So what is edition bashing anyway?

[UngeheuerLich]

I have been banned for attacking pathfinder. And yes, that was justified. Edition bashing happens, whenever you attack players of that direction personally, directly or indirectly:

I said something like "Pathfinders is only for min-maxers and no real role players". (I used different words...)
So I accused every player of playing an inferior game.

Other people call "D&D4e just a tabletop miniature war game". Which is exactly the same bashing.

So when you make statements, think about what you would feel if someone told you, you are play the game wrong... or you play a game that is only made for kids/grognards etc...

Statements like: "I don´t like pathfinder, as customizability is too high and new players are lost..." or "I don´t like 4e, because it´s combat focusses too much on the interaction of miniatures" Is completely different.

Generally beginning a statement with: I like/I don´t like and ending the statement, with an explanation, why YOU personally don´t like it, maybe with a reference to actual rules, are good.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

What matters is the relevancy and the justification. You can be as critical as you like as long as

• You have an actual reason you can back up
• It is based on the game not the players of that game
• It is relevant to the conversation

In reverse order:

You can't just drop into a thread and say 4e, 3e, AD&D, OSRIC, or even FATAL suck. (Even if FATAL does). It adds nothing constructive to the thread. And is going to annoy people as well as waste their time reading what you've written.

Never attack the players. And this includes saying that the game is suitable for idiots/rollplayers/people who can't handle complexity. You're going to just annoy half the audience. And although some preferences can make you a bad person, your taste in D&D editions is not one of them. (Your taste in roleplaying game systems might show you to be a bad person if you're actually a fan of FATAL or RaHoWa but those both are about the assumed gameworld and are extreme outliers). Seriously, just never say anything about the players of any given game. Or that a game is for people who like [anything derogatory].

And you need to be able to give reasons. One of the posters I like reading on this board is [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - and he's a fairly hard line 1e fan. When it comes to RPGs I really don't look for the same things he does. Which makes reading him interesting - he has a different perspective to mine. If you can give reasons for disliking things and can justify them there's no problem with disagreeing although you may get disagreed with for your reasons. If you just say you don't like something it adds no useful information to the discussion. Also giving your reasons leaves you open to being engaged with and potentially even having your mind changed. I used to think the 1e XP for GP rule sucked - why reward people twice? But I now really like it because I understand what it is designed to do - incentivise people for looting without fighting.

 

[billd91]

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.)

There is a lot of subjectivity to assessing edition bias within the groups engaged in the debate. If you think you're seeing it, flag the post for the mods if you think it breaks board rules and let them sort it out. They've been doing a reasonable job of it lately. There are times in the past when they have been a bit oversensitive, but even with the 5e debate roiling, things are generally calmer and easier to sort out.

If you don't want to be accused of it, make sure you include some kind of rationale in your post rather than just fire a shot with a buzz phrase. If you feel 4e feels video-gamey, include your reason why. If you don't think it feels like D&D, include why and make sure it's clear that this is how you feel, not how everyone has to feel. If you feel the math to 3.5 is broken, explain how you come to this conclusion. In all of these cases, not everyone has read your rationales for these things so if you're going to trot out the buzz phrases, explain them or link to a post that does.

I would also suggest avoiding too much hyperbole. It's pretty thick around here and it's often running right along the line between acceptable and insulting.

And most of all, don't make it or take it personal.

 

[Piratecat]

We select moderators in part because they don't have any edition bias. I've played and loved OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and now D&D Next. That and $2.23 buys me a cup of coffee. I don't give a damn about what game other people love, but I surely do care if you're expressing that by lobbing personal insults, trying to rip down someone else's game or trying to start a fight.

We were way too lenient when 4e came out, and the boards became much less positive for a while. Screw that. I don't want to see that again. As a result, we're being fairly stringent about flagging anyone whose posts about any edition seem like they're provoking a fight.

 

[Guest 85555]

On the whole I find the mods here very balanced on this issue. Smetimes you see the weight shift in terms of how many posters are defending or attacking a particular edition, but that waxes and wanes over time and is often just a product of who happens to be on the defensive.

For me when it crosses a line is when folks simpoy dont allow others to have their opinions (i.e. No you are wrong, i just proved x edition is y and no other view is valid) or when people bait through implied personal insults (well if you need someone to do all the work for you i can see why you might like edition x). Everyone once in a while people should take a step back and realize this kind of rhetoric may help you win the argument (though winning aj argument isn't the same thing as being right) but it makes your side of the debate look very bad.

 

[dkyle]

We were way too lenient when 4e came out, and the boards became much less positive for a while. Screw that. I don't want to see that again. As a result, we're being fairly stringent about flagging anyone whose posts about any edition seem like they're provoking a fight.

Yeah, I definitely developed a very negative perception of this place in those days. I've been very pleasantly surprised since I started coming back here again once the 5E talk started, and now it's my preferred 5E discussion forum. So thank you, and job well done!

 

[Piratecat]

Yeah, I definitely developed a very negative perception of this place in those days. I've been very pleasantly surprised since I started coming back here again once the 5E talk started, and now it's my preferred 5E discussion forum. So thank you, and job well done!

Still a work in progress, but thanks. I like how it's going so far. A few tools we're using:

- Visibly leaving a comment in the problematic post, so that other people know it's not okay

- Using infractions to track and warn the member. These are basically PMs that can easily be tracked by us. It makes it really easy to tell an isolated incident from a pattern.

- Relying on reported posts. If a member reports a problematic post (the triangular "!" at the bottom left of every post), at least one moderator looks at it to see if there's a problem. I don't think we ever have more than a 24 hour lag time on this.

- Good communication between moderators. We talk about everything, and share information if there's a tricky moderation call to make.

- Superb community. This group of folks is largely self-moderating and is very, very smart. That makes moderation pretty much a joy.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There were several times in the last couple of years that I thought I saw some bias in the moderation. I didn't say anything to anyone, because I didn't want to be "that guy" that Morrus referenced earlier. Plus, mods are humans, too.

After watching the pattern all this time, I suspect that there are certain kinds or aspects of edition warring that the mods come down on faster than others. Oh, they'll get to all of it eventually, but some of the moderation is almost pre-emptive now.

In local instances, this can create the impression of edition favoritism. Depends on which edition is getting slammed with which technique. Do edition bashing techique A, you'll get strung up immediately. Do edition bashing technique B, you'll be given some rope to hang yourself with. Either way, you end up hung.

I thought about testing this theory with some actual posts, but it wasn't worth getting banned to satisfy my curiousity.

 

[OnlineDM]

This has developed into a really good thread!

I agree that the moderation here seems pretty even-handed. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more cases of 4e-bashing needing moderation than 3e or earlier editions just because I think newer things are going to be more frequently bashed.

Once D&D Next comes out, I could see it being the main edition getting bashed and requiring moderation, even if it's a well-received game overall. (Of course, 4e was NOT well-received in many circles, which doesn't help matters. Note that I say this as a 4e fan.) I think human nature tends to make us not like change, so we're inclined to dislike the new more than the old.

This is all speculation on my part, though; I have no data on how often the mods have to step in to stop the bashing of 4e versus the bashing of Pathfinder or 3e or 2e or 1e or OD&D or BECMI or whatever.

 

[dagger]

I hate all the editions but when I am alone with one I tell them they are special and unique. If they only knew.....