[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?

[Relique du Madde]

So... 3e helps kids with serious illnesses?

Yeah, since 4e assumes you can heal yourself ("No healing surges makes 3e a Sad Panda").

 

[Bullgrit]

Something that I've never really understood, and it bugs me when I see someone doing it: Why comment at all on an edition that you don't like? I'm not even talking about "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I mean, why even enter those threads on subjects you're not positively interested in?

I don't care for cats, and so I wouldn't bother reading a thread on them. And I definitely have no reason to add a comment on them, especially a negative comment in any form. Why pee in someone else's sandbox?

I like three particular editions of D&D, and I read and tend to comment in those discussions. The other three, I'm not interested in, and so I tend to ignore those threads.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a dichotomy with regard to edition love. Some seem to believe that to like one edition, you must actively dislike another. Any expression of love or support for one edition is taken as hate and derision of another edition. I think this is what causes a lot of edition wars.

Basically, saying, "Edition A is great!" is taken by some as exactly like saying, "Edition B sucks!" Heck, you can't even say, "I prefer edition A" without someone taking it as, "You're dumb for liking edition B."

Bullgrit

 

[MrMyth]

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."

Yeah, the suggestion in the DMG2 is to actually act out past events (or even current scenes that the PCs aren't part of) with the players taking the role of important NPCs rather than their own characters.

I totally get it might not be for everyone - indeed, the section has a disclaimer on most of these approaches mentioning the possible pitfalls. But never having really been presented with the idea before, it was fascinating to me, and I tried it in-game - in this case, each PC took on the persona of their patrons (various Gods, an Archdevil, and other Powers allied in a great extraplanar war) and held a grand debate about how to pursue the coming war. That let them set the tone, in character, of how they wanted the game to proceed, and everyone found it a fun and memorable experience.

Anyway, maybe it isn't to your taste, but the advice in these books - both on designing the game and running it - has been pretty impressive. I'm honestly puzzled by what sort of poor advice you've come across.

I admit to being less impressed with the recent DM Kit, which seemed to mostly tread the same ground and leave out some important sections - but the DMG1 and DMG2 were rather universally praised as offering exceptional DM advice.

 

[billd91]

I dunno. Why is the "fighters are bellhops" picture the only one that's "very offense?"

Remember, that's the comment I quoted. That of everything in that thread, the only comment that's "very offensive" is the one that makes a joke about 3e.

<snip>
Then, again, why was it all fun and games until "3e fighters are bellhops?"

As I said, it is easy to state "an opinion is not an attack" when only one game is being attacked and not the other. And that leads to the perception of "that thread wasn't an edition war until those 4e fans started commenting about 3e."

Perceptions matter, and on both these forums and a large amount of the internet at large, the perception is "We need to attack 4e, but don't you dare say those same kinds of things about my game." One need only look at many of the EXP comments in that thread to pick up on it. It's not enough for some people to enjoy their game - they feel they need to slam on "the other one." But "the other one" seems to always be 4e.

Context is key here. The bellhop pictures came from a brand new member with a name that suggests intent to threadcrap or at least stir up trouble (google the name and you should get the picture) as well as posting behavior that suggests intent to only get embroiled in edition warring (in other words - no posts in any threads but the two). The bellhop pictures also came after the poster was already tossing about accusations of edition warring. That suggests the intent wasn't to simply post pictorial impressions of the editions, but to retaliate.
Since you say that perceptions are important here, the poster is perceived as an active participant in edition warring and his post was seen as a deliberate attempt to inflame an edition war.

Notice also that there are other posts that could be interpreted as critical of 3e/PF that nobody has called out as offensive. They weren't posted under the same circumstances by a questionable poster.

 

[Bullgrit]

Unfortunately, there seems to be a dichotomy with regard to edition love. Some seem to believe that to like one edition, you must actively dislike another. Any expression of love or support for one edition is taken as hate and derision of another edition.

Also, I must add, some seem to take any negative comment about an aspect of one edition as representing a general hate for that edition and, by definition, a love for another edition.

There have been a couple of sadly funny situations in the past when someone took a less than glowing comment of mine about X edition as meaning that I completely dislike X edition and must like Y edition. They then throw in an insult about that Y edition. They just assumed that insult to "my" edition would hurt me, when actually, I didn't even get the reference because I don't play it.

Bullgrit

 

[billd91]

Something that I've never really understood, and it bugs me when I see someone doing it: Why comment at all on an edition that you don't like? I'm not even talking about "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." I mean, why even enter those threads on subjects you're not positively interested in?

I don't care for cats, and so I wouldn't bother reading a thread on them. And I definitely have no reason to add a comment on them, especially a negative comment in any form. Why pee in someone else's sandbox?

I like three particular editions of D&D, and I read and tend to comment in those discussions. The other three, I'm not interested in, and so I tend to ignore those threads.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a dichotomy with regard to edition love. Some seem to believe that to like one edition, you must actively dislike another. Any expression of love or support for one edition is taken as hate and derision of another edition. I think this is what causes a lot of edition wars.

Basically, saying, "Edition A is great!" is taken by some as exactly like saying, "Edition B sucks!" Heck, you can't even say, "I prefer edition A" without someone taking it as, "You're dumb for liking edition B."

Bullgrit

The popularity of cats as pets doesn't really affect me as a pet owner of anything else but cats. The ripple effect of any developments in cat ownership is fairly contained. But D&D and anything going on with D&D, given its traditional position in the hobby and mindshare of people both inside and outside the industry, has a big ripple effect with this small hobby. I think that's a significant reason why people can't shut up about it, positive or negative.

Plus, most of us have played D&D at some point in our lives, particularly on this D&D-oriented board. We've pretty much all self-identified as D&D players at some point. Most of us feel a personal connection with this hobby in general and this game, otherwise we wouldn't waste our time here, typing on and on about it. We are (or at least were) invested in it and its future. So, again, we can't really shut up about it.

 

[billd91]

Except, again, you're suggesting we believe someone who's name is literally a meme, who's other pictures were all just google image searches - including others about 3e and Pathfinder! - went out of their way this one time to make an incredibly bizarre and "insightful" post about Jerry Lewis.

Rather then simply grabbing those from GIS as well.

Occam's Razor suggests otherwise.

I think that's a misuse of Occam's razor. Assuming he's not looking for a particular meaning would suggest that the poster, going a google search for bellhop, would be more likely to take one of the early hits rather than keep searching for Jerry Lewis. There are pages of bellhop images before you reach the Jerry Lewis video on a google image search. No. I think he was clearly looking for a deeper meaning than simply carrying the other PCs' gear.
Same with his choice of user name.

Incidentally, by definition, one cannot "retaliate" until they've been wronged first. As was stated before - the "edition war" didn't start until the 4e side "struck back."

Semantic games only get you so far. The poster made things pretty clear that he thought blows had been struck against 4e before he posted the bellhop pictures.

 

[Barastrondo]

We are (or at least were) invested in it and its future. So, again, we can't really shut up about it.

That's one half of why edition wars happen; the other is that, being human beings, we can't hold 100% to the standard of "even if I don't like this, and I can't stay out of the discussion when people are discussing this, I will at least try not to put too much negativity into the conversation because that helps nothing." In fact, one can even intend to not be too negative and still come across as profoundly so, because it's not like there's a weights & measures standard for Internet argument.

The really sad thing about edition wars is how they are not just unwinnable, but counter-productive. The more choices there are on the table, the more likely it is that any given person actually prefers Choice B to Choice A and has tried both. Telling this person that you wish Choice B hadn't come along isn't going to make him any happier with Choice A, and in fact it is more likely to engender resentment of Choice A. As a result, edition wars tend to make it less likely that any given participant will be open-minded about trying the choice on the other side, when theoretically what the other side would want would be for him to be more likely to give it a shot.

They're just terrible, really. It's understandable how they happen; you can even track it back. But they go right against the greatest strength of the hobby, which is the ability to share ideas and experiences with other people.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

incidentally, by definition, one cannot "retaliate" until they perceive that they've been wronged first. As was stated before - the "edition war" didn't start until the 4e side "struck back."

fify.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Pour oil on the troubled waters.... Come back later and the waters are still troubled, and now the oil is now on fire....

As has been pointed out there were anti-3e posts in the picture thread on the first page. I rolled my eyes and moved on. Then there was a picture breaking the 'no politics' rule that was also offensive - that one got reported, most likely more than once.

Yes, there have been insulting pics of 4e as well - both sides are being offensive! And there is no need - you can make your point without being offensive.

I went for pictures of pirates from movies - I own every single one of those movies, and wouldn't give any less than three stars out of five. (The three star is Blackbeard's Ghost - when I was a kid I would have given it a five. I loved that movie in the theater. I used the picture for 2e - because while 2e has faded for me a bit I remember loving it.) The first picture is The Black Swan - an old B&W film of possibly the most successful pirate of all time, Henry Morgan - who managed to become Governor of Jamaica. OD&D had its faults, but I don't think anyone would deny it's success.

1e and 3.5 were both chosen for maniacal grins - Yellowbeard for 1e and Hook for 3.5. I just liked those pictures.

Jack Sparrow for 4e and Blackbeard for Pathfinder? The most recent success stories in a long line of folks killing things and taking their stuff.

I don't think that any were offensive.

Saying that Jerry Lewis as an incompetent bellhop is not offensive to 3e?... Sorry, it was offensive. Less offensive would be a picture of a packhorse or mule. But, in honesty? Fighters have served as the party's pack mule since OD&D - it was not new to 3e. Which the picture implied was the case.

Saying that they were less effective in 3e? In Basic D&D Clerics had the same attack bonus, could wear the same armor, did the same damage, and could cast spells.

It wasn't until Unearthed Arcana and 2e that fighters started becoming more effective. Fighters were again a bit more effective in 3e, but perhaps still had ground to cover to come to parity with spell casters.

In Pathfinder fighters have come close to parity, if not reached it - better in armor and weapons use than anyone else, nearly twice the feats of anyone else, and no dead levels. (And fighters getting better protection than anyone else wearing the exact same armor is great. Tankity, tankity, tank!)

4e... some might argue that with the strange new Powers and Healing Surges that he is not a Fighter at all anymore, at least in the OD&D - Pathfinder sense. But, you know... if the folks playing them newfangled, motor driven pack mules are having fun? Let them have fun! That's the freakin' point!

Me, I want to play with the new, shiny, armor plated pack mule with improved kicking power that is in Pathfinder. He still eats hay and oats, he's still stubborn, and doesn't always go where the wizard wants him to go, but he's my mule, and boy, he can carry a lot of stuff.

The Auld Grump