
X wants to stir up trouble, and knows the above, and is savvy enough not to butt into such a hornets nest head on. Instead X will say something that is easy to say, kind of right if you look at it cross-eyed in bad light, but difficult to concisely refute. X will very carefully not stake out much of a position, in order to "move the goal posts" over and over.
In a well-moderated board, such as this one, people will try to give X the benefit of the doubt and will discuss this position in good faith. X will twist and turn, refuse to engage key points, pounce on any misstep from any "opponent", as a distraction from the central discussion. And then to cap it all off, after X has been completely and utterly banished from any reasonable persons' consideration of having a point--X will wait a few days or weeks and start it all over again on something else. And with a lot of chutzpah, X will eventually get around to revisiting the original topic--totally ignoring any objection that was ever made to it in the previous exhaustive discussion.
I'm not talking about X refusing to change his mind. That's his choice. But if someone has bothered to write several thousand words in a discussion with you that gets really detailed, you at least owe them the courtesy of factoring in their objections into your next round--if only a comment that an earlier discussion took place, but you still aren't buying it.
One would almost think that X was more motivated by an agenda to put out propaganda than to discuss ... Naw, that can't possibly be it.
People get used to seeing X before X fully manifests, because they don't want to waste their time with a propagandist (naturally). This causes people to develop radar for X that sometimes makes mistakes. Thus the newbie that gets blind-sided with a poorly worded post that steps into previous mine fields.
The same guy can call me on the phone. I can be polite. Then he can keep making the same stupid call. At some point, I'll stop being polite. At some point, I'll stop being polite with caller guy number 123456 a lot faster than I was with number 1. This is why we have the "do not call" list. On a forum, we don't have the ability to tell X, "You know, A, B, C, and me were all having a fine discussion on this until you butted in for the 23rd time with your inane propaganda. I suppose we could all just not respond, but D is new in the discussion, and still doesn't know you are a complete jerk (at least on the current subject*), and we aren't allowed to tell him in no uncertain terms not to waste his time on you."
* Were it not sometimes subject by subject, ignore lists would be far more effective.
The fundamental hole in the "everyone be polite" idea is that we have to treat the propgandist, who is exactly not polite, as if he were. Not that I have an answer. Mods aren't parents dealing with 5 year olds in the back seat, "not" poking each other. It just seems that way sometimes.
I know it is a pipe dream, and would be a nightmare for moderaters to do, but sometimes I wish the moderator text was: "Answer the freaking question that was ask of you and take a position, even if it is, 'I don't know', or shut up about this topic for the next six months, on pain of a suspension."
I guess the only positive way to get around any of that would be to have closed discussions, invitations only, where the people that started the discussion were the only ones allowed to post, unless they specifically invited someone else. And no doubt that would have a whole host of other problems.
Last edited:
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Isn't some of this rather self-perpetuating, because the Hatfields that aren't all that interested in McCoy territory, pro or con, aren't bothering to go there? And vice versa.
That is, if I'm a McCoy, and I like McCoy stuff, the only Hatfields I see are the troublemakers and the ones that are a bit of both (i.e. part McCoy and part Hatfield). And, I'm not seeing the McCoy guys at their worst, when they are shooting up Hatfield territory.
Redbadge
Explorer
Jumping in again to say that I never had a negative word for 3e/PF. Just overly enthusiastic about 4e.
Relique du Madde
Adventurer
You obviously missed the part later in the thread where I said that post of mine was about all the things I hated about every edition and that it contained an image of a "Wall of text", "Glass Ceiling", "Kitchen sink."
Let's go with the bellhop example using two movie posters*:
Which image said's "I Carry your stuff?" and which states "Hurrr! I'm stupid! I fell down go boom"?
Answer:
The first guy obviously carries your stuff. The second saids "Hurrr! I stupid fell down go boom.!"
How can that be?
Image Interpretation 101: The meaning in the first image is conveyed through the representation of a Bellhop. The meaning in the second images is conveyed through the actor, Jerry Lewis, looking like a fool and looking inept at being a "bellhop". Why? Bellhops are iconic, so is Jerry Lewis. When most people see an images of a Jerry Lewis characters they immediately think of an individual that fit these qualities:
1) "Hurrr!" STUPID
2) A bumbling fool
3) Clumsy moron
4) A Beyond brain dead
5) Buffoon
6) Ineffectual
7) Only likely to survive a given task based on luck (opposed to skill)
Unfortunately, that image in the Bellboy image only reinforces those stereotypes and does not convey the notion of someone that "carries your stuff."
What was that , you said? "The Bellhop is also a comedy!" Correct you are.
However, because the first movie is circa 1921, chances are that you probably don't know who the comedian Larry Semon was since he was less well known then his co-star from the same movie, Oliver Hardy. Luckily, the poster did spell that it the Bellhop was a comedy in little yellow text that you probably would have looked over since the focal point of that movie poster is the Bags which the bellhop is masterfully carrying (since the White text stand out).
Unfortunately, since no one uploaded a complete video of the Bellhop on youtube or the internet archive (I'm not sure when it will be public domain since the co-writer/co-director died in 81), it's hard to know how to characterize Larry Semon's character beyond the clip that currently exists on youtube (see below) which shows him elude mobsters by climbing onto a latter dropped by a passing plane then SHOOTING it down after he was forced off that plane (by mobster who was handing onto the planes landing strut) and landing on an other plane flown by a maid from the Bellhop's hotel.
Clearly, Larry Semon's Bellhop is cearly different from the bumbling fool Jerry Lewis played, and seems a lot more epic. Unlike Jerry Lewis he saids, "I'll carry your stuff, break stuff that needs to be broken, and take out the badguys..." which is appropriate for fighters.
[sblock=Ending sequence from The Bellhop]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No_8q3iuqk8[/ame]
[/sblock]
* Let's not pay attention to how the other images in the same post showed Tome of Battle and 4e as being heroic with 1e and 2e being heroic (in a lesser degree) being compared to the "Bellboy 3e" and the "Bellboy special edition Pathfinder." Let's also ignore the fact that Warriors carried the bags of Wizards in 1e and 2e as well, yet your image shows them being heroic in 1e and 2e (to a lesser degree).
Last edited:
pawsplay
Hero
Well, for instance, I think in-game flashbacks are generally a bad idea. I've tried them, and you are pretty much stuck with either acting it out, which is not precisely an RPG or why I game, or playing it out, which... doesn't work. It's the sort of stuff that sounds kind of cool and daring, but rarely are you given the proper warning: "By the way, this is a separate activity from how you usually play RPGs which can be inserted if you see the need, but which actually may not appeal to many, if not most, gamers as being part of what drew them into the game."
Relique du Madde
Adventurer
Did you READ any of my post? No you didn't. I suggest you read it again because you miss the fact that when you use an icon (Jerry Lewis) to represent something that object takes on the icon's (Jerry Lewis) qualities.
A Bellhop vs Jerry Lewis as a Bellhop are two different notions.
Last edited:
pawsplay
Hero
So... 3e helps kids with serious illnesses?
Similar Threads
