Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Gamehole Con Live Tweeting Perkins Panel
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6430094" data-attributes="member: 59082"><p>Let's not get lost in semantics here, Umbran. A lot of your response to me seems to be protesting my word usage, and to be honest I just don't have the energy or interest for an endless back and forth of proper word usage. I'm just not enough of a word fetishist to be too particular with what I say, at least on a hobbyist message board! The point being, let's look to the spirit and not the letter of the law (and words).</p><p></p><p>With that in mind, I will try to clarify what I mean as best I can. To start, what I mean by "large segment" is "large enough for WotC to start working on a new edition just a few years into the edition cycle, with no new material published after around four years." That to me is significant. I don't have a particular number in mind, but evidently WotC did - and it was large enough for what happened to happen. So if you want more specific, accurate language, change "large segment" to "large enough segment for WotC to deem it worth continuing beyond a few years."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is only "a contributing factor in edition warring" if people confuse talk of an edition's popularity with an edition's value or worth. The real factor in this regard is the knee-jerk reactionism that often accompanies such confusion. To be clear: An edition's popular does not inherently have anything to do with its worth or value or quality as a game, and vice versa. So this really shouldn't be an issue, unless the person reacting is so concerned with how popular their favored edition is.</p><p></p><p>Let me be clear again: it is *not* a negative criticism of an edition to say "It isn't as popular or widely embraced as the publisher hoped it would be." That is *not* edition warring. What <em>might be</em> more of a contributing factor is misconstruing that sort of statement as an attack on said edition. In other words, the contributing factor in edition warring has more to do with the way such statements are interpreted, not intended.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, fine, there are always any number of possibilities. But I'm going on what I've seen said time and time again, by Mearls and others, as well as simple inference from the fact that 4E was effectively dead in the water after four years, and that last year was probably really just pushing out stuff that was already finished. That speaks for itself, doesn't it?</p><p></p><p>Again, I'm not bagging on 4E - just pointing out the obvious. Four years to an edition cycle does not speak to a thriving, beloved edition (and it was really only three years of active expansion, with that fourth year being "pushing another year out").</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, I agree with some of what you say here, but it just seems like you are ignoring too much, such as the state and morale of the community. But it is a valid, interesting point you make - and I agree that there was a certain genius to the 4E design.</p><p></p><p>As for needing to verify everything one says as fact, come on Umbran - this is a message board, not the presentation of a dissertation! Also, I think you are interpreting my stand as "speaking as if it is a verifiable fact" rather than a "compelling interpretation of data" - that is <em>your</em> interpretation, not my intention. To be honest, as someone with strong Buddhist inclinations, just about all of my beliefs and perspectives are no more or less than a "compelling interpretation of data," for what its worth! I don't take anything I think or say as "verifiable fact."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>??? This is just truly odd. Did I miss a major point simply because I didn't mention such a thing? I agree with you, but am not sure why you'd think otherwise? Or do you just want to find something to disagree with me about? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm :-S" data-shortname=":-S" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 6430094, member: 59082"] Let's not get lost in semantics here, Umbran. A lot of your response to me seems to be protesting my word usage, and to be honest I just don't have the energy or interest for an endless back and forth of proper word usage. I'm just not enough of a word fetishist to be too particular with what I say, at least on a hobbyist message board! The point being, let's look to the spirit and not the letter of the law (and words). With that in mind, I will try to clarify what I mean as best I can. To start, what I mean by "large segment" is "large enough for WotC to start working on a new edition just a few years into the edition cycle, with no new material published after around four years." That to me is significant. I don't have a particular number in mind, but evidently WotC did - and it was large enough for what happened to happen. So if you want more specific, accurate language, change "large segment" to "large enough segment for WotC to deem it worth continuing beyond a few years." It is only "a contributing factor in edition warring" if people confuse talk of an edition's popularity with an edition's value or worth. The real factor in this regard is the knee-jerk reactionism that often accompanies such confusion. To be clear: An edition's popular does not inherently have anything to do with its worth or value or quality as a game, and vice versa. So this really shouldn't be an issue, unless the person reacting is so concerned with how popular their favored edition is. Let me be clear again: it is *not* a negative criticism of an edition to say "It isn't as popular or widely embraced as the publisher hoped it would be." That is *not* edition warring. What [I]might be[/I] more of a contributing factor is misconstruing that sort of statement as an attack on said edition. In other words, the contributing factor in edition warring has more to do with the way such statements are interpreted, not intended. Sure, fine, there are always any number of possibilities. But I'm going on what I've seen said time and time again, by Mearls and others, as well as simple inference from the fact that 4E was effectively dead in the water after four years, and that last year was probably really just pushing out stuff that was already finished. That speaks for itself, doesn't it? Again, I'm not bagging on 4E - just pointing out the obvious. Four years to an edition cycle does not speak to a thriving, beloved edition (and it was really only three years of active expansion, with that fourth year being "pushing another year out"). Yes, I agree with some of what you say here, but it just seems like you are ignoring too much, such as the state and morale of the community. But it is a valid, interesting point you make - and I agree that there was a certain genius to the 4E design. As for needing to verify everything one says as fact, come on Umbran - this is a message board, not the presentation of a dissertation! Also, I think you are interpreting my stand as "speaking as if it is a verifiable fact" rather than a "compelling interpretation of data" - that is [I]your[/I] interpretation, not my intention. To be honest, as someone with strong Buddhist inclinations, just about all of my beliefs and perspectives are no more or less than a "compelling interpretation of data," for what its worth! I don't take anything I think or say as "verifiable fact." ??? This is just truly odd. Did I miss a major point simply because I didn't mention such a thing? I agree with you, but am not sure why you'd think otherwise? Or do you just want to find something to disagree with me about? :-S [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Gamehole Con Live Tweeting Perkins Panel
Top