...
You can delve deeply into the issues a system or mechanic has without demanding no one anywhere under any circumstances ever be permitted access to an official version of it.
Sure, and you can also say; "I hate this, and I think having the game is better without it." without making you a terrible person or even worse... dare I say it, someone who was on the non-4e side of the edition war (hive of wretched scum and villany we all must swear they were). You can just... not like something, and believe the game is better off without it, it really doesn't make you a bad person just because that thing came from a particular edition.
Even, in the horrific scenario of others gaining access to it, you are in no way obliged to avail yourself of the thing. In 5e, specifically, anything that might be added after the PH is necessarily optional, and it is simple and easy, as a DM, to just decline to opt into it.
Which is similar to many arguments made about 5e's initial release strategy and anti-bloat ideas "What does it matter if there is a wall of rules and settings books, just buy what you want." Truth is, it does matter. Making things more explicitly optional can help a lot, but adding more stuff is not purely a positive thing.
I can think of many thematic/flavour stuff that people would argue the game is better off without ie; Book of Erotic Fantasy, rape monsters, Book of Colonialism and Slavery, Justin Bieber's guide to Bards. I may or may not agree with them, but simply arguing that the game is better off without publishing a particular official product doesn't make them bad people (or edition warriors because Bieber was signed at the same time 4e was coming out). I can hear it already; "Oh, heavens me, how dare that dirty edition warrior compare Warlords with Bieber, off with his head!" they are just examples of things a person might not want in the game.
Now, 'persecution' might have some applicability to the extremes of the edition war, but I don't think that's been happening in this thread. Even if it has strayed terribly from the original, really quite positive topic.
You've more or less (AFAIR) argued that while 4e fans may in fact lash out at things that fans of other editions don't, it's understandable given what they have gone through and thus people shouldn't say things that might be construed by them as edition warring.
Not even sure what you mean by disrespectful (pointing towards the mechanic / game structure ) .
Do we lie about what the mechanics were or what they were intended to do? We generally talk about how the results created issues in practice (in theory being lame at low level was supposed balance being overly powerful at high levels - in practice most people played games that never did the full range so the over all experience was imbalance of one form or another at all times. This was exasperated by other things in the system that is a big conversation you are not actually interested in. The sweet spot is now being mentioned again on the forums though I think most of the time Tony actually exaggerates how much it was brought back he knows 5e better than I. That was originally a range that corresponded to everyone having much the same amount to contribute in the game.
My distaste for Save or Dies is re-expressed right here in the thread was I lying about the system or saying something about people who like them? I can say something about people who like the mechanic for you "they are getting a gamblers rush out of it".
Seriously? You don't know how the same thing can be presented respectfully or disrespectfully unless lying is involved? In a couple of posts you manage to refer to me as "He" (I guess, you never responded to my request at clarification), informed me of what conversations I was actually interested in, implied that I suggested you were lying, chose to use "lame" instead of underpowered or a million other less emotionally charged words, etc. I could give examples of how things can be said disrespectfully, but there isn't a lot of point is there?
I got censored over it... in one way or another.
Someone put you on their ignore list, many people have issues with the way that works on forums, but it doesn't correlate to what has been happening here. Judging from your posts are you even sure it was due to your views and not a personality conflict? BTW, Tony Vargas and I have both "ignored" the other at one time or another, I wasn't censoring his views (and I doubt that's what he was trying to do), I was just too annoyed (still annoyed just a wee bit less at the moment, or maybe just as annoyed but my threshold is higher, who knows
).
