Why I really like D&D.

[Harlock]

Good point. If you feel that 4E fans are the only ones shooting at you, maybe it's because you're only shooting at them?

Actually I'd say it's more because your favored edition is the one being spoken of most with the impending change looming. You guys, with what I would consider good reasoning, are defending your favored game as a new one is coming along. You hope by being vocal you can preserve aspects of the game you most admire. In that regard, you're drawing fire. And, the more vocal you are, the more critics will come out to naysay what you put forth as good qualities. In the grand scheme of edition changes, it's merely the desultory precursor to the real edition battling to come as it becomes more evident what 5e will or will not be.

In other words, it's not because 4e fans are more willing to counter arguments against their favored system, or that 4e necessarily is more universally hated by D&D fans (or grognards or whatever diminutive you wish to use) and is the only one being shot at, it's just that it's next to go by the wayside (unless WotC is to be believed and they really can somehow rein-franchise all edition stalwarts) and is just in a circular cycle of being defended, attacked and defended again.

Give it time. Grow some thick skin. Hang in there and frankly, even if I don't agree with you, fight for your edition. Just make sure it's in a meaningful way. ENWorld may be one of the bigger RPG sites, but an organized effort to let WotC know just how many fans 4e has and specifically, why 4e has its fans, would probably serve your cause better than drawing, taking, or returning fire in a forum that only represents a small fraction of the potential RPG customers out there. Mostly, I'd hate to see anyone banned or disciplined over this.

 

[TrippyHippy]

In short you created a strawman to mock but when your incorrect assertions are challenged you claim you aren't interested in debating. Right. If you say it's demonstrably worse, you should be able to demonstrate that. I've shown how I consider it demonstrably better.

Well, you haven't but what i was saying before is that this thread is not about discussing the merits or not of 4e on any technical level. I'll happily discuss them on another thread if you wish. I just don't want this thread to be side railed.

And given that that isn't the argument from anyone I don't know where it came from. As far as I know no one thinks that 4e fighters are nerfed. The argument is that in 3.X fighters always get the short end of the straw and don't get nice stuff. For you to suddenly try to apply it to the edition that this doesn't happen in merely shows that you are trying to lampoon without understanding the actual argument. It's not just a straw man - it's a straw man facing the wrong way and with his head upside down.

The wars may be hilarious. But that doesn't mean you should be contributing to them. And you demonstrably are.

Curiously, I think the only thing that is being demonstrated here is people taking criticisms of a game as being personal attacks. See my previous post, and read it again.

There are two things that in my experience cause 4e fans to respond angrily en masse.

1: Any claim that 4e is not an RPG.
2: Spreading false information with the intent of running down 4e. And it's the false information part that triggers the angry response.

And yes, the first, the accusation that 4e players are not actual roleplayers and don't deserve to be counted with roleplayers is extremely offensive.

Well, that's an issue of you personalizing a criticism of a game as being a slight against yourself again, isn't it? You need a thicker skin, because the bottom line is this is what people think about the game. The D&D game can change to adapt to it's fans, but not vice-versa, and it's impossible to defend it on this level (nor is it your problem actually - it's Wizards).

Where is this denial? Every edition has been divisive. There were 1e/2e edition wars - just ask Dragonsfoot. There were certainly 2e/3e edition wars with the term 3tard flying around. And I've quoted the RPGPundit who is far more hostile than anything I've ever seen in the 3e/4e edition wars..

Who is denying changing editions is divisive? Give me links. It has been divisive every time it has happened.

XKCD says it better than I can.

And this is what I see from D&D Next. An attempt to create a new standard to unite the existing standards. It's doomed to failure on that count. This is not a goal that can produce a good or a successful game in my view.

Says the person who has deliberately been running down 4e, lampooning it, and criticising it for things that are not in fact true. And then, when challenged, refusing to back up your assertions. And 4e fans getting told 4e is not an RPG is routine.

Well, there's the denial right there. Other edition 'wars' have never reached anything to the degree that we have seen in the last few years since 4e came out - and the sales provide tangible evidence of a real split beyond the internet fora.

You are seeing aggression from 4e fans because we return fire. If you want less aggression from us, stop shooting.

I am not worried about aggression - I am laughing at it.

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually I'd say it's more because your favored edition is the one being spoken of most with the impending change looming. You guys, with what I would consider good reasoning, are defending your favored game as a new one is coming along.

My favoured edition is 3.5. That's one problem with ascribing motivation: sometimes you'll just be wrong.

There are some things from 4E I'd like to see in 5E, just as there are things from 3E, 2E, 1E, BECMI, all the editions. You don't have to be an edition fanatic to call BS when there's BS.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, that's an issue of you personalizing a criticism of a game as being a slight against yourself again, isn't it?

No it ain't. You are not a roleplayer and you don't know what roleplaying is is personal, and it's the only possible interpretation of "4E is not an RPG" when said to someone who plays it and considers it an RPG.

If 4E is not an RPG, then people who play it are not part of the roleplaying community, because they're not playing an RPG. "You are not one of us" is the result, and "you don't know what an RPG is". People have to consider the implications of what they're saying. Even if they phrase it carefully to attack the game instead of the players, some of the attacks can only be interpreted that way.

 

[Harlock]

My favoured edition is 3.5. That's one problem with ascribing motivation: sometimes you'll just be wrong.

There are some things from 4E I'd like to see in 5E, just as there are things from 3E, 2E, 1E, BECMI, all the editions. You don't have to be an edition fanatic to call BS when there's BS.

I believe you understood the gist of my post. Insert the word processes after edition and it still amounts to the same thing. Man, some people will argue about anything, even when you try and throw them a bone.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The responses to this assertion have been detailed and extensive. That you continue to pretend that no one has provided any argument against it, and continue to state it as an incontrovertible fact that applies only to 4E is baffling.

No they haven't. They've just scrambled around trying to find ways of attributing a cause to something that is self evident: that the release of 4e was divisive (significantly more than any previous edition) amongst the D&D community.

This is a key point, because unless people can accept it they are going to find it hard to accept the fundamental goals of the 5e.

Perhaps it's a function of the boards you frequent, then. There is a fairly high ratio of 4E players here, so they're more visible. Go to theRPGsite and mention the slightest favour towards 4E, though, and you'll be dogpiled and called an idiot. And it's not the only place. Many self-styled old-schoolers take pains to defend their preferred editions with vitriol, they're just not here.

I don't normally post on D&D sites other than this one in the last few months. I have already expressed the point that other sites will have their own prejudices. If I was on a site where 3.5 or Pathfinder fans were being overbearing, I would have no hesitation in lampooning them also. I could readily criticize all those editions - it's just on this site it isn't 3.5 or Pathfinder fans that are making all the noise.

This must be why so many people disagree and have provided reasoned arguments against it.

Arguments of the heart, not of the head.

My favoured edition is 3.5. That's one problem with ascribing motivation: sometimes you'll just be wrong.

There are some things from 4E I'd like to see in 5E, just as there are things from 3E, 2E, 1E, BECMI, all the editions. You don't have to be an edition fanatic to call BS when there's BS.

No. Your motivation is more on the lines of trying to play the mediator in the middle of a dispute, by trying to adopt the prevailant perspective and argue for it, in order to have a greater vocal influence on that group.

I'm telling you, looking at the way this forum is heading, is that this approach isn't working. People need to get a thicker skin and look towards a bigger, more unified picture.

 

[TrippyHippy]

No it ain't. You are not a roleplayer and you don't know what roleplaying is is personal, and it's the only possible interpretation of "4E is not an RPG" when said to someone who plays it and considers it an RPG.

If 4E is not an RPG, then people who play it are not part of the roleplaying community, because they're not playing an RPG. "You are not one of us" is the result, and "you don't know what an RPG is". People have to consider the implications of what they're saying. Even if they phrase it carefully to attack the game instead of the players, some of the attacks can only be interpreted that way.

That's just putting words into my mouth, in any case.

The most prevailant criticism of 4e that I hear is that it 'isn't D&D'. Technically, it's not true as the label says otherwise, but it does reflect the view of people who have played the game and genuinely feel that way. People who find the game dominated by tactical maneuvers and miniatures are also just expressing their feelings when they say 'that's not a RPG'. In these contexts these views are not personal insults - they are expressions about a game. If you choose to respond to them as such, then things just escalate from there.

 

[Fifth Element]

I believe you understood the gist of my post.

I believe the gist of your post is that people are arguing against criticisms of 4E only because they're ardent 4E fans. That's incorrect.

No they haven't. They've just scrambled around trying to find ways of attributing a cause to something that is self evident: that the release of 4e was divisive (significantly more than any previous edition) amongst the D&D community.

You went and missed it again. The dispute is not that 4E was divisive, but that every other new edition was as well. Meaning, it's not a 4E issue, it's a new edition issue.

Arguments of the heart, not of the head.

Similar to "4E is not an RPG" then?

No. Your motivation is more on the lines of trying to play the mediator in the middle of a dispute, by trying to adopt the prevailant perspective and argue for it, in order to have a greater vocal influence on that group.

Ascribing motivations is not cool on the boards. And just like the other guy, you're wrong about mine.

That's just putting words into my mouth, in any case.

I'm remembering you making the "4E is not an RPG" claim in another thread. If I'm misremembering, my apologies.

 

[Harlock]

I believe the gist of your post is that people are arguing against criticisms of 4E only because they're ardent 4E fans. That's incorrect.

No, the gist of my post was that I am behind those fighting to keep what parts of 4e they like alive in 5e. I even suggested organizing and then encouraged those who want to try and ensure what they like about 4e doesn't go by the wayside to stay strong and not let this whole thing get them down. Golly, but you sure had a really myopic view of what I said or just stopped reading when you thought you had a gotcha moment.

 

[TwinBahamut]

No they haven't. They've just scrambled around trying to find ways of attributing a cause to something that is self evident: that the release of 4e was divisive (significantly more than any previous edition) amongst the D&D community.

This is a key point, because unless people can accept it they are going to find it hard to accept the fundamental goals of the 5e.

If you ever find yourself believing that something is "self-evident", then you are either utterly inept at logic, ignorant, or a delusional loon. Every time you say that all you're getting from anyone who reads your post is a groan or a laugh at your foolishness. You're just making yourself look like an idiot with that line. If you have any self-respect at all, please stop with this. It's embarrassing to watch.

I don't normally post on D&D sites other than this one in the last few months. I have already expressed the point that other sites will have their own prejudices. If I was on a site where 3.5 or Pathfinder fans were being overbearing, I would have no hesitation in lampooning them also. I could readily criticize all those editions - it's just on this site it isn't 3.5 or Pathfinder fans that are making all the noise.

ENWorld isn't exactly famous for being a safe haven for 4E fans, you know.

If you want to see a different perspective, wander over to the Something Awful Traditional Games forum and read their 5E threads (or take a look at grognards.txt or something while you're there). That's what a forum dominated by 4E fans looks a bit more like (and it has a pretty different forum culture, too, one that I rather appreciate).

Arguments of the heart, not of the head.

Again, with all of your talk about your claims being "self-evident" and your complete inability to respond to valid arguments made against your claims, you're not really in a position to dictate to others what an "argument of the head" is. To be honest, I'm not sure you know what one looks like.

I'm telling you, looking at the way this forum is heading, is that this approach isn't working. People need to get a thicker skin and look towards a bigger, more unified picture.

What people here need to do is to stop edition warring in every thread and start being polite and respectful of others (yes, I'm aware of the irony of saying that in this post). People shouldn't need thicker skins just to say anything at all positive about 4E here. If someone is making aggressive claims about 4E's "failures" in almost any thread here on the 5E forum, the they're probably off topic, edition warring, and being rude. It's their fault, not the fault of 4E fans. More logic and fewer silly arguments about "it's just my opinion!" or "that's how it feels to me" would be nice, too.

In other words, I'm still pretty bitter than the "convincing 4th edition players" thread was horribly sidetracked by edition warring without ever really getting much talk about what 5E could actually do to appeal to 4E fans. If even the idea of 5E taking steps to appeal to 4E fans is controversial, despised, and stonewalled by a large part of this forum's community, then this community is seriously unhealthy.

It's a wonder I even keep coming back to this forum, to be honest... Maybe I should just leave it for a while, since it has hardly been welcoming or interesting as of late.