There have been many discussions about how to speed combat up that never devolved into an edition war. Perhaps the key was that the posters acknowledged that they, personally, were not able to execute combat at the pace they would have liked, rather than blaming it all on the game. People tend to say things like "4e plays slow" or "4e plays like a glorified miniatures game," but neither of these is accurate. This sense of "play" should really be used transitively: "I play 4e slowly," or "I play 4e like a glorified miniatures game." But of course, to admit that one is culpable in how the game is played makes it difficult to provoke people.
I'm getting Edition War fatigue
- Thread starter Majoru Oakheart
- Start date
- Status
Original poster: "I've come back to the boards after a break, and all these negative threads towards 4e are upsetting."
Other posters: "You're right, editions wars are upsetting and not helpful."
My post: "Editions wars have a place on the board, because there are serious underlying issues with the game that people want to discuss."
I don't know how I could have managed to "not inflame" the discussion, by the loose standards that people seem to be using, other than by a) not posting anything at all (i.e. treating the thread as pure "like-minded support" and not trying to make a valid counter-point to the OP), or else by b) baselessly saying "I disagree, 4e attacks have a place" without spelling out any specific game-related details why that might be so.
If it needs to be said, "what they were smoking" was an obvious shorthand for "what wrong-headed design decisions were made that led the game down an unpleasant detour". The phrase itself was "air-quoted", mind you, and I'd also like to think that people are reading in context rather than assuming literal accusations of drug use. (I suppose it wouldn't help to point out that I'm 4/20-supportive.)
In general, I don't know how you can have "incisive critique" of an idea, without some allowance for "insulting the idea" (i.e. colorful/descriptive negative phrases that help people to express exactly what they find wrong with a particular concept).
tyrlaan
Explorer
But your post wasn't "Editions wars have a place on the board, because there are serious underlying issues with the game that people want to discuss." That might have been your starting point, but you didn't stop there. You continued to outline specific criticisms about 4e.
This thread isn't inviting specific criticisms, its about the validity/invalidity of edition warring. Your point was made without diving into specific details. If you were looking to set up a "for example," you didn't have to go as far as you did.
But just so I'm clear. I never said it was something that couldn't or shouldn't be discussed. My point is that it was off-topic. Since then it's now in its own thread and apparently going along just fine, as it should.
In case you're not catching my drift on why I commented on your post as I did, let me try to illustrate it with the following scenario:
You're hanging out with a bunch of friends and a conversation breaks out about how people are sick and tired getting into arguments about pizza toppings. Let's say one of the arguments is the fact that you really hate anchovies, and your friends know it. You and your friends can all discuss being tired of arguing about pizza toppings just fine. There might be some moments when someone treads a bit carefully, knowing a comment might upset someone, but generally the conversation can go on without really offending anyone. Heck, it might even lead to general agreements on toppings for future pizza ordering scenarios.
But what if one of your friends, who knows you hate anchovies, decides in the middle of the conversation to chime in with "yeah but we should argue about pizza toppings because anchovies are complete awesomesauce." How would you react to that?
Maybe not the most fantastic analogy, but pizza seems to be the common ground for analogies when it comes to edition war commentary ;-)
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Nope. There's such a thing as irreconcilable differences and for many, 4E was just too different.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
Irreconcilable differences is one thing. Having to pick fights with one another on general forums is another.
BryonD
Hero
Very true. It certainly be nice if we could talk about why we prefer 3X without having someone immediately pick a fight with us over it.
BryonD
Hero
But if you look at the OP it is far from the open discussion of "validity/invalidity" that you suggest. The OP doesn't discuss problems with the general issue of editions wars. It defines editions wars as "negativity surrounding 4e".
Legitimate critical comments are quite valid, and yet they remain negative.
And edition wars go both ways, and yet this thread was started as only a complaint against anything critical of 4E. And, as I pointed out up thread, the examples listed by the OP were mostly from pro-4E people.
So the tone was established from the start that even complaints from fans was "edition war" and needed to be stopped because it was causing "fatigue". There is no "lets study the validity" there, and certainly nothing that looks at both sides as honest points of view.
Infiniti2000
First Post
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
I noticed that. I was away for a little while, and I must have missed something. Why is everyone so riled? Was there a major release from Paizo or WotC, or did a publisher announce something new, or what? (Not that Edition Wars need anything of the sort to flare up; I was just curious.)
- Status
