I'm getting Edition War fatigue

[Wormwood]

I will agree with you 100% in one aspect, though. I've seen a few people post insulting anti-4Ed slogans in their sigs. I haven't seen anyone post an anti-3Ed slogan in their sig.

As someone whose *very own words* were quoted in a 4e-hater's .sig for like a year, let's just say I have a sore spot for that kind of stupidity.

 

[Lanefan]

I think that there are a group of people, however, who switched to 4e against their own better judgment. They switched because their friends did or they didn't want to be left behind. So now, they are officially in the "4e players" camp. But that doesn't mean they don't still have a list of complaints about 4e a mile long. They aren't really so much happy with the game they are playing as....not hating it enough to stop playing it.

It's that second group that causes most of the edition warring. They often start threads that say "Why doesn't 4e do this well?"

The thing is, now 4e is designed purposefully enough that I feel comfortable answering these questions with "Because that's not what it was designed to do". Unfortunately, there are many people out there who want it to be able to do anything. And when they attempt to pound the square peg into the round hole it causes problems.

What the above says to me boils down to "criticizing 4e causes most of the edition warring", with a strong corollary implication that to avoid edition wars one must not criticize 4e.

Asking why 4e (or any e) doesn't do something well is always valid, if only because someone might reply with an idea that'll fix the problem. No edition of the game will ever be perfect; there's always going to be problems somewhere that can only be fixed if someone in a role of critic points them out, thus stifling criticism is hardly the best way of seeing the game improve.

As for another comment earlier: someone mentioned that the frequent release of new editions is good for the hobby (or words to that effect). While there is no doubt such things are good for the *industry*, the edition wars only serve to show it's an open question as to whether such things are good for the *hobby*. To me, there is a huge difference between the two.

Lan-"ready and waiting to loot the corpses after the 3e-4e war is done"-efan

 

[thecasualoblivion]

What the above says to me boils down to "criticizing 4e causes most of the edition warring", with a strong corollary implication that to avoid edition wars one must not criticize 4e.

Asking why 4e (or any e) doesn't do something well is always valid, if only because someone might reply with an idea that'll fix the problem. No edition of the game will ever be perfect; there's always going to be problems somewhere that can only be fixed if someone in a role of critic points them out, thus stifling criticism is hardly the best way of seeing the game improve.

But what about asking why 4E doesn't do something well when you already know the answer or that the answer is self-evident?

 

[Mark]

Really? Most of the conflict I've seen has been instigated by implications that those who play [X] edition are hidebound and irrational, while those who prefer [X+1] edition are intellectually inferior.

And let's be honest for a moment: the second slander has been raised *far* more often (even in freakin' .sig files) than the first.

There's only a few posters that don't ever play 4E that seem to jump into 4E threads or edition wars anymore (in the last year, from my experience) and it seems to only happen once in a great while. There might be some who play more than one edition who have their opinions as to what they prefer, but that's fair and only their opinion. It's not a criticism of a game that causes an edtion war to flare up, it's the reaction to such a criticism. When I see ad hominem attacks or the word "hate" rolled out, I usually sense an edition war in the making. It's the marginalization and extremism that fuels those fires, not the discussion of differences.

 

[Lanefan]

But what about asking why 4E doesn't do something well when you already know the answer or that the answer is self-evident?

If what I'm (hypothetically) asking about is something that one or more previous editions *did* do well, it's still a valid question.

I base this on the not-too-farfetched assumption that a new edition of something (be it a game, a car, software, whatever) should be able to do well that which its predecessors did well *and* be able to do well whatever it is that needed doing which the previous editions did not do, or did badly.

Lanefan

 

[thecasualoblivion]

If what I'm (hypothetically) asking about is something that one or more previous editions *did* do well, it's still a valid question.

I base this on the not-too-farfetched assumption that a new edition of something (be it a game, a car, software, whatever) should be able to do well that which its predecessors did well *and* be able to do well whatever it is that needed doing which the previous editions did not do, or did badly.

Lanefan

The issue I have is when people ask why 4E doesn't do X well while 3E did, when the answer is blatantly obvious. Take for example, simulationism. 4E has made a specific design choice to throw any hint of simulationism completely out of the game, and that is the answer. In a lot of instances, people are complaining about things that the designers of 4E chose to remove.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But what about asking why 4E doesn't do something well when you already know the answer or that the answer is self-evident?

It is still a valid critique of the design, depending on context.

For instance, if Game X had always had an element in it that was fairly popular or was very good at simulating a particular aspect of the game's genre, and the newest edition eliminated that element, questioning that element's elimination is completely valid. Take this post that showed up while I was writing mine:

Take for example, simulationism. 4E has made a specific design choice to throw any hint of simulationism completely out of the game, and that is the answer.

Its a common thing to see people talking about why a particular game doesn't do something well when another game does, and a common response to say "Then go play that other game." That being the case, players of the previous edition are perfectly justified in asking why remove an element from a game when you could design a different one.

Asking why Game X didn't do something well when it is something completely new element added to the game's new edition is also valid, since you'd expect that flaw to become evident during playtest.

Wondering why Game X doesn't do something well regarding something that's a port from a game in another genre raises the question of the justification for its inclusion.

OTOH, wondering why Game X doesn't do something well that has absolutely nothing to do with Game X in ANY iteration...well, that's possibly a sign of insanity.

Now, the fact is, asking such a question may be unanswerable by anyone who didn't actually work on the game's design...but its still a valid critique.

But trying to elicit the obvious or self-evident answer is a valid rhetorical technique. Sometimes it helps remind persons of the facts (something that can be lost or ignored in a vigorous debate)- a technique called "refocusing". Sometimes its used to have your debate opponent paint himself into a corner.

And sometimes, sometimes it helps to expose a troll...on either side of the debate (the asker or the answerer).

 

[MichaelSomething]

For those of you who are not tired of Edition Wars, feel free to comment in this thread of mine. I also have several blog posts about this subject.

The thing is, forum wars are the least productive way to have an edition war. If you really wanted to "win," it would require an organized effort on many fronts. Things like organization building, fund raising, lobbying, and long term planning would be needed if people wanted to get serious about Edition Wars.

 

[Wayside]

I actually prefer ENWorld's boards to either WotC or RPGNow precisely because the quality of discussion here is better than over there. Even the threads that are (or descend into) an edition war tend to be more civilized. The moderators here do a great job of keeping the level of bile to a minimum.

Here's ENWorld's "The Truth About 4th Edition" thread.

Here's RPGNet's "The Truth About 4th Edition" thread.

The difference is instructive. I used to agree with you, but that's changed in the past year or two. I still think ENWorld has fantastic moderators--some of the best I've seen anywhere--but the policies and guidelines they're working with are no longer adequate. And contrary to what some well-known edition warriors say, RPGNet is not unfriendly toward Pathfinder or 3.x. It's unfriendly toward edition warring. As I type this, there are 7 Pathfinder threads on the first page of the D&D/D20 forum, plus a bunch of 3.x and edition-neutral stuff. Fewer than half the threads (19 out of 50, or just 38%) are 4e-specific.

 

[Maldin]

War is Hell... but somebody's gotta do i.... err.... No. Actually. Nobody has to fight a war.

Personally, 4E is not for me (and those of you who know me know that I'm solidly ingrained in an edition of the distant past), but I couldn't care one way or t'other if other people play it. In fact, I'm glad people have played all of the editions that followed the edition that I still play, so that there is still commercially-produced fluff that I can subvert into my own campaign.

War is for the Haters.
I'm a Lover, baby.

Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com
Loads of edition-independent Greyhawk goodness
Latest update: layered maps of Greyhawk's Underdark