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

[Mark CMG]

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".

That's not really anything to do with edition warring, that's just overstating an opinion.

Really, as far as I can tell, folks should keep a focus on the rules in their criticism and off of the fanbase. And, no, not every criticism of a rule is implicitly a criticism of those who play the game. Being critical about any specific rule or ruleset does not in and of itself constitute edition warring. Acting like any criticism of a rule or ruleset is a criticism of your edition or style of play *IS* actually a form of edition warring.

Don't broad-brush a fanbase.

Focus criticism on rules not on players.

Don't act like a rules criticism is specifically about you or your game.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Skill Challenges were not that great to be honest. They were not a good front for out of combat experience. Having a few powers here and there that could do something out of combat is not my idea of out of combat experience.

I can promise you that you can run a better out of combat game using 3rd/Pathfinder than you can with 4th edition. Can you run an out of combat game in 4th edition, Absolutely? The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions.

 

[Dragoslav]

I can promise you that you can run a better out of combat game using 3rd/Pathfinder than you can with 4th edition. Can you run an out of combat game in 4th edition, Absolutely? The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions.

Having never played 3e or Pathfinder, I'm curious what it is that these have to offer in the way of out-of-combat features that 4e doesn't. In 4e, even if you don't have any utility powers that are useful outside of combat and no rituals, you will at least have to reference your character sheet to look at your skills for the occasional skill check or a skill challenge.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions.

Absolutely correct. Because those 3rd edition wizards that had those Fireballs, Magic Missiles, Lightning Bolts, and Burning Hands spells on their character sheets had a direct impact on the roleplaying. And that Turn Undead spell the cleric had? Direct impact as well. And all those weapons listed on the 3E Fighter's sheet could be rolled during negotiation as well.

It's a shame 4E jettisoned all that.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Absolutely correct. Because those 3rd edition wizards that had those Fireballs, Magic Missiles, Lightning Bolts, and Burning Hands spells on their character sheets had a direct impact on the roleplaying. And that Turn Undead spell the cleric had? Direct impact as well. And all those weapons listed on the 3E Fighter's sheet could be rolled during negotiation as well.

It's a shame 4E jettisoned all that.

If you knew you were playing a heavy out of combat game then you wouldn't likely select the fighter class, and your Wizard wouldn't be selecting combat oriented spells, he would be selective all those out of combat utility spells. I'm sure the cleric would love to be using his Turn Undead but if not then he has lots of other things that he can use.

 

[the Jester]

You should know better than to discuss moderation in the forums.

This.

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.

And 3e fans do the same thing. And so do 1e and 2e fans. And GURPS fans.

This has nothing to do with 4e. It's a matter of edition warriors; the edition doesn't matter.

I can promise you that you can run a better out of combat game using 3rd/Pathfinder than you can with 4th edition.

BS. You can promise me that you can run a better out of combat game with 3e/PH than 4e, but I could easily respond, "Guess you just don't know how to dm 4e competently, then!" Either way is the same- "My way is right, you're playing D&D wrong!" Both are BS.

Can you run an out of combat game in 4th edition, Absolutely? The problem will be that you have all those combat powers sitting idle while it turns into a session of just sitting your character sheet down and engaging in discussions.

Just like a 3e party can't use their Power Attacking fighter, their prestige class Supreme Cleave ability, their prepared fireballs and flame strikes, sneak attack or their staff of fire for anything?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This.



And 3e fans do the same thing. And so do 1e and 2e fans. And GURPS fans.

This has nothing to do with 4e. It's a matter of edition warriors; the edition doesn't matter.



BS. You can promise me that you can run a better out of combat game with 3e/PH than 4e, but I could easily respond, "Guess you just don't know how to dm 4e competently, then!" Either way is the same- "My way is right, you're playing D&D wrong!" Both are BS.



Just like a 3e party can't use their Power Attacking fighter, their prestige class Supreme Cleave ability, their prepared fireballs and flame strikes, sneak attack or their staff of fire for anything?

Read the response to DefCon.

It's not BS. I know how to run a 4th edition just as good as anybody else.

It's not about badwrongfun or not playing it right. The 3rd edition/Pathfinder system is actually designed to handle out of combat games better than 4th edition. Skill Challenges is no a substitute for that and anything outside of that has nothing to do with the actual 4th edition system with regards to out of combat. I can still use more of the 3rd/Pathfinder system for out of combat than I can 4th edition.

 

[Umbran]

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.

No. Not "anytime". Sure, some folks whip out that label too lightly.

But, if you (generic "you", not "you - ForeverSlayer") leave tact and politeness behind, if you slip from constructive criticism to being mean and insensitive to your fellow gamers, when you start getting snarky, then you're no longer just saying something negative. When you just can't let something go...

For example - this thread was started to discuss how "Edition War" is used to dismiss people. The guy who owns the boards moved this to meta - the place where we discuss the boards, rather than the games.

But somehow, we are back to discussing how bad 4e is? Wrong place, wrong time - bulldogging, and being unable to let a topic go, is a sign you're Edition Warring.

 

[Morrus]

Let's make something crystal clear.

1) Any claims that this rules applies only to fans of one side or the other are at worst deliberately disingenuous or at best a classic example of confirmation bias. This is utterly untrue. I get emails claiming we're pro-4E, claiming we're anti-4E, claiming we're pro-3E, claiming we're anti-3E, claiming we're Paizo fanboys, claiming we clearly hate Paizo, claiming we moderate too strongly, claiming we don't moderate enough. We can't be all of 'em. You'll see what you want to see; it's a big board.

2) Everyone who gets moderated thinks we're wrong to do so. Its the default position. They also feel singled out and unfairly treated. It's very rare to find someone on the wrong end of moderation who is able to look at their own behaviour objectively. Yes, we can make mistakes, and have apologised to people and reversed things, but generally speaking evey single person who is moderated disagrees with it.

3) Edition warring is posts which we mods know will force us to stay up all night babysitting a thread if we don't close it. It's easy to volunteer someone else's time, but we're the ones who have to keep an eye on these threads. That's why we try to end edition warring before it gets too bad.

3a) So, to be more specific about that: you are welcome to any damn opinion you please. I don't give a crap about that. But you are required to express it politely and respectfully, and to avoid certain well-known trigger phrases which 100% of the time launch arguments. One of those is "4E isn't an RPG". Like it or not, agree with it or not, think it's a valid point or not, that phrase has that effect every single time. And especially an argument that we've had time and time and time and time again.

4) If you really find the moderation too strong here, we have Circvs Maximvs, just for you. Feel free. But don't be surprised if someone is very blunt to you.

 

[MoonSong]

Absolutely correct. Because those 3rd edition wizards that had those Fireballs, Magic Missiles, Lightning Bolts, and Burning Hands spells on their character sheets had a direct impact on the roleplaying. And that Turn Undead spell the cleric had? Direct impact as well. And all those weapons listed on the 3E Fighter's sheet could be rolled during negotiation as well.

It's a shame 4E jettisoned all that.

That's a bit of a strawman. Of course combat spells (and specially combat evocations) will sit down during non-combat, but in 3.x you have way more options than just those spells, Ghost sound, message, Dancing lights, Light, Daylight, the +4 to a stat spells, tenser's floating disk, phantom steed, Silent Image, the list of spells with out of combat uses is huge. You can be a sorcerer and know cero combat spells and still be pretty useful. Yet it isn't just those, the druid's wild empathy feature for example, or the bard's Bardic knowledge, not to mention the craft, profession and perform skills. DOn't forget also feats like leadership, nimbus of light, stigmata....

Also youu can train animals the mundane way to use as scouts, moneymakers or partners in crime. And familiars can be used in the same way.

There is also the fact that skills don't get in the way to define your character, in 4e every single rogue knows thievery and ever single arcane caster knows arcana and there isn't anything you can do to change that. I've made book-dumb sorcerers than couldn't even read a scroll but were good speaking with people and riding, at least a "showy" rogue that focussed on cheating, lying, counterfeiting, and overtly conning people out of their money but that wouuldn't be able to hide easily or pickpocket.

The skills-as-means rather than skills-as-results allows for a lot of freedom, in the later if all you have is a hammer then you can only use it to drive a nail and nothing else, no matter how much you roleplay it the result doesn't change, with skills-as-means if all you have is a hammer you can use it to drive nails, but also to break windows, repair stuff, as a lever to open things or even outright sell it.