So what is edition bashing anyway?

[TimA]

I'm a little curious. Since it seems that anything critical of 4e is "edition bashing" and anything critical of previous editions is just fine no matter the tone.

So is there some clear rule or is just a knee jerk defense of the current edition because its the current one and we can expect the script to completely flip as soon as 5e comes out?

An Inquiring mind wants to know everyones opinions.

 

[dkyle]

What boards are you reading? There's tons of criticism of 4E here. Most of it is constructive.

 

[Kzach]

Edition bashing is when a bunch of old fatbeards get dressed up as Gandalf and use their 1st Edition AD&D manuals to beat the ever-loving bejeebus out of a bunch of young fatbeards dressed up as Legolas. Or vice versa.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

An Inquiring mind wants to know everyones opinions.

I think it's when a poster crosses the line confusing subjective opinion with objective fact. Add in some disrespectful barbs that crosses the line from critique to disrespectful arguing and you have "edition bashing".

I've been a member of these boards for a long time and the one common thing is that the moderation on EN World is pro-RPGing. If it's an RPG, EN World will support it. If it's any edition of D&D or Pathfinder or whatever, it will be supported. There is simply no moderation bias here in regards to a poster supporting one edition or another.

If you follow the posting guidelines, then you will never get accused of edition bashing etc. If you have and show respect for other posters then you can be as critical as you want without people batting an eyelid. They may disagree with you (vehemently even) as is their entitlement but generally respect given will result in respect received.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Stormonu]

Every edition has had its head caved in at some point on these boards. 4E and 3E have probably caught the most flak because they've been the two main editions in print since this board has been created. 4E and Pathfinder are the current in-print editions, so I'm sure you'll see most of the fury waged against these versions. But I haven't seen a bias towards either; there seems plenty of loathing and love on both sides.

However, I haven't seen the moderators let editon bashing fly without stepping in and stopping it, with equal regard to what edition it is (I've gotten my own wrist slapped). There's nothing against calling out an edition's "weaknesses" or people expressing why they don't like an edition. As long as its done respectfully, i.e. not calling the edition crap or putting down those who like the said edition as stupid or worse.

I don't personally visit the 4E boards so I'm not seeing any bashing that may be going on there, but in general and in the Next forum, I haven't seen dislike/hate biased in one direction or the other. Emotions for 3E/Pathinder and 4E seem to be equally vocal and divisive.

 

[Daztur]

From what I've seen, if you say "4ed sucks because X" or "AD&D sucks because X" you'll get a whole bunch of angry replies, but if you say something that targets 3.5ed specifically that doesn't apply to any other edition (like skill points) you'll mostly get crickets. Also it seems like VERY often when a 4ed fan says "older editions" they often are only talking about 3.5ed (or assuming that all of the things they didn't like in 3.5ed existed in equal measure in previous editions), which makes debate between 4ed fans and TSR-D&D fans get weird as the two sides often end up talking past each other.

 

[Dykstrav]

Usually, if you have to ask whether or not you're doing it... You probably are. If you have any doubt, it's best to phrase the statement in such a way that there's no doubt about what you're saying.

The definition of "edition bashing" is a bit subjective, here's how I determine it. (Note: I'm citing specific examples from both sides of the fence because I've seen it from both sides of the fence. Neither "side" is innocent here.)

1) You assert that you play "real" D&D or that you play the game as the designers intended. This usually indicates that the speaker is a big edition basher, especially if they make this assertion when you first meet or play with them.

2) You tell people face-to-face that you're a good player or GM. Although they might just be a goober, these players are usually heavy edition bashers once you get to know them. (It's a bit off-topic, but if you actually tell people that you are "good" at D&D, you're not. People know if you're good at it or not. Just like the clueless guy that's constantly bragging about a sexual conquest, people know that you're full of BS when you do something like this. The people that are legit don't feel a need to advertise it, but everyone loves to hear you make an ass of yourself in public. Sorry, thread de-rail over.)

3) You don't cite actual elements from the game that you dislike, you engage in personal attacks aimed at the player base. The 4E players that do this usually accuse players of Pathfinder or legacy editions of being motivated by "nostalgia," whereas Pathfinder/legacy edition players that do it accuse 4E players of wanting a tabletop video game. If you do either one, I generally consider it edition-bashing.

4) You accuse the game that you dislike of "ruining" the industry. The 4E players used to make snarky remarks about legacy players being "left behind," but that's flipped around these days--now they accuse Pathfinder/legacy players of screwing WotC or "the industry" out of money and weakening the overall hobby by not buying in to their edition of choice. The Pathfinder/legacy people accuse 4E players of dumbing down the game and making it a boardgame/wargame/tabletop video game/anything but a "real" RPG.

5) You assert your opinion as an objective fact.

6) You assert that you speak for all players everywhere, or at least a sizable majority of them.

 

[CleverNickName]

"Edition bashing" refers to the dubious practice of insulting a particular edition of the game (or its players), with the sole purpose of creating an argument.

Threads can generally be critical of other editions without any need for moderator intervention. But the ones that cross the line and become insulting, they usually get closed. For example:

"4E sucks because it has dragonborn in it!" -- edition bashing
"Dragonborn are such a dumb idea." -- subtle, but still edition bashing
"I do not like dragonborn at all." -- not edition bashing
"I hate dragonborn." -- heated, but still not edition bashing

 

[Morrus]

I'm a little curious. Since it seems that anything critical of 4e is "edition bashing" and anything critical of previous editions is just fine no matter the tone.

That will be incorrect.

It's amusing, because I got an email today (about 10 minutes before seeing this post, in fact!) complaining that this place was too anti-4E and that "no criticism of 3.x is allowed but attacks against 4E are left unchecked".

Funny how two people see completely opposite things, eh?

What you're experiencing is a known phenomenon. Any criticism of your favourite edition (whichever it is) you will notice running amok; and criticism of your non-favoured edition you will notice being shut down. So, whichever edition you prefer, all you notice is an terrible, evil bias towards the other editions.

And you'll probably be utterly, utterly convinced of it, too! And someone else will be utterly, utterly convinced of the opposite.

The truth of the matter is that no edition bashing of any stripe is allowed here. Constructive criticism and polite expression of opinion is welcome; pointless X-sucks posts are not.

So, if you're managing to see editioning warring not being moderated, the first question should be this: "have I reported this post?"

 

[Hussar]

Look, I'll pony up and say that I've been guilty of being too strenuous in my defense of a point to the point of being stupid about it. I'll cop to that. Tends to happen when I start getting fifteen pages into a thread and I've dived so far down the rabbit hole of rhetoric that I've pretty much lost all grasp of what the thread was originally about.

However, that being said, it's pretty rare for there to be any bias in either direction. When I get a bit too... energetic, let's say, in my *ahem* *erm* discussions, the mods are pretty quick to give me a good poking with the stick of authority. The idea that anyone here has a free ride to fling the midden at any edition is ignoring a lot of what happens here.

However, this point:

if you say something that targets 3.5ed specifically that doesn't apply to any other edition (like skill points) you'll mostly get crickets

is probably true for a very good reason. If someone has actually taken the time to discuss specifics of an edition, they're likely not just chucking the poo at that edition but rather trying to engage in an examination of specific mechanics.

IOW, if your criticisms are contained to specific elements, then you can likely get away with saying something like, "4e healing surges suck" or whatever. However, if you start broadsiding with things like, "Your edition only lasted 2 years, it sucks so we should chuck everything in it", then you likely are simply engaging in edition bashing.