No 5e threads for now, please

[Samuel Leming]

Talking about the upcoming 5th edition kind of implies the death of 4th, be it for accidental or passive aggressive reasons.

Why is this a problem?

 

[fanboy2000]

Well, my own view -- and I preface this by saying that I am a wacky fringe group -- is that it limits conversation of D&D as a whole. We can't really discuss much of the "direction that the game is taking," or rampantly speculate about what Wizards sees as working or not working, or converse about the changes we'd like to see that would require a new edition, rather than just homebrewing (the benefits and drawbacks to the Powers system, for instance, or how to introduce more resource management without bogging down gameplay).

Part of the problem with trying to determine the direction WotC is taking D&D is that we only have 2 (3, if you count 3.5 as it's own edition) editions of D&D to discuss.

4e is only WotC's second full edition of D&D.

So, while your are correct that " a conversation about no roll-to-hit mechanics in general is quite different from a conversation about no roll-to-hit mechanics in D&D." it's important to remember that the later is mostly speculation when it comes to what direction D&D is taking under WotC and, in my opinion, not particularly useful.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd rather say that it does matter who did what. That's the point of taking responsibility for our actions. What we really have to do is deal with how touchy we ourselves have become, and that includes moderation. Our reactions to people's posts are the root of the problem and the source of edition wars, not the trolling which should be ignored. Do we let a criticism slide, address it politely, or respond snarkily? Criticism will happen and should happen.

Hear hear.

Debates and arguments will and should also happen...isn't that, along with information exchange, in essence what these forums are for?

Part of the problem with trying to determine the direction WotC is taking D&D is that we only have 2 (3, if you count 3.5 as it's own edition) editions of D&D to discuss.

In truth, there's been at least 4 editons of the game so far - or more depending how fine one makes the distinctions - designed largely by 4 different batches of people working for two different companies. Discussing the direction of where *WotC* takes the game matters only if WotC is still at the helm if-when the game takes its next direction change. Discussing the direction of where the D+D game goes *in general* (i.e. regardless who designs or publishes it) is, or at least should be, valid at all times.

And yes, those discussions will (and, I posit, almost must) at times become confrontational. We all have different ideas of what we'd like to see or not see in the game, and thus which direction we'd like to try and push the game's direction in...and sometimes those ideas are just plain gonna clash. It's not that any of us care about the game any the less; we just disagree on where it should go and how it can get there.

In threads like that, I almost want to imagine us as the ultra-preliminary design team, sitting around a great big table arguing over what comes next.

Lan-"and will there be Flumphs?"-efan

 

[Jack99]

Why is this a problem?

Because some of us come here to talk about the game we love instead of listening to people tell us why they hate the game we love in every single freaking thread. Seriously, why do people spend so much time spreading negativity instead of talking about the things they like, I will never understand. If you do not like 4e, talk about 3.x, 2e, 1e, OD&D or whatever is your poison.

 

[rounser]

Discussing the direction of where the D+D game goes *in general* (i.e. regardless who designs or publishes it) is, or at least should be, valid at all times.

Unless you want to discourage metatalk about the game rules, and have everyone talk exclusively about ways to use the rules as written, and not question them.

For people happy with 4E, this is obviously preferable to continual implied challenges to it's rules, direction, marketing and philosophy...the idea that some people might be happier with something else as the game's flagship edition....and with these 5E threads, the reminder that it has a limited lifespan.

 

[Samuel Leming]

Unless you want to discourage metatalk about the game rules, and have everyone talk exclusively about ways to use the rules as written, and not question them.

For people happy with 4E, this is obviously preferable to continual implied challenges to it's rules, direction, marketing and philosophy...the idea that some people might be happier with something else as the game's flagship edition....and with these 5E threads, the reminder that it has a limited lifespan.

This right here is an example of exactly what we DON'T need.

For people happy with 4E? I really don't think it's helpful to generalize the bad behavior like that. If it was true the edition war threads would be 200 pages rather than 20 pages. I don't really think the typical 4E player gives a fast flying flip what you or I think of the marketing and philosophy of his game.

I think there's only maybe a dozen or so constantly 'touchy' guys here that keep the trouble stirred up.

 

[Samuel Leming]

Hear hear.

Debates and arguments will and should also happen...isn't that, along with information exchange, in essence what these forums are for?

This is the right attitude.

Because some of us come here to talk about the game we love instead of listening to people tell us why they hate the game we love in every single freaking thread. Seriously, why do people spend so much time spreading negativity instead of talking about the things they like, I will never understand. If you do not like 4e, talk about 3.x, 2e, 1e, OD&D or whatever is your poison.

and this is just about the opposite.

Lan-"and will there be Flumphs?"-efan

As long as there's D&D, there will be flumphs. Someway and somehow.

And commoner killing cats...

 

[rounser]

This right here is an example of exactly what we DON'T need.

What? What are you taking offense to in that?

For people happy with 4E? I really don't think it's helpful to generalize the bad behavior like that.

I'm not.

I think there's only maybe a dozen or so constantly 'touchy' guys here that keep the trouble stirred up.

Okay. And I suppose you're automatically not one of them?

 

[Jack99]

and this is just about the opposite.

Sorry, but how is saying, that people should be more positive and talk about what they like instead of constantly trashing what they do not like, the wrong attitude?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There were similar rules against 4E threads before 4E was announced.

I personally think that speculating what 5E will be is pretty much pointless. Does 4E look as predicted by anyone in the 4E pre-release-announcement threads?

What is not pointless is discussing design elements of existing games (not limited to D&D) and how they could be adapted, changed or expanded. I find those discussions very interesting. they don't have to involve denigrating play styles or anthing. One of the big problem of framing it in a D&D xE context is that people with different play styles still see themselves as D&D players, and if the "proposed" edition (as predicted by someone else) doesn't represent their play style, they might get defensive.
If you discuss design without implying this is what D&D will become next, you can avoid that. The proposed ideas are just ideas for any type of game, maybe D&D like, maybe not, but at least it won't imply that your favorite game moves further away from what you already like.