What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Aeolius]

Good point.

Back in the day, a possible definition for "too videogamey" would be a game which resembled Atari's "Adventure"... with characteristics like...

You forgot:
If you kill all three dragons in specific rooms, then find the invisible key in the maze, you can pass through the wall to see developer credits.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've never seen the pro-4e side of the debate use disinformation, and i'm pretty sure you're using it by claiming that they do. The equivalancy fallacy is not a legitimate or constructive tactic, it simply obscures the real issues.

When I see a 4e fan posting "Wizards in 3e were overpowered!", I feel it has about the same objective truth as "4e plays like a videogame."

In other words, there's reasons for this perception, but the perception is not inherently true.

 

[catastrophic]

When I see a 4e fan posting "Wizards in 3e were overpowered!", I feel it has about the same objective truth as "4e plays like a videogame."

In other words, there's reasons for this perception, but the perception is not inherently true.

Everything is not just a matter of opinion.

On the one hand, frankly if we're ever going to accept that any game system has any impact that is in any way other than subjective, we should be willing to recognise things like the caster/non-caster power split in 3e. But fine, let's just leave that aside, it's all subjective, DMs can warp the system so that every wizard is an insomiac and every fighter has an amulet of mind blank, whatever.


BUT that doesn't change the fact that people have been misrepresenting the nature of the 4e system ever since it came out, not in subjective terms, not in terms of extrapolated game style, but in terms of making claims that are directly contrary to the actual facts of what is included in the books.

There are literally hundereds if not thousands of posts in these threads, made by people who were critical of 4e and yet, despite clearly having never read the books, still felt they had the right to make not subjective claims, but factual allegations about what the books contained.

We all know what i'm talking about. 4e doesn't support skill usage (even though it has an entire system for using skills, a system with no equivalent in 3e). 4e doesn't have any fluff for monsters, even though every monster entry has paragraphs of fluff under the knowelge check system. 4e doesn't have utility spells, even though there's an entire system set aside specifically for utility spells. And the list goes on.

Sometimes it seems like there isn't a feature 4e spends a chapter on, that 4e-haters haven't criticised it for lacking.

And no, it's not a matter of opinion, it is a mater of fact. It's a matter of page-count, in fact. That's how bad it is. That is the degree to which people have been misrepresenting this issue.

And no, it's not valid to say that since there is sometimes a real issue lurking there, six layers deep, that these criticisms are valid. Skill challenges and rituals could certainly be better, but that doesn't make it ok for people to pretend that they don't exist, and then have their dishonesty or ignorance championed as a virtue or coddled as if it's something everyone in the debate is doing.

And these claims are often made by people who claim that these utterly false features were a deliberate design decision by the people who wrote the books, and that this is proof of their design philosophy. Myth upon myth, or to be frank, lie upon lie. And then somebody corrects them, and they say "well that's my subjective opinion", and the entire absurd merry-go-round goes around for another turn. And all of this damages the comunity's ability to come to grips with the real issues.

And let me just repeat: I don't care if you want to wrap this all in a blanked of subjective sophistry, and preted this is all ok. It's not ok, it's extarordinarily damaging to both the discussion, and the comunity.

I know that people who hate 4e crow about the collapse of it's third party market as a victory, but you can't blame the GSL for that whole mess- at some point you have to recognise that the endless negativity, and misrepresentation of 4e has had a real, and entirely undeserved impact there. Yes, there were issues with the GSL, no, that did not justify the endless frenzy of pure BS that was hurled around about both the game, and the GSL. Do not tell me that there were not 4e haters, sitting on GSL threads, deliberatly making all sorts of allegations about how the GSL would be the death of any company that touched it, because there were.

And the real issues of how 4e effects people trying to do 3pp for it? Completly obscured by this garbage! I remember one case on this forum, when somebody mentioned a really good point about the difficulties of doing 3pp for 4e (iirc relating to the character builder), and a mod shut the discussion down because it was touching on the GSL or something and the frenzy over it had caused the mods to take action. Since then people have managed to talk about real issues somtimes, but they still don't get to talk about the 500 pound gorilla in the room- the edition wars themselves, and how they've damaged 4e's 3pp market.

The comunity has also been damaged. I have lost count of the number of people i've seen saying that they'd really like to play 4e, but they get flack of even mentioning it in their not so friendly LGS, and on the forums they hang out on. The people dishing out that abuse, and the false claims they make about the system, and their belief that their attitude is reasonable, all flow directly from this absurd debate. And no, there is not a huge army of retrocloners or pathfinder society people out there, making up the difference. The result is a net loss for the comunity, and further damage to the always tenuous process of forming networks of gamers in local areas.

By pandering to the extended temper tantrum that is the hostility to 4e, people on threads like this are only perpetuating this absurd process, and moving people away from a more rational discussion and better outcomes for the comunity and the industry.

It is a miracle that anyone manages to get anything fruitful out of a discussion like this, but that occurs despite the style of the debate, not because of it. There's nothing constructive about pretending that everything is just a matter of opinion, or that the two sides of this debate (as if there even were two sides) are equivalent, or that this process is constructive and sound when it's really just people slinging mud at something they don't like.

Here's the real truth about the edition wars: People threw a huge tantrum when a new edition came out, and their hostility, ignorance, overt dishonesty, and petulance was encouraged and placed upon a pedestal, when it should be recognised as immature, self-indulgent, and destructive.

 

[BryonD]

Well, I'm more drawing a distinction between "feedback that potentially contains information if I dig through it" and "constructive feedback". Constructive feedback is specifically and intentionally laid out to be of use. It takes effort to produce it.

As I said, it is not the customers responsibility to be a game designer.

On the other hand, if your comment doesn't contain any new information that hasn't been part of the aforementioned prior discussions, why are you making it?

I can not respond to your question because the presumption is not valid.

There is a point where "more of the same statement" is not constructive, and feedback has to step up a notch in order to be of use.

We are discussing "what is at stake...". The point of fact that some people find 4E "too videogamey" may be pertinent, whereas arguing the details over and over again is simply a pointless derailing.

 

[BryonD]

I've never seen the pro-4e side of the debate use disinformation, and i'm pretty sure you're using it by claiming that they do. The equivalancy fallacy is not a legitimate or constructive tactic, it simply obscures the real issues.

lol
thanks for your input

 

[BryonD]

"Too videogamey" is too broad a statement to be constructive, in my opinion.

Ok, our opinions differ. Who wins?

What is "videogamey"?

Again, you are taking a phrase that has been argued over and over and treating it as a new phrase suddenly dropped out of the blue.

 

[BryonD]

If he has nothing better to say than that — if he cannot, or will not explain his feelings beyond that statement — then no, he doesn't serve WotC any better. He's about equal.

I find that pretty shocking.

So if you ran a restaurant and someone said they were never coming back, you would find them giving no explanation at all to be just as good as them saying they didn't like the flavor of your food? That information wouldn't give you much to go on, but at least you know it is the food, rather than rude waiters, ugly decor, prices, whatever.

And having someone prevent them from telling you the food was not good is no more harmful than them simply not telling you? Really? If that is your position, we disagree.

And again, this whole reply plays along with the presumption that "videogamey" is a wildly abstract unknowable assessment that has not been discussed since before 4E came out.

 

[Merkuri]

"Too videogamey" is too broad a statement to be constructive, in my opinion.

Ok, our opinions differ. Who wins?

Nobody. This isn't a competition.

What is "videogamey"?

Again, you are taking a phrase that has been argued over and over and treating it as a new phrase suddenly dropped out of the blue.

As I stated at the end of that paragraph, I'm not actually looking for an answer. I don't care what videogamey means or whether 4e is or is not like a video game.

My point was that saying 4e is videogamey is not "constructive criticism". An earlier poster (I don't remember if it was you, BryonD, or somebody else) stated that one of the things at stake in edition wars was to give WotC constructive criticism and I was disputing this.

I could have used another example of criticism but that one was easily at hand. Personally I don't like to take sides in edition wars. I haven't played 4e enough to say whether I like it better than 3e or not, and I'm not in favor of getting into heated arguments about which one is better. They've both got their benefits and their flaws, in my opinion.

 

[catastrophic]

lol
thanks for your input

I'm sorry for interupting the otherwise endless rounds of ByronD's sophistry circle; please, do go on.

~ a good example of how to get threadbanned: Admin ~

 

[Ourph]

There are literally hundereds if not thousands of posts in these threads, made by people who were critical of 4e and yet, despite clearly having never read the books, still felt they had the right to make not subjective claims, but factual allegations about what the books contained.

Well, the fact is, they do. And you have the right to contradict them within the bounds of the posting rules laid out by whatever message board you're posting on.