Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5595462" data-attributes="member: 3820">Edition wars, in my experience, tend to happen partly because the people involved assume their experiences are universal. Even in the case where people understand their preferences are personal and not shared, what turns a discussion into an edition war is the idea that experiences must be the same.&quot;I like/do not like Edition X,&quot; says one person, &quot;because these factors create an experience that I dislike.&quot; &quot;But I do not like/like Edition X,&quot; says another, &quot;because I had a very different experience, and those factors did not create what you describe.&quot;How does this become an edition war? When either the first person or the second person believes that the other is saying they're wrong -- that they didn't have the experience they describe, or that if they did, that they &quot;did it wrong.&quot; For example, &quot;if you weren't able to get immersed in a 4e game you did it wrong,&quot; or &quot;if casters were a problem for you in a 3e game you were doing it wrong.&quot; This may be a matter of sensitivity, or it may be that the other person is actually saying you're wrong. And of course, that's where the defensiveness breaks out and war is declared.Where edition wars don't happen is where people are more willing to take one another's word for it. &quot;I have been playing D&amp;D for 30 years,&quot; says one person, &quot;and I simply find it impossible to roleplay to the same level in a game with such abstraction.&quot; &quot;I have been playing D&amp;D for 30 years,&quot; says another, &quot;and I find the abstraction is actually a boon to roleplay.&quot; &quot;My group never was able to get into character, we spent so much time wrangling with the rules.&quot; &quot;My group dives deep into character and barely comes out.&quot; Both sides are probably telling the truth! At least, they are when they talk about themselves alone. Once one side starts assuming their experiences are universal, that's where the problems begin. &quot;It is impossible to roleplay with Mechanic X&quot; and &quot;It is totally easy to roleplay with Mechanic X&quot; aren't themselves true statements. But add &quot;for me&quot; or &quot;for us&quot; and they're as true as any absolute statement can be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 5595462, member: 3820"] Edition wars, in my experience, tend to happen partly because the people involved assume their experiences are universal. Even in the case where people understand their preferences are personal and not shared, what turns a discussion into an edition war is the idea that experiences must be the same. "I like/do not like Edition X," says one person, "because these factors create an experience that I dislike." "But I do not like/like Edition X," says another, "because I had a very different experience, and those factors did not create what you describe." How does this become an edition war? When either the first person or the second person believes that the other is saying they're [I]wrong[/I] -- that they didn't have the experience they describe, or that if they did, that they "did it wrong." For example, "if you weren't able to get immersed in a 4e game you did it wrong," or "if casters were a problem for you in a 3e game you were doing it wrong." This may be a matter of sensitivity, or it may be that the other person [I]is[/I] actually saying you're wrong. And of course, that's where the defensiveness breaks out and war is declared. Where edition wars [I]don't[/I] happen is where people are more willing to take one another's word for it. "I have been playing D&D for 30 years," says one person, "and I simply find it impossible to roleplay to the same level in a game with such abstraction." "I have been playing D&D for 30 years," says another, "and I find the abstraction is actually a boon to roleplay." "My group never was able to get into character, we spent so much time wrangling with the rules." "My group dives deep into character and barely comes out." Both sides are probably telling the truth! At least, they are when they talk about themselves alone. Once one side starts assuming their experiences are universal, that's where the problems begin. "It is impossible to roleplay with Mechanic X" and "It is totally easy to roleplay with Mechanic X" aren't themselves true statements. But add "for me" or "for us" and they're as true as any absolute statement can be. [/QUOTE]

Verification