I'm getting Edition War fatigue

[thecasualoblivion]

Excuse me for rapid fire posting, but I'm replying to more posts than multiquote can handle

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.

What ENWorld lacks are the dogpiles. WotC, Paizo and yes RPGnet(to a smaller extent) have big enough Edition War majorities that those majorities can dogpile the minority opinion when it appears. ENWorld is the closest thing in forums to equal representation.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Can we get a 4e general for such threads? I would love to have a board to talk about 4e, so that I can ignore General RPG Discussion but presently all we have are 4e rules boards.

Absent police state moderation, I think this is just moving things to a different area.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't understand the whole edition war thing. Just play the edition you like. Who cares what other people like and what they are playing. I miss seeing all the interesting threads on the front page on EN World. Now I often find that there are several threads that I can see will amount to nothing more than "my favourite edition is better than your favourite edition" or something similiar.

Let's see more threads about funny things that happened in your game, fun sessions you've had, dealing with problem players, etc., regardless of what edition you play.

Olaf the Stout

Its not about which edition you like or dislike. No matter what anybody says, it never has been. Simple like/dislike opinions do not explain the Edition War. Its about which opinion gets to own the "soul" of D&D.

 

[nightwyrm]

Soooo ... which one is right when both claim that they are right? I would find it singularily peculiar if any debate could be reduced to one side being 100% right and the other 100% wrong.

Ever try arguing with flat earthers?

 

[Harlekin]

Re: a "4E General Forum"

Back before 4E was announced, the General Forum was the place where folks posted info about upcoming books and interesting articles in Dragon/Dungeon. It was the place to post a thread about Book of Nine Swords, FC1 and FC2, Savage Tide, etc. etc.

In other words, General was the place for general discussions about 3.X. (as well as gaming in general, previous edition of D&D and other RPG's).

As others have noted, there is no General 4E Forum. AFAICT, general discussions about 4E should still happen in the General forum.

Re: The OP.

I've seen less edition warring in the last few months and more "playstyle warring". I'm thinking about the spate of "sandbox" threads that went around a month or two ago.

My biggest beef is that ENWorld is getting dull. I see the same dozen or so posters beating the same half-dozen or so issues to death over and over.

But that is not the reality anymore. Most "Look at this cool new article/book" type posts get now moved into 4ed rules, when the same type of article would have stayed in General before 4th edition. I assume, edition wars have affected the policy of the Mods and the administration. Many such articles probably get be reported as inappropriate now.

It is also worth noting that new articles in the DDI are not listed as news anymore, even though they are probably of interest to many people on this site. Again, this is a change in policy as in 3.x days every new article on the wizards website and the TOC of every Dragon was listed on the news page.

I feel that this policy is harmful to EN world in general, because discussion new stuff generally includes excitement and reinforces a positive attitude about the hobby.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This attitude is actually a big part of the problem. It's completly false.

People are not equivalent, people don't argue simply to argue, and where there is a conflict, somebody usually did 'start it', and while there is rarely black and white distinctions, in actual fact it is often the case that one side is in the right, and the other side is in the wrong.

There are endless real life examples of this, unfortunatly mentioning any of them as an exmaple is likely to result in trouble. It would also be unfair to asociate this debate with RL debates relating to actual scientific fact.

However, it's also completly unfair to pretend that this is simply a tribalist squabble between interchangable partisans. The edition wars are caused and perpetuated by the hostility towards 4e, and that hostility is not rational, resonable, or constructive. But it's as toxic there as it is there to pretend that everyone is just arguing for the sake of arguing, and that fallacy does a lot to obscure the issues and, ironically, make empty partisanship that much more attractive.

People who hate 4e keep this cycle going. Yes other people then retaliate and the two sides argue a bunch, and the 'pro-4e' other side of the debate is far from flawless, but it's incorrect to suggest that this is some kind of purely subjective space where people argue purely for the sake of arguing.

I don't think you're being fair here, though you have some points buried in here.

As somebody later in the thread said, 4E haters didn't start it, WotC started it. It was a combination of WotC releasing a new edition that "fired customers" and disgruntled 3E fans coming out with pitchforks that started the edition war. In addition, edition war flareups can be started by 4E fans, even inadvertently. The thing is, preferring 4E does involve an existential rejection and criticism of the 3E era, as when you buy into and embrace the new system, you are setting the old edition aside and relegating to the dustbin of history. When you say that you like X, Y, and Z about 4E and XYZ weren't present in 3E, you are criticizing 3E for not having them. This may seem silly, but look at the context-- D&D used to be a big tent, with almost everybody embracing and playing 3E. Then 4E comes along, and a large number of people(some would say a majority) in D&D's tent leave to live under a new tent, and call that tent D&D. That situation involves casting 3E as "old D&D" alongside OD&D, BECM, 1E and 2E. In addition, the design of 4E had the effect of "firing customers" and embracing 4E does put your stamp of approval on that firing.

To put it bluntly, when we play 4E, we are taking(or at least attempting to) their game away from them. We might not say it in that way, but its true.

Now, when you think about the cycle continuing, you have to speculate on what the different sides want. I would speculate that 3E edition warriors want 4E's star to ebb, and for 3E to be the prevailing edition of D&D again, like it was in the past. 4E edition warriors want 3E put to bed and relegated to history, so we can get on with our gaming future. The difference is that if 3E fans shut up, 4E fans would get what they want, while if 4E fans shut up it doesn't change much for the 3E fan.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Actually in a great many cases it is. Not all cases, but certainly a substantial number of cases which are misrepresented as far more subjective and ambigious than they are.

There are any number of real world debates where one side of the debate is wrong, and the other one is right. Many of the most contentious debates in modern politcs, such as climate change or evolution, as well as more diverse issues like sex ed for secondary school students, are in fact not debates at all; but retorical conflicts between people who are largely informed of the real facts of a situation, and people who are not, or deliberatly oppose a factual discussion of the issue.

Platitudes to the contrary often encouage irrationality and apathy on issues that are in many cases literally a matter of life and death, and they also prevent proper focus on genuine issues of uncertainty relating to these hot-button topics.

Even in a relativly trivial debate like this, the platitude does not help- it's not constructive to pretend that we're all just butting heads due to human nature. Human nature is far more complex than that and when we argue, it's usually not simply for the sake of arguing.

This ignores the fact that something is at stake. People want their version of D&D to be the mainstream D&D community.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

What if there was an option to "Flag this thread as an edition war"?

Then when it racks up enough points by the non-edition warriors who are tired of it, it gets shunted off into an edition war forum, where it can continue in peace, hidden from the rest of the board and unmolested by reason.

 

[catastrophic]

Soooo ... which one is right when both claim that they are right? I would find it singularily peculiar if any debate could be reduced to one side being 100% right and the other 100% wrong.

Nobody said that. But nor is it 50%/50% or 0%/0% or whatever other nonsence people would like to pretend.

IMO, I don't believe it to be even possible to say "this is right, and that is wrong" unless any argument is reduced to extremely common denominators. Even then, it is a question of who I chose to belive is right.

No it's not-reality exists. Methods exist for us to reconcile our diverse points of view so that, in cases where it is nesecary, a consensus or resolution can be reached. Rejecting this isn't clever, it's just ignorant.

I have no clue whether global warming is real or not. I have chosen to believe it is, but I have no way of verifying for myself that it is.

Actually you do. You can review the data and educate yourself. You can pretend that there's always more uncertainty or doubt or data that you don't have, but by that logic you can deny that the world is round, or that anybody other than the people you have met in person are just digital simulations. Again, that is not clever, it's just stupid.

As for religion, for my sister, her view of life is right. I think she is wrong. Is there any way to prove either? Nope, not until we both have passed on ...

I'm not talking about the existance of the afterlife. I'm talking about verfiable facts. And even in a debate like this, facts exist, and there is a reality we should recognise. There are root causes to this debate, and they aren't about people's instinctual drive to argue or w/e.

So, in this sub-debate are you 100% right and I'm 100% wrong? Or is it the other way round. If so, how do we prove it?
/M

Nobody suggested that, and your position is literally absurd. Opinion does not trump fact.

But that is not the reality anymore. Most "Look at this cool new article/book" type posts get now moved into 4ed rules, when the same type of article would have stayed in General before 4th edition. I assume, edition wars have affected the policy of the Mods and the administration. Many such articles probably get be reported as inappropriate now.

It is also worth noting that new articles in the DDI are not listed as news anymore, even though they are probably of interest to many people on this site. again, this is a change in policy as in 3.x days every new article on the wizards website and the TOC of every Dragon was listed on the news page.

I feel that this policy is harmful to EN world in general, because discussion new stuff generally includes excitement and reinforces a positive attitude about the hobby.

You might be over-atributing this to the edition wars. I can understand how the people running the site might feel that DDI updates on the front page would be a lot of volume to get through, although a summary of all the articles each update would not strike me as excessive. Maybe if somebody were willing to get such a summary together every week or few days, the admins would be willing to post it as news?

This ignores the fact that something is at stake. People want their version of D&D to be the mainstream D&D community.

I think it's unfair to characterise either side as that severe in their motives. i'll reply to your longer post in another post.

What if there was an option to "Flag this thread as an edition war"?

Then when it racks up enough points by the non-edition warriors who are tired of it, it gets shunted off into an edition war forum, where it can continue in a peace, hidden from the rest of the board and unmolested by reason.

I think you'd lose a lot of cool threads that way. I think a lot of threads (like 'where's my mule') would do fine without the edition war. In the case of the mule thread, there was a 4e-hater coming in within the first few posts to inform us that you can't buy basic equipment in 4e even though all the stuff he mentioned could be purchased from the lists in the PHB. that's the kind of things that turns people off a thread.

 

[Maggan]

Actually you do. You can review the data and educate yourself. You can pretend that there's always more uncertainty or doubt or data that you don't have, but by that logic you can deny that the world is round, or that anybody other than the people you have met in person are just digital simulations. Again, that is not clever, it's just stupid.

Well, that's data that someone else compiled, that someone else analysed, and that someone else presented with their own bias.

And I'm sure it hasn't escaped you that the data presented has been severly challenged, and in some parts proved to be wrong.

But hey, I'll just stay stupid and ignorant, if that makes you happier.

Bye

/M