Irreconcilable differences(Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's...)

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't believe this is correct. Humans, for time immemorial, have divided themselves into "Us" and "Them", even when They are no threat to Us. Tie this to the pseudo-anonymity of the internet, and you get people behaving badly, and thus an edition war.

If people chose to remember to treat each other with respect, there'd be no edition war.

But, by this logic, there really aren't many topics on this or other forums containing arguments on how D&D(any version) is better than Vampire, Exalted, M&M, Hero, GURPS, ect. and vice versa. At the very least, these arguments are nowhere near the intensity of the D&D edition war. 4E vs. Pathfinder gets some attention, but Pathfinder is part of the edition war at this point.

I'm not saying that the difference of opinion is invalid or that people can't behave badly. I'm saying that a difference of opinion doesn't really explain the edition war, else we'd have all sorts of D&D vs. Vampire/Hero/GURPS wars.

In the absence of the difference of opinion as the reason behind not the disagreement, but specifically the fighting(and I mean on the whole, I imagine there are people who will fight for a difference of opinion alone), the answer I come up with is that people argue about possession and definition of the D&D brand.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not saying that the difference of opinion is invalid or that people can't behave badly. I'm saying that a difference of opinion doesn't really explain the edition war, else we'd have all sorts of D&D vs. Vampire/Hero/GURPS wars.

Don't confuse issues of demographics and timing with issues of root cause of dispute. We have had those arguments int he past.

The 3.Xe/4e split is the most recent, so it is the one that gets attention. But there were arguments at the 3e/3.5e split. And in past, the D&D/WW-Storyteller wars were of legendary scope. And let us not forget how most folks around here view those weirdo larpers.

In times when there's no obvious line to draw, we have shown that we will draw arbitrary ones anyway. While there's reasons for people to dislike one edition or another, but the "warring" is rooted in human behavior, not the game.

 

[Thasmodious]

I tend to agree. I've been there with the release of each edition, from 1st to 4th, and although there was criticism when 3e came out, it was of a different sort. Most of it was aimed at the artwork and style; sure there were those who favoured 2e (fair enough), but eventually many of those gravitated towards 3e. Now, I'm only going on my experience with my my gaming group and the gaming clubs I frequented, but it was a relatively quick time for people to embrace 3e. There were some quibbles, etc., but overall it was enjoyed.

However, I don't recall such a large degree of anomosity towards 3e as there has been toward 4e.

So why is that?

Because people tend to wear rose colored glasses when looking at the past, especially when they wish to view the past a certain way. I was a forum moderator at a smaller game site when 3e came out and we had our hands full with edition wars and the rabid hate many held for 3e and the slaughtering of sacred cows, how the Corporate Edition would kill D&D forever, it really was the same.

I'll have to dig through the blogger sites I read to find that link to the archived 3e hate posts, it was quite illuminating. I just don't have the time right now.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Because people tend to wear rose colored glasses when looking at the past, especially when they wish to view the past a certain way. I was a forum moderator at a smaller game site when 3e came out and we had our hands full with edition wars and the rabid hate many held for 3e and the slaughtering of sacred cows, how the Corporate Edition would kill D&D forever, it really was the same.

I'll have to dig through the blogger sites I read to find that link to the archived 3e hate posts, it was quite illuminating. I just don't have the time right now.

Kind of puts things in perspective today, especially taking the long view. One could come to the conclusion that the current edition war isn't really indicative of 4E's future success or lack thereof, as a raging edition war didn't stop the success of 3E.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't believe this is correct. Humans, for time immemorial, have divided themselves into "Us" and "Them", even when They are no threat to Us. Tie this to the pseudo-anonymity of the internet, and you get people behaving badly, and thus an edition war.

If people chose to remember to treat each other with respect, there'd be no edition war.

Very well said. And something would should all strive for. Anytime you feel like making some flippant comment to someone who disagrees with you, think about this.

 

[Thasmodious]

I do find it very interesting to see how peopel - myself very much included - tend to see threads and posts on these forums in completely opposing light. I've yet to see a single thread where Pathfinder is even mentioned where it isn't in some way attacked, snubbed, or looked down on, and I've seen numerous occasions where even the slightest criticism of 4e is responded to with RABIES. OH GOD RABIES.

Personally, despite a few accusations of 4e fanboydom (I believe even from you, could be mistaken though), I've never looked down on Pathfinder at all. I think Paizo's business decision was unsound, but we'll see where that goes. I was never into Pathfinder in 3e, despite playing in a Pathfinder game for awhile. Just not my style. A big difference between the two of us though, is that I don't feel the need to scour the forums looking for chances to post at length about things I don't like. I dislike White Wolf games quite a bit, but I don't have a single post here where I have attacked the games because I'm interested in discussing what I do enjoy and what I do choose to play.

However, not a 4e thread goes by where some people, and you are certainly one of the bigger offenders, charge into the thread to attack the game, no matter how innocuous the discussion. Those of us playing the game can't even have a thread to discuss gaming aspects of 4e without you guys charging in to once again tell us how much you hate 4e, how badwrongfun it is, and how foolish we are for playing it, and how the problem or issue we are discussing in the thread is the result of the designers, their evil, and their diabolic destruction of all things D&D.

We get it, we really do, you hate it. Move on to 'acceptance' already, getting stuck at one part of the grief cycle is very unhealthy.

 

[Fifth Element]

Just because I'm insane:

Thanks for that, Henry.

"Dungeons and Immortals" - The "dragons" are gone, slain by the
perpetual healing machines called PCs? Yeah, sounds familiar.

WotC tend's to lie/exagerate/ignore legal stuff? Check.

AHA! The wotc 3e sheep strike again. Name-calling isn't new, that's for sure.

 

[Hussar]

You get what you give.

When I see posts like This one from Delta in Jeff Wilder's "When did I stop being WOTC'S Target Audience" thread, it's not really hard to understand why people might get a smidgeon defensive. Being told that not only are you wrong for liking 4e, but, anyone who likes 4e "fundamentally doesn't like" D&D is likely going to get under people's skin.

Heck, that thread's what, 14 pages long, and it's pretty even handed. Well, except for maybe openly calling people liars, and whatnot. But, we of course ignore that, because it's okay to tell people who like 4e that they are complete idiots who hate the game and will lie, connive and basically do anything to misrepresent the truth that 4e is the evilest game around.

But, yes, feel free Professor Cirno to come charging to the rescue whenever some poor, misunderstood poster might possibly be faced with an opposing viewpoint. Heaven knows, any opposition that shows 4e as anything less than the worst game ever printed that is destroying the hobby is a complete and utter lie and must be smashed down at every opportunity.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Thanks for that, Henry.

"Dungeons and Immortals" - The "dragons" are gone, slain by the
perpetual healing machines called PCs? Yeah, sounds familiar.

Were they talking about healing 2 hp per day per level (or what was the rate) or about Cleric Spontaneous Healing, or about Wands of CLW? If the latter, kudos to them. I didn't see it until a few months or years in...

 

[Fifth Element]

Were they talking about healing 2 hp per day per level (or what was the rate) or about Cleric Spontaneous Healing, or about Wands of CLW? If the latter, kudos to them. I didn't see it until a few months or years in...

I believe they were talking about the number of healing spells a 15th-level cleric can cast, and the number of hit points healed by those spells.