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

[Tony Vargas]

I have seen this said before, perhaps even by you, and it surprises me that you feel what makes a high quality game is objective and not subjective.

I'm a data analyst, by profession, so do I tend to look at things analytically, and, yes, as 'objectively' as I can (philosophical points about perception determining reality notwithstanding).

I also pay a lot of attention to how people debate, some of that started with critical thinking in school, but a lot of it is from a modest interest in politics. My observation is that once one side of a debate has failed to prove their assertion logically or 'objectively,' they turn to the defense that the issue is 'all subjective.'

So, yes, 4e is, as I said, on a /technical level/ (which is just a limited part of what makes a game great), objectively higher-quality than prior eds. That doesn't require anyone to like it, though, nor am I - especially at this late date, with 4e /dead/ - trying to ruin anyone's enjoyment of the hobby by converting them to the losing side of the edition war.

What's more, it's made even more ironic by the fact that you use that to prop up your own subjective bias for a particular edition.

D&D had lost me by 1995. I don't have the subjective bias for the game that I did when I defended AD&D's quirks to aficionados of different systems in the 80s. I don't have any fetish for the new or anything, either. I liked 3.0 for the things it did better than classic D&D, enough so that it brought me back to the game, though with only modest enthusiasm. I was unimpressed with 3.5's change-for-the-sake-of-change (and selling the core books again), but it wasn't any worse than 3e, so I kept playing it, even if I didn't buy many of those books. Like 3.0, 4e improved on prior eds, this time with a bit more innovation, so I was happy to adopt it - I'd've been happier if 3e had gotten the full 10 year run that both eds of AD&D had, but 8 was pretty close. Unlike 3.0 or 4e or even 3.5, Essentials actually managed to make the game worse, so I didn't adopt it, though I've had to play with a lot of it in organized play, which has degraded that experience a bit.

I take D&D like I do other games, on their merits. I /do/ tend to be cynical, and to judge a game very critically at first, so 3.0 and 4e both had to be real improvements for me to take them up, and they were. 5e will have to pass the same test. It'll have to be better than 4e. So far, in my cynical/critical mode I see almost nothing in the actual playtest to make me think that might be the case, and, of course, I discount the voluminous 'vaporware' that's the only other thing we have to go on.

 

[Harlock]

I'm a data analyst, by profession, so do I tend to look at things analytically, and, yes, as 'objectively' as I can (philosophical points about perception determining reality notwithstanding).

I also pay a lot of attention to how people debate, some of that started with critical thinking in school, but a lot of it is from a modest interest in politics. My observation is that once one side of a debate has failed to prove their assertion logically or 'objectively,' they turn to the defense that the issue is 'all subjective.'

So, yes, 4e is, as I said, on a /technical level/ (which is just a limited part of what makes a game great), objectively higher-quality than prior eds. That doesn't require anyone to like it, though, nor am I - especially at this late date, with 4e /dead/ - trying to ruin anyone's enjoyment of the hobby by converting them to the losing side of the edition war.

D&D had lost me by 1995. I don't have the subjective bias for the game that I did when I defended AD&D's quirks to aficionados of different systems in the 80s. I don't have any fetish for the new or anything, either. I liked 3.0 for the things it did better than classic D&D, enough so that it brought me back to the game, though with only modest enthusiasm. I was unimpressed with 3.5's change-for-the-sake-of-change (and selling the core books again), but it wasn't any worse than 3e, so I kept playing it, even if I didn't buy many of those books. Like 3.0, 4e improved on prior eds, this time with a bit more innovation, so I was happy to adopt it - I'd've been happier if 3e had gotten the full 10 year run that both eds of AD&D had, but 8 was pretty close. Unlike 3.0 or 4e or even 3.5, Essentials actually managed to make the game worse, so I didn't adopt it, though I've had to play with a lot of it in organized play, which has degraded that experience a bit.

I take D&D like I do other games, on their merits. I /do/ tend to be cynical, and to judge a game very critically at first, so 3.0 and 4e both had to be real improvements for me to take them up, and they were. 5e will have to pass the same test. It'll have to be better than 4e. So far, in my cynical/critical mode I see almost nothing in the actual playtest to make me think that might be the case, and, of course, I discount the voluminous 'vaporware' that's the only other thing we have to go on.

Thanks for explaining your position. I now understand where you are coming from, and that is helpful in any discussion!

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is only true to the extent that 1E , 2E, OD&D etc. are "dead". And yet these games are still supported by fans and third-party publishers alike. 4E will not die. There's at least one "retro"clone in the works already.

The GSL is a lot less permissive than the OGL was, a 'retro-clone' is not going to be easy, and, even if one that could stand the legal test were brought out, Hasbro has the resources to legally harass it into oblivion, whether it's in the right or not. And, Hasbro is fairly litigious, even for a big corporation. Likely mere cheap-lawyer C&Ds will be enough to snuff any 4e clones that threaten to see the light of day.

The "loss of revenue to Pathfinder," which, under the OGL, had a /much/ easier time avoiding any slightest legal issue, is more than adequate motive to take such action.

4e is likely to be the deadest edition of D&D ever. I doubt there'll be WotC ninjas stealing your books, but future support strikes me as vanishingly unlikely.

As always, my outlook is cynical and pessimistic in the extreme, and I'll admit that I often find myself being pleasantly surprised...

On topic, the OP's premise is false. Some criticisms of 4E are met with "please no edition warring", but those are the ones with posts like, well, the OP's. It takes a biased eye to see only those, and none of the legitimate discussions of the edition in which no claims of edition wars are made.

Nod. There are many valid criticism of 4e. Why the most strident critics of it rarely manage to articulate them is a mystery.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure we'd be covering new ground. Most of the flaws of 3e and 4e are well-known; it's just that people are unwilling to admit flaws in the system.

I mean, you have people on the Paizo boards who still don't acknowledge the fighter-wizard imbalance. No point in arguing with them, since their arguments come down to "I haven't seen it, so it doesn't exist" and "the DM should change the rules anyhow."

Exactly. There are a lot of known problems with all editions of D&D, but some of them aren't valid problems - being matters of perception or bias - and some of them are valid problems that are vociferously denied.

It'd be valuable to winnow out the valid strengths and weaknesses of each ed, in order to build a stronger 5e.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I doubt there'll be WotC ninjas stealing your books...

Not for all of us, but for the subset of players who went paperless with 4Ed, unless DDI support of 4Ed is continued, it will be as if they had.

(And if the paperless players start printing up the stuff they want to keep to avoid this, they'll have paid for it twice...)

 

[Harlock]

Not for all of us, but for the subset of players who went paperless with 4Ed, unless DDI support of 4Ed is continued, it will be as if they had.

(And if the paperless players start printing up the stuff they want to keep to avoid this, they'll have paid for it twice...)

Not that this isn't an entirely valid concern, but couldn't they have seen this coming? Maybe now is sooner than expected by some (perhaps many!) but there was always going to be a D&D Next, no matter what it was called. Can DDI stuff be saved as a pdf or saved to file? I ask because I never bothered with it more than for character sheets and that was several years and many nights' sleep ago.

 

[nightwyrm]

Not that this isn't an entirely valid concern, but couldn't they have seen this coming? Maybe now is sooner than expected by some (perhaps many!) but there was always going to be a D&D Next, no matter what it was called. Can DDI stuff be saved as a pdf or saved to file? I ask because I never bothered with it more than for character sheets and that was several years and many nights' sleep ago.

The most important parts of DDI (the stuff ppl are paying for) is not the pdfs but the online tools such as the character builder.

 

[Umbran]

So, yes, 4e is, as I said, on a /technical level/ (which is just a limited part of what makes a game great), objectively higher-quality than prior eds.

"Quality", in that sense, is a human-subjective value, not an objective one.

Assume, for a moment, we live in a Newtonian universe, and I have a piece of string. I can tell you several objective things about that string - its length, its mass, its tensile strength, its chemical composition....

I can compare that first string (String A) to another (String B). I can tell you which is longer, which is heavier, which has higher tensile strength. But, I cannot tell you which is technically a "better" string, because that depends upon what you're going to use the string for. You and your neighbor may have different string-needs, and thus require different qualities in your string. Your need for a string to use as a laundry line calls for a string with different attributes than your neighbor who wants to tie up a roast he's cooking for dinner.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hey Benoist! Did you really just come by to post about how you don't like to post here?

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.

I'd suggest this is the meme, actually. Just because you and the OP see every response to some non-productive, broad-brush, insulting comment about an edition as an attempt to shut down discussion, that doesn't mean it's true. It's selective perception (which is an extremely common human trait). It's people wanting to be able to insult other people's tastes, then claiming oppression when they're called on it. "It's my opinion that you're an idiot. It's an opinion!" does not make calling someone an idiot any better. It doesn't even fly on the other site you mentioned - it doesn't get moderated, it just gets called out by other posters.

There have been many productive discussions about the flaws of 4E and other editions, on this board and others (want to have one? I'd be happy to contribute), though such productive discussion tends to grind to a halt when someone comes in with their "4E is not an RPG" or similar claptrap. If you have something real to say, then say it.

And finally, I should point out that something being a meme does not make it inaccurate. So even if this is a meme, as you claim, that does not mean it's not a valid point.

 

[Fifth Element]

So, yes, 4e is, as I said, on a /technical level/ (which is just a limited part of what makes a game great), objectively higher-quality than prior eds.

I'm very analytical by nature, but I remain extremely skeptical of a claim that an RPG can be objectively better than another.

It's more specifically designed, if you understand me, but I don't think even that could be called higher quality. It's so much more art than science that claims of objectivity ring hollow.