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

[Lwaxy]

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.

In my opinion, the problem is more along the lines of a split fan base and a reduced probability to find people to play with. So bringing out an edition to unite the fan base makes sense.

As for the moderation issue - people report different posts. If the moderators don't react on most of them, it would also cause issues. To have a little less moderation it would probably help to not report everything that might be seen as edition warring. I have a feeling many readers go by "if not sure, report" when it would be more helpful to go by "if not sure, ignore."

 

[Shadeydm]

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.

Sorry it was an XP comment and I was trying to keep it short but you are quite right i could have kept it shorter.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I have a feeling many readers go by "if not sure, report" when it would be more helpful to go by "if not sure, ignore."

This right here!

 

[Morrus]

OK, folks. This thread only works if it's a general thread about moderation. It can't be:

1) A thread about a specific piece of moderation (as per our longstanding rules);

2) A sneaky way to have a discussion that we've asked you not to have elsewhere on the boards. We're not going to discuss whether not 4E "is an RPG" because that is the very classic oft-repeated prime poster child of edition war statements; it is one of the most loaded statements that exist in this niche hobby of ours, and has - time and time and time again - cause enormous arguments. It's prety much the statement which created the very term "edition war". So let's not do that, OK?

I understand that someone might imagine they're the first to suggest that 4E is not an RPG*. I'm sure they'll therefore appreciate the additional information: they are the 382,237th person to do so and it always ends exactly the same way.

Thanks, folks.


*Of course, I'm a little incredulous that someone could straight-facedly say that they were genuinely unaware that the prime classic edition war statement is "4E is not an RPG" and were completely oblivious to the inevitable ramifications and effects of that strongly loaded statement, typically followed quickly with protestations which normally include "it can't be edition warring if it's the truth" and "the truth can be hard to hear", but I guess I have to offer the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Herschel]

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

Here's the thing, so many of us run non-combat portions of the game very well and our players (who've even played 3E/3.5E) talk about liking them. Some people may want a more granular skill set up or maybe don't want the spells vs. rituals split but that doesn't change the fact that both work well in the hands of people who actually know how to run them well.

Saying I don't like something because I want more skill subsets or something seems presented too linearly because I like more free-form is different than claiming you know as well as all these people who make it work that they're doing it wrong when obviously they're the ones doing it right is where the line is drawn.

 

[Harlock]

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.

For the record, I didn't label you as an edition warrior and I stopped playing 4th ed early on. I simply said your premise was flawed. New editions come about. Period. For better or worse, that is the formula WotC inherited from TSR, and from a business standpoint, it creates a sales spike. We'd be getting a new edition even if Hasbro and WotC were setting sales records.

 

[Herschel]

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.

You're wrong.

I think part of the issue is that when you're moderated, you're perspective is forcibly altered. There's no seeing that others have also been moderated or booted from threads, the only person you see getting moderated is you and if you are responding to someone else's flames then it definitely gives creedence to feelings of bias because you are shown that their posts were "allowed" while yours wasn't.

I don't think there's a better answer for this either outside of a PM listing those moderated in/from a conversation as well and that's likely not very feasible.

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], I actually think its only two or three people saying that 4E is not an RPG/D&D, they just keep coming back for more .
[MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION], I think the main issue here is that there is a subtle lack of nuance in your expressed perspective on 4E, which points to a rather simple misunderstanding. As I see it, you are basically saying "I can't get the role-playing experience I want from 4E therefore no one can get the role-playing experience that they want." Can you see how you are absolutizing your own experience and perspective?

I wouldn't go so far as to reduce all perspectives to "Its all just a matter of subjectivity," but that we can't remove our own subjectivity from the discussion.

"I don't like orange" doesn't automatically lead to or prove "therefore orange is a crappy color."

As for the specifics of your argument against 4E, as someone said above I think there is a fallacy in thinking that more rules for role-playing means better role-playing rules. I would actually argue that role-playing requires simple and flexible rules that don't replace actual role-playing. For instance, which approach do you prefer?

APPROACH A
Player: "I try to convince him to let me through the door."
DM: "OK, roll your Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate score."

APPROACH B
Player: "I try to convince him to let me through the door."
DM: "Go ahead, convince away. What do you say and do?"

To put it another way, rules should only be used when necessary. Reliance on them for role-playing actually takes away the opportunity for role-playing immersion (as is the case in Approach A).

It also should go without saying that any edition supports either approach, although 3.5 and 4E no more or less than the other.

 

[Harlock]

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.

I'm genuinely curious here: where did you get this information? I've never read anywhere how much mileage WotC was planning to get out of 4th edition. That's usually the sort of information a company would like to keep a "trade secret". Of course, I haven't bought a new 4th ed. book or followed the news too much since the first year 4th came out so I certainly could have missed it! Hence, I ask.

 

[the Jester]

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.

And 4e has them too. Ghost sound and light are cantrips. The stat buffs deserved to die IMHO, but 4e has them in the Essentials druid anyway. Tenser's floating disc and phantom steed are rituals. And so forth. 4e has a large number of out-of-combat abilities, between skills like Bluff, Diplomacy and Insight, rituals and utility powers. I don't recall any 3e abilities that let you reroll a failed Diplomacy check.

All this "4e doesn't enable roleplaying" stuff may be true for some of you, but trying to say that it's true for me and my group is simply wrong.

Actually no because 4th editions shelf life was supposed to last a lot longer than it did.

Do you have a cite for this? Because I have never heard any kind of "expected shelf life" comment from anyone at WotC, and I can't help but feel like you're making this comment up out of thin air and your own preferences. Which is fine- but in that case it's an opinion, not a fact.