So it's the old "Edition War" excuse to dismiss people?

[JamesonCourage]

I've rearranged your post so I can respond to it a better. I hope you don't mind.

4th edition fans try and dismiss people who don't like the game and they do this by making people feel like the editions they like are inferior because those games may have had rules issues or other problems. 4th edition has it's problems as well and those seem to be ignored.

There are certainly some 4e fans that do what you're describing here. There are definitely fans of other editions who are just as bad ("4e is not an RPG" or "4e was a failure"). Both sides need to stop.

The thing that needs to be looked at here is the fact that we are playtesting a new edition, no one can deny that. Wizards was already looking into a new edition when 4th edition was still a toddler so no matter how much you may like the game, you have to sit back and acknowledge that there is something there that people didn't like enough that they didn't buy it.

The bottom line is a Ferrari works but you have people that just do not like the car. You can sit there and present them with how fast it goes, how well it handles, and how much MPG you get but you aren't going to change their mind. Some 4th edition fans present their arguments like that and just can't seem to understand that just because something may work doesn't mean that it's going to be universally liked.

No, they usually understand. Some posters don't understand. But, that doesn't mean that 4e fans aren't playing an RPG, or that they're having badwrongfun, or that their edition was a failure and should be ignored. All of those views need to stop being expressed, if nothing else. They really should stop being believed, but I don't think that'll happen. I'd much rather see the mods step in and cut short the edition warring now than after it builds up even more, and I'm glad they did.

So, to the mods: thanks. As always, play what you like

 

[Cadfan]

My point was actually far more nuanced than that, and ultimately completely defensible... but since by order of moderator I'm not permitted to defend it anymore, I'd prefer you not bring it up.

 

[Shadeydm]

There is nothing wrong with wanting more out of combat stuff on your character sheet. Personally I don't find it an obstacle to roleplaying. I don't remember a huge amout of out of combat stuff on 1E sheets yet it remains all things being equal probably my favorite edition and the one in which I have run my best and most compelling campaigns. So I guess i have to disagree on a personal level that there needs be a ton of non combat stuff on the sheet.
In fact I would take it a step further and say for me some of the most important non combat info that should be on the sheet is the characters view of the world, where he is from, his attitudes and a few of his favorite quotes. (Yes even 4E sheets have a place for this kind of stuff).

 

[delericho]

So anytime we say anything negative about 4th edition in relevance to a discussion it's labeled as a quick "Edition War" and we are demonized in threads.

I am also quite dismayed at how quickly any criticism of 4e can be declared "edition warring", and so interesting threads rendered useless.

However...

All I mentioned was the fact that if 4th edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't be play testing 5th edition. The bottom line is this is a fact and I'm sorry if 4th edition is your favorite edition and you want to defend it until the cows come home but slapping the "edition war" tag on everyone who doesn't think so isn't right.

IMO, there are 'right' ways and 'wrong' ways to criticise an edition, and this is an example of a 'wrong' way. It's one thing to comment on the rule content of the edition (and in particular, specific rules), it's quite another to make a blanket attack on the edition.

I believe it was Umbran (acting in a non-mod capacity) who pointed out to me that a new edition doesn't necessarily mean WotC consider 4e a failure - they may simply believe that they can do significantly better with a new edition.

(Note to the mods: I haven't seen the mod issue that provoked this thread. It's not my intention here to discuss that decision. Still, if you feel I've crossed a line here, I'll happily withdraw my comments.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

My point was actually far more nuanced than that, and ultimately completely defensible... but since by order of moderator I'm not permitted to defend it anymore, I'd prefer you not bring it up.

Edited that out of my post.

 

[Odhanan]

So anytime we say anything negative about 4th edition in relevance to a discussion it's labeled as a quick "Edition War" and we are demonized in threads.

It's not just 4th ed but yeah, it's basically become an tabletop RPG meme on the internet that as soon as you start to actually have preferences not only in the positive, but especially in the negative (i.e. "this game is great, I like this game because etc etc" or "this game sucks, it's crap because etc etc") you are engaging in "Edition Warring", "OneTrueWay" (which is really just MyOwnWay), and so on, so forth.

Various message boards, including ENWorld, have opted to embrace this mentality and made it into policy. That's the "keep the peace" attitude. "Don't make waves." You can talk about this this and this, but not that, otherwise it's badwrongposting. We need an "emotionally safe" environment for special snowflakes. Etc etc.

This is something I personally can no longer stand.

If you don't stand this sort of thing either, you have a few options and boards around that actually might give you what you want. There is circvsmaximvs, for instance, which is the mirror board of ENWorld with little to no actual moderation. Anything goes there, and if the crap hits the fan well... so be it. You're still posting with some of the very same people who accuse others of being edition warriors here, though, but they aren't the only ones posting there so, maybe that's what you want to check out.

Another alternative is the RPG Site. It's a good forum with a lot of very good posters, but there the moderation is also pretty light, so the crap hits the fans there more often than it does here. It's the price of free speech: when you can tell the other guy he's being dense, then that other guy can say that to your face as well. It's a bit like the Cantina of the RPG world, the hive of scum and villainy of the gaming internets. It's actually a pretty cool place if you want to speak your mind, grow a thick skin and have nothing against a good, honest-to-God flamewar taking over a conversation every once in a while. You should try it.

So, in conclusion, alternatives do exist, make no mistake, but sites like RPGnet and ENWorld have made up their minds about it a long time ago and have chosen the path of the heavy moderation nonsense. Nothing's going to change that now.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Beats me why it's so difficult for people to understand...

A personal opinion about any of the games and is mentioned as such is fine.

A personal opinion that tries to portray itself as absolute fact or a majority opinion is "edition warring".

A dislike of a certain specific rule in any of the games and a desire that it not appear in DDN (and usually helped along by offering an alternative preferable rule) is fine.

A dislike of an entire edition and a stated desire that every single facet of that game should not appear at all (especially with no opinions on possible alternatives) is "edition warring".

Making educated guesses on what Wizards of the Coast might do in the future based upon what has been done in the past is fine.

Attributing (or more to the point inventing) reasons, opinions, or attitudes to Wizards of the Coast for anything they have previously done (with no actual inside knowledge on your part) all in an effort to discount some of what they have done is "edition warring".

***

Basically... remember the "brown rule"...

Your poop stinks just as bad as anyone elses, and trying to pass it off as better or more worthwhile is the way to moderation.

 

[pemerton]

My understanding is that 3E has the following social skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Innuendo, Sense Motive, Gather Information.

In 3.5, my understanding is that Innuendo was folded into Bluff and Sense Motive.

4e has the same social skills as 3.5, ony Sense Motive and Gather Information are renamed and expanded in what they cover (Insight also includes recognition of illusions; Streetwise plays like a traditional Streetwise skill from many games, and so goes a bit beyond just picking up rumours).

4e also has a social conflict resolution mechanic: the skill challenge.

So I'm continually puzzled by the implication that 4e is lacking in non-combat resolution options compared to 3E. I don't see the evidence for it in either the rules or in play.

Here's a concrete example: the 3E module Bastion of Broken Souls includes a range of encounters, all of which are described by the module author as combat-only, but which could be resolved as social conflicts: persuading an angel whose body is a gate to a prison plane to let the PCs kill her, so they can access that plane; persuading the exiled god trapped on that prison plane to give the PCs his Soul Totem; persuading a night hag queen of dreams to give the PCs the information they need.

Any of those scenes could be resolved in 4e (as a skill challenge). How would 3E resolve them? And in what way would it be superior? (I can see that it would be different - for some of this, for example, I think it is just a single roll of Diplomacy. I don't see how it's better.)

 

[Dragoslav]

Others have explained it before, but I'll provide an analogy. The release of successive D&D editions has very little to do with how the game stands up on its own right and almost everything to do with business. Here's the analogy:

You would never say, "The video game Madden NFL 2003 failed, so they had to make Madden NFL 2004, which also failed, so they had to make Madden NFL 2004, which was ALSO a disaster, so <...> they made Madden NFL 11, which also failed, so to give the fans what they really wanted, they had to make Madden NFL 12."

I also have a sincere question: What non-combat rules or mechanics does 4e not have that previous editions did have?

Seems like people scoff at the idea of having more rules for adjudicating social encounters, so I don't know what else there could possibly be.

4e even has skill challenges, which were explicitly intended to provide options and challenge outside of combat. And all characters have access to professly non-combat utility powers as they level up, e.g. "reroll a diplomacy check that you dislike once per social encounter" or "use an arcana check in place of a diplomacy check that you have to make once per social encounter." Oh, and there are "rituals" and "martial practices," which provide characters a wide variety of out-of-combat options and versatility.

 

[n00bdragon]

The bottom line is...

Please stop using this phrase in general, but especially if you're going to double post on additional statement.