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

[El Mahdi]

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 know the truth isn't always easy to here but sometimes the things that are said is the truth and not "edition warring".

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.

Careful how you throw around the "Edition War" card.

I don't think it's true at all that this is happening. One can provide criticism of 4E in a manner that is not edition warring. However, the post above does not, and is phrased in a manner consistent with edition warring.

For example: saying "a common complaint of 4E seems to be...", or "my complaint about 4E is..." is not edition warring. Just as a I think saying "4E seems to be less focused on "Roleplaying" than other editions..." also is not edition warring. It's discussion about the specific mechanics or attributes of an edition in comparison to others, or simple stating of personal opinion.

However, when one starts saying things like "4E is not a great edition or we wouldn't now be making 5E", that is edition warring. Likewise saying things like "4E is not a roleplaying game", is also edition warring.

Why?

First and foremost, neither one of those statements are true. If the defining qualification for an edition being "great" is that it didn't need a successive edition, then no edition of D&D is or has ever been great...and that's simply not true. Also, there is no official threshold or defining standard for the amount of roleplaying in a system, for it to be called a roleplaying game. It's a matter of personal taste and opinion, and therefore cannot be stated as "fact" (more below on this).

Secondly, the general blanket statements above are made as if they are statements of fact, when instead they are statements of opinion. If opinion, they should be stated so..."I feel that 4E isn't really a roleplaying game because of it's lack of focus on roleplaying...", "In my opinion, 4E was not a great edition...", etc.

Whether something is considered edition warring usually has a lot to do with how things are stated. And it's each and every poster's responsibility for how they post. A forum doesn't convey inflection or tone, and it's very hard for people to discern intention behind a person's post because of this...and divining intention is something we shouldn't be doing anyways. This also makes it important for each poster to not be careless in how they state things. IMO, if that seems too hard, too complicated, or unfair to someone; then those someone's probably shouldn't be posting on forums.

ENWorld quite plainly lays out guidance concerning this in the FAQ:

Keep it civil: Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. People seeking to engage and discuss will find themselves asking questions, seeking clarifications, and describing their own opinion. People seeking to "win an argument" sometimes end up taking cheap shots, calling people names, and generally trying to indimidate others. My advice: don't try to win.

 

[Holy Bovine]

All I mentioned was the fact that if 3rd edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't have had 4th edition.

or...

All I mentioned was the fact that if 2nd edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't have had 3rd edition.

or...

All I mentioned was the fact that if 1st edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't have had 2nd edition.

or...

All I mentioned was the fact that if the OD&D edition was such a great edition then we wouldn't have had 1st edition.

See what a BS statement that is? You can apply it to every edition in existence (just wait until Pathfinder 2E comes out...cause it will!).

 

[ForeverSlayer]

or...




or...




or...




See what a BS statement that is? You can apply it to every edition in existence (just wait until Pathfinder 2E comes out...cause it will!).

Actually no because 4th editions shelf life was supposed to last a lot longer than it did. This didn't happen in other edition or game that was mentioned.

You are acting like 4th edition has this great long run and the coming of 5th edition was because the old bird was coming in for a landing.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't think it's true at all that this is happening. One can provide criticism of 4E in a manner that is not edition warring. However, the post above does not, and is phrased in a manner consistent with edition warring.

For example: saying "a common complaint of 4E seems to be...", or "my complaint about 4E is..." is not edition warring. Just as a I think saying "4E seems to be less focused on "Roleplaying" than other editions..." also is not edition warring. It's discussion about the specific mechanics or attributes of an edition in comparison to others, or simple stating of personal opinion.

However, when one starts saying things like "4E is not a great edition or we wouldn't now be making 5E", that is edition warring. Likewise saying things like "4E is not a roleplaying game", is also edition warring.

Why?

First and foremost, neither one of those statements are true. If the defining qualification for an edition being "great" is that it didn't need a successive edition, then no edition of D&D is or has ever been great...and that's simply not true. Also, there is no official threshold or defining standard for the amount of roleplaying in a system, for it to be called a roleplaying game. It's a matter of personal taste and opinion, and therefore cannot be stated as "fact" (more below on this).

Secondly, the general blanket statements above are made as if they are statements of fact, when instead they are statements of opinion. If opinion, they should be stated so..."I feel that 4E isn't really a roleplaying game because of it's lack of focus on roleplaying...", "In my opinion, 4E was not a great edition...", etc.

Whether something is considered edition warring usually has a lot to do with how things are stated. And it's each and every poster's responsibility for how they post. A forum doesn't convey inflection or tone, and it's very hard for people to discern intention behind a person's post because of this...and divining intention is something we shouldn't be doing anyways. This also makes it important for each poster to not be careless in how they state things. IMO, if that seems too hard, too complicated, or unfair to someone; then those someone's probably shouldn't be posting on forums.

ENWorld quite plainly lays out guidance concerning this in the FAQ:

Like I told Bovine.

The shelf life of 4th edition was supposed to last longer than it has. You don't stop it's shelf life short if it's doing as well as people are claiming.

If you look at what's going on, the odds are in my opinion's favor.

 

[Lwaxy]

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

That's the old "It's no RPG/D&D" vs "to me it is no RPG/D&D" problem. And to some people, it is obvious they are stating only their opinion even when not always saying "I think" but then others are likely to take it the wrong way. It's a fine line at times.

 

[rkwoodard]

too much on character sheet

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.

Maybe we view what role-playing is differently. Having to look at my character sheet for skills/feats/powers kills RPing for me. When the RPing starts, the character sheet (outside of Attributes) is very secondary.

RK

 

[El Mahdi]

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.

This right here is why you keep getting into trouble about edition warring.

1. "Skill Challenges were not that great to be honest." is an opinion stated as a blanket generalization and as if it is fact. The only "fact" here is that this is your opinion, but it's not a universall one, nor is it objectively true. State this as "IMO, Skill Challenges were not that great to be honest.", and you're good to go.

2. "They were not a good front for out of combat experience." is again, stating opinion as fact. For you, it may not be a good mechanic for out of combat play, for others it is. There are certainly fans of skill challenges among the ranks of RPG fans, and many of them post here. And those skill challenges work quite well for what they want. State this as "In my experience, they were not a good front for out of combat experience.", and again you're good to go.

3. "Having a few powers here and there that could do something out of combat is not my idea of out of combat experience." BINGO! Well Said! This is stated as your opinion, and therefore is not refutable...but is an opening for "discussion". It's not stated as a blanket generalization or as a fact about 4E, but only a fact of your opinion. Perfect.

4. "I can promise you that you can run a better out of combat game using 3rd/Pathfinder than you can with 4th edition.", and now we go off the rails again. No, you can't promise this, as what your stating is not an objective fact but only your opinion...and a faulty one at that. I can guarantee you that this will be true for some, but there are others for which this will not be true, even if they try. Simple law of averages say so. And whether you intended this or not, the way many people are likely reading this is as "what they like isn't as good as what you're promoting, and should switch because what they are doing is bad/wrong/fun". Again, it's not what you're saying, as it is how you're saying it.

5. "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." and lastly, this is also stating your opinion as if it is objective fact. This may be what happened when you tried 4E Skill Challenges, but that does not mean that every such usage of Skill Challenges or 4E game sessions turn out this way. I'm sure there are many 4E players that have developed interesting, fun, and creative uses for powers in Skill Challenges, and prefer Skill Challenges because of this. Now if you'd said "The problem I've found is 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.", you again would have been good to go.

If you had stated your posts in the manner recommended above, and somebody still took umbrage with it, then it would have been their own problem. And I'm quite certain you would have had no problems with any of the moderators. And if someone had violated the forum rules by rudely calling you out or in the manner in which they presented their umbrage, then simply report their posts to moderation, and let them deal with it.

 

[El Mahdi]

Like I told Bovine.

The shelf life of 4th edition was supposed to last longer than it has. You don't stop it's shelf life short if it's doing as well as people are claiming.

If you look at what's going on, the odds are in my opinion's favor.

The odds may or may not be in your favor, but that's not what I was discussing. Your stating of that opinion as fact is where the problem comes in. You may be sure that this is the truth of the situation, but it is not universally accepted or quantifiably proven, therefore it is opinion only and should be stated as such.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Maybe we view what role-playing is differently. Having to look at my character sheet for skills/feats/powers kills RPing for me. When the RPing starts, the character sheet (outside of Attributes) is very secondary.

RK

I'm not viewing role playing on it's on. I've noticed some people doing this to try and say that some of us can't role play unless we have something on our sheets.

I'm talking about out everything out of combat.

 

[El Mahdi]

yep the sheet should be very secondary once the RPing gets rolling

Here's another good example from something that just got posted. This statement is not objectively true, though it is stated as fact because of the "should". It may be true for the way Shadeydm prefers to play, but it's not the one correct way to play, therefore "should" is not appropriate.

"yep, the way I like to play, the sheet is very secondary once the RPing gets rolling" is accurate and not proclaiming the one true way.

"yep, I prefer the sheet should be very secondary once the RPing gets rolling" also works.

Or just simply "I Agree" works also.