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

[Pseudonym]

It's been mentioned already to some extent, but it seems that edition wars are rooted in an emotional investment of the proponents to whatever edition it is they are attacking/defending. There's no room for reason there.

Then again, some folks will troll for the sake of trolling, and edition wars are gamer's version of various social or political hot-button topics. They come pre-loaded for such a purpose.

 

[Rel]

I'm still of the opinion that there's not a whole lot left to be said on the topic of edition wars that isn't going to stir up arguments, but I'm absolutely willing to be proven wrong.

I could probably find more videos of scantly clad women dancing if you think that would help.

 

[Quantum]

Logic is just another form of religion because it claims to have the absolute truth and that truth can only come through logic and the correct way of thinking can only come through logic.


People can lie about it all they want, but when anything makes a claim of absolute truth, it then becomes a crutch and is treated no differently than a religion.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Logic is just another form of religion because it claims to have the absolute truth and that truth can only come through logic and the correct way of thinking can only come through logic.


People can lie about it all they want, but when anything makes a claim of absolute truth, it then becomes a crutch and is treated no differently than a religion.

I totally agree with you 100 percent!

 

[rounser]

But if that's the case, then surely it's the height of bigotry for anyone to assume the developers of 4e have only the basest of motives.

Is there any difference between assuming the worst about somebody and caling them a 'jerk'?

You're trying real hard to make me look like the aggressor, here, when I was simply delivering a rebuttal. Go talk to Paradox about his philosophy of assigning "base motives" to others he doesn't agree with and the finer points of calling people "jerks" because of that.

 

[howandwhy99]

Not on topic, but these are answers to some questions asked.

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?

Player choice is unlimited as in any kind of guessing game (barring table rules).

Since the referee can only express the rules behind the screen (i.e. repeat the pattern) everything he or she says is information relevant to succeeding in the game. Finding what is meaningful is central to the design.

I would say the game is about getting to know the underlying laws the DM has made up for the fiction rather than finding a path the players are to follow. What is in the world is a joint creation of everyone who plays or contributes both during actual play and during prep, background creation, fiction suggestions like modules, etc.

Howandwhy99 is sitting in a chair. Umbran walks up with an apple, and holds it over Howandwhy99's head. When Umbran lets go of the apple, it falls and lightly bonks off said head.

This is objectivity. No amount of communal viewing or common belief changes how the apple falls. Objectivity is not common belief - it is what happens irrespective of what we believe.

That's one story. But you cannot know fundamentally that apple will do as you predict. It is impossible to predict the future except pragmatically. Objective truth is not noumenal reality, it is shared agreement of subjective experiences amongst people. Is reality really there? It's pragmatic to behave so, but we cannot absolutely know such a thing. To say, "this is the way things are no matter what" is to slip into dogmatism.

And I can take some apple bonking. I am aware of tilting the apple cart, but I'd rather just talk about gaming. No personal vendettas here, but if my posts tread to close to the borders, please PM me with specifics.

 

[Garthanos]

Logic is just another form of religion because it claims to have the absolute truth and that truth can only come through logic and the correct way of thinking can only come through logic.


People can lie about it all they want, but when anything makes a claim of absolute truth, it then becomes a crutch and is treated no differently than a religion.

That is why science is about ever advancing upon near truths...

 

[Umbran]

To say, "this is the way things are no matter what" is to slip into dogmatism.

Well, yes. But "cannot" is an absolute, too. "We cannot know," is as dogmatic as anything else.

Beyond that - there's another thread for this discussion.

 

[Pbartender]

That is why science is about ever advancing upon near truths...

...And why engineering is about deciding, "Eh, close enough."

 

[Snoweel]

You're trying real hard to make me look like the aggressor, here,

I'm honestly not. I have no problem with aggression; on its own I see it as a positive trait that leads to resolution.

However, and I say this as the admitted King of the Hypocrites, I did see your post as hypocritical, which I felt compelled to point out.

Anyway I'm starting to sound like a dick so I'll end it here. I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking you personally, and I hope if you see evidence of my own hypocricy in future you'll feel free to chastise me. Because I really do loathe hypocricy.