Taking a Break

[Imp]

I look forward to a 5e with the strengths of both games.

To run with this a bit, I think most all of the vocal 4e "haters" around here think that 4e has some very definite strengths, but are also annoyed by other aspects of the rules. The people that flat out hate 4e don't post much, because they have no investment in the new game.

 

[billd91]

Or better yet, how about an separate Edition War forum like they had on DragonsFoot? With a slight difference- If you get personal with someone you get a permanent ban. No second chances, no 3 strikes. This way anyone who wants to debate can do so all night long without the rest of us having to be subjected to it in nearly every freaking thread!

It sounds tempting at first, a place to blow off the edition-argument steam. But I'd be quite concerned that it would spill over. It's true that ENWorld (and plenty of other forums) are comparatively inhospitable now, even with a moratorium on overt edition war threads. But I'm not sure that making some of the behavior acceptible and segregating it is really going to improve behavior in the rest of the forums. I'd be more concerned with even more unacceptible behavior.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I think the post of your own that you quoted, is pretty much spot-on. While I don't take my gaming seriously enough to *really* worry about not having a place to discuss my game of choice, I'm finding most forums pretty jumpy and volatile since 4E was announced, and even more-so now that it has been released.

As someone who likes 4E , and gave up on 3rd years ago, I'm not finding many forums very hospitable at the moment. Whether it's here, Necro, Paizo, whatever- most threads degenerate into some kind of BS Edition Wars at some point. I've yet to find a forum where I can just go and talk about 4E without SOMEONE coming in and telling us how X, Y, and Z in 4E suck and 3rd edition did it better. And I KNOW there are pro 4E people here on ENworld whom are just as guilty with the 4E can do no wrong diatribe.

I'd really like to see a "general forum" split so pro 4E'ers and Pro 3E'ers each have a place to talk without all the threadcrapping.

Or better yet, how about an separate Edition War forum like they had on DragonsFoot? With a slight difference- If you get personal with someone you get a permanent ban. No second chances, no 3 strikes. This way anyone who wants to debate can do so all night long without the rest of us having to be subjected to it in nearly every freaking thread!

This post.

My experience.

100%.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To run with this a bit, I think most all of the vocal 4e "haters" around here think that 4e has some very definite strengths, but are also annoyed by other aspects of the rules. The people that flat out hate 4e don't post much, because they have no investment in the new game.

I cannot argue with you here.

Let me also add, that 5e ("D&D with the power of 2 D&Ds while one is on fire, and the other has shark teeth!") ought to be OGL. GSL sucks!


RC

 

[Family]

Just took a break, it was nice. Being back is nicer. A fine establishment we have here.

 

[Hussar]

No. And that is sad, because there are a lot of good and innovative video games and using video games only as a kind of "insult" or negative is unfair to them.

But, Hussar, didn't you want to focus more on the "real role-playing-related stuff" instead of the meta-discussions and hot-button-discussions, to save your own sanity and enjoyment of the game and this board?

Sigh. Heh. Sucks me in every time.

Yeah, I can. "Elegant". WTF does that mean when applied to RPG rules?

(Of course, I think someone saying "simplicity of monsters" and stopping at that is also inappropriately vague. I certainly don't know what that means. What's simple? Why does that person - not necessarily anyone else - think there's simplicity there?)

Non-cumbersome/clunky.

Hmmm... no wonder I can't (and don't) follow such discussions.

I guess I can't see the difference where some internet denizens think something is vague but not other things (many being described in this thread) I guess there's inconsistency in order here, depending on one's agenda.

Bingo! We have a winner. Take the phrase "elegant". Arnwyn didn't understand the term. Fair enough, I'm fairly stupid, so there's lots of things I don't understand. However, the question was answered in three words and nailed the definition down entirely. No ambiguity, not misunderstanding.

We've got multiple, multi-page threads asking what "video-gamey" means. And still no answer.

See the difference?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

So, I could easily see the 3e "faction" keeping EN and the 4e guys finding a forum where no one calls 4e videogamey...

Or it could go the other way, and as support for 3e is eroded, the board members will find themselves migrating to boards for their individual games, and eventually someone might have a core 3e game forum that caters to them...

It's really sort of up in the air right now, and I think the folks that suffer are the ones that like both editions, or just want to play.

Just to point something out here. I've argued strongly against terming 3e "videogamey" for years as well. Let's not pretend that this is something new or even has anything to do with edition. It doesn't for me. I don't care what edition you're talking about. Video-gamey and most of the other hot-button, intellectually lazy terms out there are just useless to conversation and act as active barriers to communication.

This is not an edition specific thing.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Just to point something out here. I've argued strongly against terming 3e "videogamey" for years as well. Let's not pretend that this is something new or even has anything to do with edition. It doesn't for me. I don't care what edition you're talking about. Video-gamey and most of the other hot-button, intellectually lazy terms out there are just useless to conversation and act as active barriers to communication.

This is not an edition specific thing.

I totally remember posting a reply here, but now it's gone!

It was about people that were describing it as videogamey and meant it, but couldn't defend their feeling a point by point debate style like EN goes for and stuff!

Seriously, it existed!

I will add now, that the Anti-WotC vibe from such things as the Gleemax (or rather, Glee that it's dead) thread is pretty prevalent in ENWorld...

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't care what edition you're talking about. Video-gamey and most of the other hot-button, intellectually lazy terms out there are just useless to conversation and act as active barriers to communication.

"Hot-button" and "intellectually lazy" are at least as vague as video-gamey. So, if they are "just useless to conversation and act as active barriers to communication", why are you using them?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Bingo! We have a winner. Take the phrase "elegant". Arnwyn didn't understand the term. Fair enough, I'm fairly stupid, so there's lots of things I don't understand. However, the question was answered in three words and nailed the definition down entirely. No ambiguity, not misunderstanding.

Assuming, of course, that we agree about what "non-cumbersome/clunky" means in this context. Or that this is all that elegance means in terms of game design, which I do not think it is. It is, for example, at least as important IMHO that a system be appropriate to be elegant. "Flip a coin" or "DM desides" are the most "elegant" solutions to any problem given the definition you believe entirely nails the term down, but I doubt very much that this is what one expects from an "elegant" ruleset!

We've got multiple, multi-page threads asking what "video-gamey" means. And still no answer.

Barring, of course, the answers given (including mine).

Video-gamey: Having qualities akin to a video game. Specifically, the degree to which mundane abilities/decisions are constrained by the ruleset/gamist concerns.

RC