The current edition, D&D Next, is not out yet and apparently unfinished. This means that people still wish to discuss the game in all ways including what they hope is in the game and what they hope is not in the game. Of course, when the discussion of what what you don't want in the game, previous editions are brought up which is natural. What I don't like seeing, as of late, is the ease of which the "edition war" card get's thrown into the mix in order to stop talking negative about an aspect of a previous edition that they don't want in D&D Next. I think as a community, we need to combat this and have it done away with. Taking things personal for the sake of being able to claim it's edition warring is really growing tiresome.
Why would you not discuss previous editions when a new edition is around the corner? If I say I don't like X from Y edition and I don't want to see it in the new edition then I should be able to too without being labled an edition warmonger.
Sure, but it is a fine line.
For example, saying, "I don't like mechanic X from edition Y because..." is fine.
But saying, "Edition Y isn't D&D" or "Edition Y doesn't involve actual roleplaying" is not.
In addition, it is generally better to talk about things you DO like rather than focus on what you DON'T like. D&D is meant to be inclusive, not exclusive. I might not like a certain race, for example, but why should I care if that race is included? As long as I have options I do like, what is the problem?
But when people just complain about the things they don't like, and say things like, "I don't want to see it in the new edition", then yes, people get defensive. Because what about ME? I happen to like X!
You're welcome to all your opinions. Discussing edition warring itself is a violation of the code of conduct, though. Just keep expressing your opinions, within the code and you'll be fine.
I think there IS still time to influence the design.
The defensiveness is the big issue.
I see (read: get into)?the most edition flame wars when someone says they "don't like X" and hope that's not in D&D5. And then someone responds reacting like the person said they didn't like the edition, defending X because it is part of the edition. So they respond and the previous poster does a rebuttal. And things escalate.
No edition is perfect. Every edition has flaws and elements that could be done better. And just because someone doesn't like part of an edition doesn't mean they hate the entire edition. Or even if they loathe the edition, it doesn't impact how you feel.
If people would just ignore comments and not respond we'd see fewer edition wars.
This isn't to say complaints don't often start flame wars or derail threads. There's lots of needless potshots. But those people are jerks and rare. It's much more common to see two otherwise reasonable people attacking each other, because one reasonable person felt the need to defend something they love and went on the offensive, pushing another reasonable person into the defensive.
SirAntoine wrote:
I like the fantasy vietnam myth that gets thrown around a lot. I am playing OSR games, 1 hit point per day recovery, death at -10 and save or dies. Death toll so far 0.
The_Jester wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
I think the best way to not get called an edition warrior is to use clear language when making your claim, use descriptive rather than evaluative language, point to the evidence to back up your claim, and use solid reasoning to show how that evidence relates to the claim you're making.
Example of what not to say; "4e was terrible because every class was all the same." This is a poor statement to make because "terrible" an adjective evaluating the quality of the product, rather than an adjective describing how one feels about a given feature, and the actual claim itself is unclear. In what way was every class all the same? It's not really all that specific. Further, this is just a random claim thrown out there with no support. It has as much value as someone waying, "There are hundred-headed fire-breathing unicorns all infected with AIDS flying around space 100 galaxies away." That's an interesting claim sure, but it has no support for it. And of course, you can't use reasoning to connect presented evidence to a claim when there's no evidence presented.
Example of what to say; "I don't enjoy abstraction, like how 3e used base attack bonus to as an abstract construction to handle combat. In the 3e phb, under the attack of opportunity section, the text describes how even when characters aren't making actual attacks, they're threatening each other, looking for openings, jockeying for position, and the like, and that the attacks from bab aren't the only things that occur in the fight. Since there isn't anything modelling those other elements of the fight, they're just assumed, they're not detailed, which is the definition of abstraction."
Does that take more work to write out? Yes. But I was describing how I felt about a feature of the system, vs. making a negative value judgment, -and you can even do that so long as you can make a reasonable, emotionally relaxed case- I presented my evidence, and showed why that evidence meant that there was an abstraction, using reasoning.
Ultimately, just be clear, respectful, and forthright with what you're saying. Don't say anything that might be seen as speaking in code. That really pisses people off. It pisses me off too.
I wish it were easier to have discussions about an edition's merits and flaws without stuff degenrating into edition warring.
In an ideal world, where people's egos and emotions were not involved, and everyone was rational....logical discussion of such topics would be possible.
I don't know. Sometimes, I'm a little confused by what counts as edition warring. I came back to the forums around the launch of 4E and then again during Essentials. In both those periods I remember the charge of editon warring attached to alot of posts that were trying to articulate problems people had with 4E. Most all of these problems have been agreed upon by the Next designers as flaws either with 4E or its presentation. I'm sympathetic to the viewpoints that were validated but it does seem strange.
Why wasn't it possible to talk about 4E's failings when it was out?
Are we going to have a similar situation with Next, where people will be shouted down if they point out what they don't like?
If the forums are going to be as toxic as all that, I don't think I really want to be around.
Maybe things are different. I've only been back a short while so I haven't really got a sense of what the natural state of things is around here.
It is going to change alot when people start popping in curious about Next.
HobbitFan wrote:
Good post MechaPilot! Illustrative example.
It's real easy once offense has been taken or given for stuff to snowball real quick into angry back-and-forth.
I try to frame things like your first example. Sometimes when just responding to a post it's unfortunately easy to lapse into behavior more like your second example. I know I've done it when I got mad, presenting my opinion more as fact rather than subjective opinion because I was in a "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset.
I'm sure I'm not the only one on the forums that has made that mistake of responding quickly rather than talking the time for more deliberation.
I try to be cognizant of such things when I can.
HobbitFan wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Gatt wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Modularity is, and always has been, a myth. It is not achievable without sacrificing the ability to have Organized Play, accessories, and adventures.
MechaPilot wrote:
Dragonspirited wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
blacksheepcannibal wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Challenge rating sounds like its going to actually work this time around so Im cool with it.
Dragonspirited wrote:
Thisishowitends wrote:
CCS wrote:
CCS wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Echoes of Scooby Doo?
CCS wrote:
My advice on the very best way to prevent edition warring sidetracking, of every flavor.
1) When reading the forum, set your browser to a window, rather than maximizing it..
2) Drag it to the left so that the column that shows you the poster name is off your screen.
3) Read the posts with an eye on the arguments they contain alone.
4) Respond to the content of the post, not your assumption of the posters agenda.
If everyone tried this at least once? Who knows. To gamerize an old expression, better to light a sunrod than to magic missile the darkness.
Well said Thisishowitends!
I get that a lot of people didn't like 4E for a number of reasons and a lot of them I can sympathize with. Truly, I get that a lot of people didn't like AEDU, Healing Surges, focus on balance, the multiclass system, non-magical healing, emphasis on combat, grid-dominant (though I still say it wasn't required). And I understand why people want to vent these frustrations here on the forums. But there's a way to fame such dislike without resorting to flaming, name-calling, and using derogatory comments to get one's opinion across. Saying "Didn't like 4E, partially because I felt the AEDU system made each class too similiar as they all relied on the same action agency and resource management. In prior editions, the differences there were in this regard helped fuel a structural and iconic difference between each class which I felt was good." instead of saying "Yea, in 4E all the classes were the same." One illustrates why and how a person feels a certain way based on perhaps experience that can't really be disputed (because saying someone feels wrong is just bad). The latter, however, is baseless and is far too vague and puts fans of such as system to instantly attack such an opinion with facts.
For another perspective, I can go on the reasons why I heavily dislike AD&D 2e and list them in a way that shows reason and experience for such opinions. Or I could just make flamming comments that's sole purpose is to ignite angst and hate for people who enjoyed it. Luckily I've seen enough of the E-War to know that if I don't particularly enjoy a rule or mechanic or philosophy, I can hopefully frame it in a way that conveys my dislike in a non-judgemental and flame-free style. I think that's all we (as in forum user) is really asking for. Instead of bringing up a thing and hating on it (such as Damage on a Miss), clearly illustrate why that is in a non-inflammable way and hopefully people will respond in kind.
I have major problems with ALL editions of D&D 
Everyone I know is done with 4e sadly
YagamiFire wrote:
[quote="blacksheepcannibal"]
Gatt wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Thisishowitends wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Diffan wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Tieflings are the best race.
4e Tieflings look more tieflingy than older Tieflings.
Ergo, 4e is better than everything that came before.
Ergo, newer is better.
Ergo, DnD Next is best DnD.
QED, edition war over.
Seraphex wrote:
Thisishowitends wrote:
Preserve tradition.
Thisishowitends wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Seraphex wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Personally, I'm a fan of the description of tieflings that has them as not outwardly appearing any different, but everyone around them can feel this palpable sense of wrong whenever they're in the tiefling's presence. Never was a fan of the big horns.
Hey folks,
Some relevant bits:
Okay: #E really captures what I think D&D is all about.
Not Okay: #E is the real D&D, and everything else is just some other game.
Okay: #E just doesn't really do it for me. I didn't like a lot of what they did.
Not Okay: #E sucks.
Okay: I don't like #E because it took away a lot of the complexity I liked from #E.
Not Okay: #E is a dumbed down version of D&D.
Okay: I personally like #E the best, though of course everyone should play what they like.
Not Okay: I don't get people who play #E, I mean seriously, how can you play a game that bad?
Okay: I know people feel that [insert designer/creator] did a lot for the game and #E, but I just don't like most of what he's added.
Not Okay: [Insert designer/creator] is a total hack and everything he did ruined #E and the game.
These examples seem pretty clear to me, and don't seem to involve too much PC, just being polite and thoughtful of the other person's point of view.
By the way this is another thread that actually belongs in Community Business, and I'll be moving it there tomorrow. Any further threads that discuss the forums or conduct or similar topics and are not discussing D&D Next itself will be moved without warning.
Please follow the Code of Conduct which includes being polite and respectful towards others and not callingn others out.
Thanks,
Monica
Very clear. I don't think the code needs to be rewritten.
Hi folks,
As promised I am now moving this to Community Business. As always, please adhere to the Code of Conduct and remain polite, respectful and understanding of other people's points of view.
Thanks!
Monica
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote: