What defines the "edition war" and why are participants / moderators opposed to them?

[Mercurius]

Man, I love donuts.
Here I disagree. I think there's a huge difference between saying "You're wrong" and "I think you're wrong," or "That's not a fun way to play" vs. "I think that's not a fun way to play." I won't blame someone for holding a personal opinion that's different from my own, but my inclination is to be angry, strident and defensive if a person flatly declares me to be incorrect.

Of course, that's assuming that I'm not provably wrong. But you know what I mean.

I disagree that you disagree, or at least I think you are disagreeing with something that I am not saying . The example I used was specifically, and intentionally, in reference to an edition: I said "X-edition sucks," I did not say "You are wrong." Later in the same post I said that I will use "IMHO" or "as I see it" when I'm voicing my perspective on someone else (or their perspective).

So it is a subtle, but very, very important difference. One references something nonhuman and impersonal (in this case, an edition of a game), whereas the other references a human, or the way a human plays. It is the difference between saying "Bowling sucks" and "You suck for liking bowling" or "Your like of bowling is wrong." I am saying that, when voicing the former ("bowling sucks") there is no need to disclaim with "IMHO" as the suckitude of bowling (or lack thereof) is inherently one's opinion.

But I think the key is using words that are contextually appropriate and best convey the meaning one intends. It is fine to say "X-edition sucks" because it is an obvious personal opinion about a non-human thing; when referring to another's opinion, it is actually more accurate to say (as you did), "I disagree with you" or "I think that you are wrong." If I say, "your opinion sucks" all I am conveying is my affective responseto your opinion, and not really even voicing what my opinion is. But if I say, "I disagree with you," at least I am conveying some element of thought and not just affectation.

But again, there is no need to say "IMHO, X-edition sucks" because not only is it not a person or a person's viewpoint that one is referring to, the very word "suck" implies subjectivity--it is emotional and affective, which are inherently subjective.

Well said. I completely agree. Or, as I posted recently, some folks could really use a repeat of the elementary school lessons we all had in distinguishing statements of fact from statements of opinion. You're absolutely right that "IMO" and similar qualifiers should serve as rhetorical emphasis or diplomacy, not as necessary acronyms.

Ironically, "politically correct jargon" is, itself, a code phrase with no objective meaning.

Too true. But, not to get metaphysical on yo' ass, what is "objective meaning?" That's partially the point, I think. There is a kind of irony to the whole "One True Wayism" perspective in that it is both pointing out that all viewpoints are subjective, but also implying an underlying objective, "true" approach to interpersonal relations that we all shalt follow, akin to what Jurgen Habermas called the "performative contradiction." (talk about jargon...Jargon Habermas? ).

Or, as the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy would say, "All dharmas are empty, including that one." Saying "There is no one true way" is itself a subtle kind of One True Wayism. This is not to say that we should all become nihilists and believe in naahthing; but that we should (imho) hold the most inclusive, truthful worldview that we can imagine, with the understanding that it can never be "complete," and thereby remain open to forever evolving our worldview.

Did I go too far?

Of course, this thread was doomed from the beginning with the title it has, so it was inevitible. . .I'm just kind of horrified that there is so much support for the threadcrapping that edition wars generally *start* with.

? I don't follow. What sort of threadrapping are you talking about and who exactly is supporting it?

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm very curious to hear what the community thinks.

Thanks!

I hear your inner dude speaking, innerdude. Any particular ruleset is going to have its' highs and lows depending upon what the players want from it. My own preference is for a more traditional D&D type game, meaning it is an elaborate pattern finding game engaging the players logical reasoning abilities as the foremost activity of play. In this game all the rules fit on a single page or so for every player to know, but the rules hidden behind the screen to be guessed, those created by the referee, are as complex, elegant, mystifying, and pleasurable as he or she can create. That means every game by every ref is going to be different. This make it hard to judge "good rules" and "bad rules" on a community-wide level, but the conciseness of a rule, achieving each rule's particular purpose, knowing their effects on player behavior during the game, and the resulting workload for the referee/DM/GM are all important to every game.

Having a rules discussion between every kind of game in the hobby is difficult especially because of players differing desires for games, but also philosophies of what makes quality game design, how one defines roleplaying, and the category of games one plays. The popularity of any philosophy and any game also impact the discussion. D&D will probably always have a significant spot in the conversation and the vast differences between its' designs over the years is going to be talked about.

Can these conversations be civil? I think so. But the current position of said discussion, of D&D at least, is to call non-storygamers abashed, deluded, suffering from mental illusions, even brain damaged, and then to walk away, if not mock. Talking about the philosophies of RPG rule design between solely D&D editions has been a non-starter for the last several years and it doesn't help when attempted conversation is purposefully shut down for whatever reason. My understanding of the main rationale behind this is it is a question of death for the hobby to continue to design and play games like those from its' past. In my opinion this is a fear tactic and I don't care for it. But I may be misinterpreting intentions. I don't know, as I said many things are not really openly talked about and edition warring does get in the way.

 

[Nifft]

Is this turning into a meta-edition war? People who hate edition warring arguing with people who hate being tattled on?

Only a meta-jerk would meta-tattle on an meta-edition war.

"Meta-forumally speaking", -- N

 

[howandwhy99]

Too true. But, not to get metaphysical on yo' ass, what is "objective meaning?" That's partially the point, I think. There is a kind of irony to the whole "One True Wayism" perspective in that it is both pointing out that all viewpoints are subjective, but also implying an underlying objective, "true" approach to interpersonal relations that we all shalt follow, akin to what Jurgen Habermas called the "performative contradiction." (talk about jargon...Jargon Habermas? ).

Or, as the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy would say, "All dharmas are empty, including that one." Saying "There is no one true way" is itself a subtle kind of One True Wayism. This is not to say that we should all become nihilists and believe in naahthing; but that we should (imho) hold the most inclusive, truthful worldview that we can imagine, with the understanding that it can never be "complete," and thereby remain open to forever evolving our worldview.

Did I go too far?

Encyclopediacally-speaking? Objectivity is the subjectively-perceived, communal view attempted to be communicated between collectively-identifying, recursively-processing, self and other-reproducing, multi-cellular "things". In other words, it's a merely a group of people who share a common belief rather than just one person spouting an opinion, which would be subjective belief instead.

Current post-philosophical arguments are attempting to move away from dogmatisms like fundamentalist belief systems toward more pragmatic belief behaviors. However, they all too often slip into relativism, which is just as much a dogma (or dharma, as you point out). Whether pragmatism is a performative contradiction I leave to you, Habermas (the old schnauzer), and and any philosopher still working in epistemology.

 

[Paradox]

Then there are peoplt that are jerks. They KNOW they're jerks but throw on the innocent "What did I do? I didn't do anything wrong!" cloak when they're called out. They have no intrest in discussion, nor are they looking to get people's opinions. They are there just to spoil the fun for others.

And they can't stand to let others have their enjoyment of the edition they play. It's not enough they don't like an edition, they have to make sure other people don't like it either.

I don't like THAC0, but I don't go to 2nd edition boards and say "THAC0 sux! 2e = Adventure on Atari 2600!"

That's not a discussion/discourse. That's just throwing gas on the fire.

 

[LostSoul]

My own preference is for a more traditional D&D type game, meaning it is an elaborate pattern finding game engaging the players logical reasoning abilities as the foremost activity of play. In this game all the rules fit on a single page or so for every player to know, but the rules hidden behind the screen to be guessed, those created by the referee, are as complex, elegant, mystifying, and pleasurable as he or she can create.

I find this fascinating - maybe better forked to another thread.

What do you think the effect on player choice is in this scenario? In order to make meaningful decisions you need to have some information... could you go so far as to say that the game is about getting to know the DM's worldview?

 

[Ariosto]

The pleasure in that aspect of discovering "hidden" rules may be one reason why we have gotten into a succession of more radically different sets of more explicitly stated rules.

As far back as OD&D, the proliferation of rules-books, "while great for us [TSR] as a company, it was tough on the DM."

An orc is an orc, that is, of course, unless the book is the famous Brand New Ed..

 

[Paradox]

I can also add from experience all the stupid behind the scenes games people play by reporting each other, seeking to ban someone that doesn't agree with them 110%.

 

[wedgeski]

But I find it equally irking that, in many peoples' minds, statement A is bad but statement B is OK:

A: X-edition sucks.
B: X-edition sucks, IMHO.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! They are very different sentiments, about as different as it's possible to get on a text-only forum. If there are folks out there who don't see a distinction between them, it goes a long way towards explaining why things can so often get out of hand.

 

[DaveyJones]

I can also add from experience all the stupid behind the scenes games people play by reporting each other, seeking to ban someone that doesn't agree with them 110%.

welcome aboard

Davey "diaglo on the WotC boards and here too" Jones