What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[BryonD]

Some of the "lies" I have seen could have been paraphrased very directly by taking a paragraph directly out of the players handbook and wrapping a big CANNOT or SHOULDNOT statement around what it suggests and recommends... and when called on it... they get all offended that it is their opinion and just because they are bad at arguing is no reason to insult them... its opinion and that is all that matters.... I am not buying the innocent act.

And we are supposed to buy your innocent act? not happening.

There have certainly been cases of ranting against 4E. And when there are ten legitimate complaints leveled, instead of a response to those, we get this kind of post you have just offered. Don't offer anything constructive about the real responses, just hide behind the infrequent rants and stick your head in the sand to the real issue.

 

[BryonD]

Nothing constructive ever comes of calling 4e videogamey

Wow!
That is as backwards as it gets.

If John Smith thinks that 4E is too "videogamey", then saying that he thinks so is in every way constructive feedback.

On the other hand, getting upset because people with opinions contrary to yours have the chance to express there opinion is completely non-constructive. And further, trying to cover up or silence those opinions is is worse than "nothing constructive", it is deconstructive.

 

[Umbran]

If John Smith thinks that 4E is too "videogamey", then saying that he thinks so is in every way constructive feedback.

Not necessarily - not by a long shot.

There is a world of difference between just plain criticism, and constructive criticism, and the difference isn't in the substance of the opinion, but in the delivery. The giving of constructive feedback is an art, and publishers will pay notable salaries to people who can do it - we call them professional editors.

There are a number of major points to providing constructive feedback that are violated in most internet conversations.

1) To be constructive, feedback must be targeted to someone who might be able to use it to improve the material.

2) The focus of the feedback needs to be on the work, and what could be done to improve it, not on the emotions of the critic. This is a big one - if the primary point of the statement is to express your own displeasure, then you're probably missing the mark. A person giving constructive feedback ought to think of themselves as part of the team creating the material - if you're in the frame of mind that there's "Them" (the designers) and "Us" the gamers who hate the design, then you're also going to miss the mark.

Now, a good creator of content may be able to take non-constructive feedback, and use it in constructive ways despite its nature. But that takes a lot of extra work.

 

[Merkuri]

There are a number of major points to providing constructive feedback that are violated in most internet conversations...

...The focus of the feedback needs to be on the work, and what could be done to improve it...

I learned a similar lesson in creative writing classes at college. Saying something like, "This character isn't likable" is bad. Saying "This character isn't likable because..." is better, and "This character would be more likable if..." is usually best.

If you want to give constructive criticism you need to back up the emotional reaction of "4e is too videogamey" (using that as an example) with reasons why you felt that way and, if possible, ways you would improve it. Otherwise you're just criticizing and not being constructive.

 

[BryonD]

Not necessarily - not by a long shot.

I strongly disagree.

If you want to say that it is not "quality" constructive criticism, then I can accept that.

But it is not the consumers job to design the game. If John isn't buying a product because he thinks it is too video gamey, then the best, most constructive feedback he can provide to the designers is: "this is why I don't like your game."

"Your game sucks" would provide nothing constructive.
"Your game is too video gamey" gives the designer something, even if just a little something, that they can work with. You may want to assume that the game designer doesn't know what to make of "too video gamey". But if that is the situation then the people who hired these designers should take the feedback to mean that they need to hire people who have a clue about what the fans want.

Again, the main point I was making is not that "too video gamey" is *great* constructive feedback. But simply that it does most certainly meet the minimum criteria. Whereas telling people that they shouldn't offer their opinion *IS* contrary to constructive.

 

[BryonD]

I learned a similar lesson in creative writing classes at college. Saying something like, "This character isn't likable" is bad. Saying "This character isn't likable because..." is better, and "This character would be more likable if..." is usually best.

If you want to give constructive criticism you need to back up the emotional reaction of "4e is too videogamey" (using that as an example) with reasons why you felt that way and, if possible, ways you would improve it. Otherwise you're just criticizing and not being constructive.

You are not holding the complaint to the standard you described.
"This game is not likable" would be the equivalent non-constructive statement to "this character isn't likable".

The game is not likable because it is too videogamey.
The game would be better if it was not so videogamey.
How is "too videogamey" emotional? It is a qualitative assessment.

You described one standard and then applied a very different standard to the point at hand. Could there be better assessment? Hell yes. But lets not move the goals posts around.

 

[Barastrondo]

Now, a good creator of content may be able to take non-constructive feedback, and use it in constructive ways despite its nature. But that takes a lot of extra work.

And it requires even the non-constructive feedback to hit a certain level of quality. Now, purely subjective "it feels like a video game to me, and this is the most eloquent way I can think of to put it" can sort of be helpful. Sort of. Sometimes. But at least it's better than complaining about things that are factually untrue, and boy howdy, does that ever happen.

The main problem that I've encountered in years of trying to solicit more constructive criticism is that the Internet is also a place where people want to make statements, but not necessarily to discuss. They like short and punchy phrases that "say it all." Unfortunately, when a phrase doesn't say it all, and you ask for clarification, you don't always get it. Sometimes you do, and hey, it's constructive criticism; you had to go through an extra step to get to it, but there it is, and now you can actually talk about the topic. Sometimes you don't, though, and you get a person who's angry and defensive about how this short, punchy phrase is somehow not having the argument-ending fist-pump effect they were hoping for. Defending that turn of phrase becomes more important than talking about the issue it was coined to represent.

I've found that constructive criticism pretty much tends to come from people who are interested in discussion, but it's anyone's guess whether or not you can get it out of people who are interested in making a statement. Of course, this is really not exclusive to gaming.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What I do care about is talking about the game of D&D, and I think it pollutes the discussion if we allow people to spread untruths about it, whether they stem from grognard rage or blind fanboyism.

Could I be less confrontational about it? Sure. But I'm not going to stop telling people they are wrong when what they say is objectively wrong.

See, that first part I quoted is part of the problem. In the first, a lot of posters have pointed out that "4e plays like a glorified minis skirmish game" is not, in fact, an objective statement whose veracity can be tested. It is also not necessarily motivated purely by nerd rage of fanboi fury. Assuming either of those effectively shuts down any conversation that can result. You have the ability to turn that provocative statement into something significant and worthwhile by engaging with the substance behind the provocation. You don't have to shut down the conversation. You don't have to get snippy and rude (even if the other person did so first). If you care about talking about the game, you can talk about the game, even with such a post, by finding out what lead the person to that opinion, by assuming that their opinion is a valid one (and by noting that it is an opinion, and not a statement of objective fact).

If you're only entering a conversation to shut it down, why bother?

If you want to correct misleading viewpoints, you don't do that by shutting down the conversation. The OP gets angry, the responders get angry, the thread deteriorates, and nobody can say anything of worth anymore, because the shouting about who is TRUE and who is FALSE overwhelms it all.

1) To be constructive, feedback must be targeted to someone who might be able to use it to improve the material.

2) The focus of the feedback needs to be on the work, and what could be done to improve it, not on the emotions of the critic. This is a big one - if the primary point of the statement is to express your own displeasure, then you're probably missing the mark. A person giving constructive feedback ought to think of themselves as part of the team creating the material - if you're in the frame of mind that there's "Them" (the designers) and "Us" the gamers who hate the design, then you're also going to miss the mark.

"4e plays like a minis skirmish game" or "4e is too videogamey" or statements like that, generally aren't the best criticism, because they paint with broad, abstract, subjective, "feels-like" brushes.

Which is part of why engaging those criticisms, and working to find out the specific rules or the specific train of thought behind them, can make the criticism much better.

Then, the poster can say "4e plays like a minis skirmish game because 80% of the game's resources are focused on combat, and combat itself involves a grid and movement speeds and push/pull effects. These things emphasize using minis combat as the main unit of play, which, I think, puts too much effort on minis combat, making 4e much more of a minis skirmish game than an RPG, despite what it says on the tin."

Which is a more pointed, accurate, about-the-game-not-about-the-critic observation. That's a worthwhile conclusion, even if you disagree with it (and many still will). That's something that someone can look at and say, "Oh, well, Game X might be better for you, or if you want to change 4e, try House Rule Y, or how I avoid this feel in my games is Z."

Most people aren't just going to come out swinging with a cogent, analytical description of a problem they have with the game. Most people are going to start with their subjective feelings -- why they didn't have "fun."

 

[BryonD]

"4e plays like a minis skirmish game" or "4e is too videogamey" or statements like that, generally aren't the best criticism, because they paint with broad, abstract, subjective, "feels-like" brushes.

Which is part of why engaging those criticisms, and working to find out the specific rules or the specific train of thought behind them, can make the criticism much better.

Then, the poster can say "4e plays like a minis skirmish game because 80% of the game's resources are focused on combat, and combat itself involves a grid and movement speeds and push/pull effects. These things emphasize using minis combat as the main unit of play, which, I think, puts too much effort on minis combat, making 4e much more of a minis skirmish game than an RPG, despite what it says on the tin."

Which is a more pointed, accurate, about-the-game-not-about-the-critic observation. That's a worthwhile conclusion, even if you disagree with it (and many still will). That's something that someone can look at and say, "Oh, well, Game X might be better for you, or if you want to change 4e, try House Rule Y, or how I avoid this feel in my games is Z."

Most people aren't just going to come out swinging with a cogent, analytical description of a problem they have with the game. Most people are going to start with their subjective feelings -- why they didn't have "fun."

And, these detailed discussions have been engaged over and over to boot.

This thread isn't about whether or not 4E is videogamey. This thread is about the edition wars. To me it seems entirely reasonable to reference the term and not be required to repeat the full debate every reason one might think 4E is videogamey.

And the implication that videogamey is a stand alone brainless comment which has never been substantiated is less than honest.

But even with all that, if one guy out there has nothing better to say than "it is too videogamey", then that guy speaking serves WotC better than the other guy who wants him silenced.

 

[Garthanos]

There have certainly been cases of ranting against 4E. And when there are ten legitimate complaints leveled, instead of a response to those, we get this kind of post you have just offered. Don't offer anything constructive about the real responses, just hide behind the infrequent rants and stick your head in the sand to the real issue.

Some of the folk were rather specifically pointing out that they "only" interject when they saw something inaccurate... which by side effect means they don't get involved in a pure subjective issue (considering how many are talking about the edition wars being about feelings... well was that the lions share) and yes you are right it also means they also wouldn't get involved in something accurate and not subjective. It seems folk indeed find it hard not to get involved when somebody is "wrong on the internet" ... and that is when it feels like a war. Disinformation is a weapon don't you agree.

I react to things I don't think are necessarily wrong...yup even subjective... and like pointing out how looking at something differently you can get a lot out of it. But this is more likely to come up in non-edition war threads.(because they are more civil when the person is already using 4e and trying to come to grips with some element that is new to them)

I wasn't interesting in 4e during the time of its very initial offering (I wasnt even looking at it because like you I had found other games that seemed better than D&D) and actually wasn't sure about it until I did see that web offering with regards to character conversion - and had an opportunity to play around with character builder - and read the players handbook.
If the article with regards to conversion was available early on ... I think they should have made more effort to get it in front of people because for me it embodied an interesting style and a new feel to D&D demonstrating a feature inherent in table top games which specifically isn't in the electronic rpgs. In those games you have no control over the visualization... The players handbook mentions that the player should do it, its not just about creating new classes, bringing to life and visualizing the abilities of the "standard" ones.

Something like that has always been possible in D&D but 4e seems to embrace it more. In some ways for me 4e captures things that were in D&D all along and does so with less reservation and more focus than ever. For instance I think 4e accepts the abstract definition of hit points and using a single focused attribute in the performance of actions more.