Open Letter to Lisa Stevens - Understanding the 4e vs 3e Divide

[GVDammerung]

Lisa Stevens wrote:

I really don't understand why one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa.

Incorporated into her response to a poster who decried the allegedly overly negative tone of the Paizo message boards with respect to 4e, in the wonderfully entitled thread “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?” Lisa Stevens made the above comment. This comment has gone uncommented upon in the aforementioned thread and, I believe, deserves one of its own. Why?

1) Well, here we have the CEO of Paizo professing some mystification over the split in the D&D gaming community between those who support for 3x as opposed to those who support 4e. The CEO of Paizo. At the same time Paizo has very publically not decided between 3x and 4e. And has on multiple occasions asked its customers what they are going to do and how their opinions of 4e are evolving.

2) The comment might be neither here nor there, perhaps, but for the immediate impact of the posting. Despite the heavily freighted inference inherent in “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?” Ms. Stevens sympathized and agreed with the poster. Thereafter, she is the CEO after all, Paizo’s 4e forums were made subject to “moderation” where one could not reference other gaming companies or other parts of the larger online gaming community, at least not in anything but an affirming manner. Discussion of 4e on Paizo’s message boards was henceforth to be conducted in something resembling a vacuum, as if a larger world did not exist and did not matter in the discussion. To say that such a vacuum bears any resemblance to the reality of the gaming community and how it interacts across internet forums is, with understatement, curious. If one questions this assertion, one need only observe Paizo employees speaking as Paizo employees on other message boards and the employees of other gaming companies, speaking as employees of those companies, speaking on Paizo’s message boards.

Given the above, Ms. Steven’s self expressed lack of “understanding” deserves, even needs, to be addressed. So, let’s begin.

1st – D&D requires a commitment that is greater than that in games like Monopoly. D&D requires more time to prepare and play and encourages players, to include the DM, to roleplay, to take on a role. In both these ways, D&D is an immersive experience, unlike other non-roleplaying games.

2nd – D&D calls upon both player and DM creativity much more than other sorts of games like Monopoly. DMs create their own worlds and adventures, making the game uniquely theirs in its play. Even if a DM uses published campaigns or adventures, a very large number of DMs modify the published material, again, making it uniquely theirs. Players, in either situation, create their characters personalities and vicariously experience the game through these characters, making the game uniquely theirs. Making the game uniquely theirs gives rise to a sense of “ownership” or at least “investment” in the game, distinct for other games.

3rd – The social interaction, the give and take, of playing D&D is highly immersive, again distinct from other sorts of games. The consequence is a level of bonding with other players and with the game that one does not find with games like Monopoly.

In consequence, the D&D player or DM is predisposed, even conditioned, to look at D&D in highly individual or personal terms. The game in this sense “matters” more than non-roleplaying games. If the play of D&D has occurred during a person’s formative years or just over a long period of time, the above factors are further strengthened.

Having established in broad outline something of the mind frame of the D&D player generally, we can next turn to the 3e version of the game.

1st – After a period of waning popularity, 3e marked a resurgence in the game. D&D became more popular than at any time since its heyday in the 80s. Players had the sense of being a part of a rebirth or renaissance of the game, something played up by the manufacturer. 3e was synonymous with this sense of purposeful community.

2nd – The 3x rules set encouraged, even demanded, that players delve into the minutia of the system. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the emergence of various and complex “builds” for optimized characters. What is more, the 3e rules were sufficiently complex and involved that “builds” were rewarded with more effective characters. At the same time, “builds” were only the most obvious manifestation of the 3e rules set’s spur to creativity, One could get very, very creative with feats, skills, PrCs etc. That creativity was further multiplied many fold as, for the first time in D&D’s history 3rd party publishers could add their visions to the official ones.

Between the widespread popularity of 3e and the creativity on several levels that it unleashed, and given gamers predisposition to identify with the play of the game, 3e enjoyed a strong positive bias, even loyalty.

Now we need to discuss the broad mechanics of game publishing.

1st – D&D editions that are currently published are supported by new products. D&D editions that are not currently published generally do not see new products released. New products are important to many who do not have the time to create full campaign settings and adventures from scratch. Take an edition out of current production and many players will be practicably unable to play, save for out of date material they may have accumulated.

2nd – D&D editions that are currently published are supported by the RPGA. D&D editions that are not currently published are not generally supported by the RPGA. For many, the RPGA is a chief or valued source of D&D games. Take an edition out of current production and RPGA play is foreclosed to many.

3rd – Most critically, the majority or plurality of gamers inevitably play whichever edition of D&D is currently being published. Players of older, non-current, editions have increasing difficulty finding players. As importantly, the community and sense of community is diminished with respect to any non-current edition of D&D. Those preferring other than the current edition find fewer outlets with fewer participants to discuss the game in the edition they prefer. The whole game experience is then diminished. One is made to feel less relevant. Indeed, one may see this dynamic with only the announcement of a new edition.

In short, gamers of any edition but that being currently published are disadvantaged to one degree or another.

Here we need to touch very briefly on 4e.

1st – 4e is not backwards compatible with 3e. It is mechanically sufficiently different that no conversion guide is offered or deemed officially possible. This is at variance with 3e as regards 2e and 2e as regards 1e. Any investment in 3e materials will be of limited utility with 4e.

2nd – The play of 4e, not surprisingly given its mechanics, will be different from 3e. If one enjoyed how 3e played, one will get a different experience with 4e. The 3e play experience will not be replicated.

3rd – Just as the mechanics and play of 4e will be different from 3e, the background or frame for 4e will be greatly different from that of 3e. In some real sense, 4e speaks a different language reflecting different assumptions or givens with respect to the story elements of the game.

Very simply, 4e is not 3e. 4e is not even close to 3e. 4e make no attempt to accommodate anything much of 3e and instead advises a clean break with 3e in favor of 4e.

Finally, we arrive at Paizo’s role in why 4e and 3e players are so strongly antagonistic in many cases.

1st – D&D’s publisher is the industry leader and many other companies follow its lead. To date, a number of well regarded 3e 3rd party publishers have, sight unseen, announced that they are dropping support for 3e, still possible under the OGL, in favor of 4e. Other companies have made no announcement. Paizo is virtually alone in very publically announcing that they are not simply undecided but may stick with 3e.

2nd – Paizo’s reputation as a publisher is first rate. Many like or admire Paizo without regard to any particular set of rules. Others, favoring one set of rules or another, would look forward eagerly to Paizo’s support for their preferred rules and would be very disappointed were Paizo to no longer support their preferred rules. That 4e and 3e rules are so incompatible in terms of rules, brings this factor to a fine point.

3rd – Paizo has frequently, prominently and repeatedly engaged and involved its customers in the company’s deliberations as to whether to support 3e or 4e. It has done so on its message boards, the very same message boards it now “moderates” because there is antagonism between 3e and 4e supporters.

So to come full circle, why Ms. Stevens is “one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa?” Because a) D&D is an immersive, personalized experience, b) 3e was a strongly, even uniquely, popular game, c) non-current edition games are disadvantaged to one degree or another, d) 4e is a strong break from 3e and e) Paizo’s support is highly valued and has been opened to player input.

The positioning of 4e as nonconvertible from 3e has placed 3e and 4e fans at odds. Paizo holding itself out as unpersuaded but persuadable has given these fans a flashpoint for their disagreements. These disagreements are both sharp and heated for the reasons set forth at length above. It would be my hope, Ms Stevens, that you now understand why “one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa.”

Given what I hope is your new found understanding, I would like to suggest to you that you revisit your quick agreement with the original poster of “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?”

The very title suggests its answer in the negative. The question is then rhetorical and immediately biased as it calls into question posts unfavorable to 4e. That the result is moderation only nominally begs the question of who is being moderated. It is clearly those who do not support 4e. Of course, the post is well framed in terms of civility and politeness but this is transparent as it is clear whose “representation” of Paizo by their participation on these message boards is being called into question. It is that poster(s) not persuaded that 4e is a good thing. The issue is then not whether politeness and civility will prevail but whether politeness and civility will serve to “moderate” those disinclined to like 4e. While “moderation” certainly applies to those inclined to support 4e as well such moderation is a chimera for there is nothing there to moderate because those favoring 4e are nothing but praiseful. They can be easily civil and polite because they are for the emerging status quo. You, Ms. Stevens, I suggest have been gulled in the name of politeness and civility by a well phrased request to muzzle those questioning 4e.

I must remind you that Paizo has been more than a mere bystander in how the tenor of the Paizo message boards have developed. Paizo has encouraged those questioning 4e to find expression here and, should Paizo decide after seeing the GSL to stick with 3e, Paizo will have profited by this policy. Indeed, Paizo has attracted those not inclined to immediately support 4e to Paizo’s site and thereby profited already. Paizo’s hands are not clean and to use another cliché, the genie cannot now be placed back in the bottle, at least not without some breakage.

The level of alleged “negativity” warranting moderation is largely a phantasm. George Carlin and his seven words have not been invoked. No ones parentage has been called into question. The rare hyperbolic flourish that “insults” in any real sense is just that - rare. In short the moderation, particularly the ban on mentioning specific companies in other than a positive light and other message boards is overblown and pretextual. The “I know it when I see it” ban on the “insult by insinuation” is so vague and standardless that it is nothing but a muzzle. And from the above only one side is in practicality and reality being muzzled.

Its your house. Its your rules. I’ll ask the same question you so quickly leaped to answer before – is this how Paizo wants to be represented?

I’d prefer a level playing field. I prefer no ticky tack fouls and that the players be allowed to play, particularly as this game is largely at Paizo’s specific invitation. If you prefer, however, a “moderated” forum that advantages one group, and summon up what logic you will but the fact remains that those in opposition to anything are always more subject to being “moderated,” I can live with that. Paizo may, however, find me as dubious about matters as the poster who first inquired “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?” I can withhold my patronage as easily as the previous guy, particularly if or when Paizo goes 4e.

And should that last be of concern to you? Well, I’m liking the Golarion line of products so far, particularly the Lovecraft touches. HPL just might be enough to get me to ignore an edition change should Paizo make one. Then again . . .

If you want the 3e hold outs to stick with Paizo in the event of any change to 4e, I suggest that making the 3e holdouts feel as if they have had a full and fair opportunity to be heard would be a good strategy. Until recently, I thought that was not an unfamiliar idea to you.

In all moderation, civilly and politely yours,

Glenn Vincent Dammerung

[Charles Evans 25]

GVD:
Whilst I am waiting, on most counts to see how (and if) Lisa responds to you, I would like to point out that as far as I know, the moderation (at least in the sense of warnings being issued) has not been 100% in one direction. For example:

Gary Teter wrote:

PsychoticWarrior wrote:

You were banned from both Wotc and ENWorld.

I don't think we care what happens on other messageboards, and I'm not sure I see the relevance of bringing it up here. "Keepin' it real" is a thin disguise for a veiled insult, if that was what you were intending.

In that quote which I have copied from the 'Is this Board really how Paizo wants to be represented?' thread, the PostMonster is cautioning (or so it seems to me) Psychotic Warrior over something Psychotic Warrior was directing at Razz.

As far as I understand from his posts on these boards, Razz is distinctly unenthusiastic on the subject of 4th Edition.

[AZRogue]

I don't want to get in the way of any official Paizo response, but I want to add that I think the moderation has been targeted against posts that are insulting, NOT posts that are merely negative.

Yes, they did do a massive clean up that went beyond that on their first day, but they said that this was for clean up purposes and that the boards were not going to be moderated at that level any longer. As a matter of fact, I think the Postmaster has said that no further posts have been suppressed since D-Day.

If the moderation was intended to stifle any negative comments, I would be inclined to agree with the OP. Since they are not, but instead intended only to prevent insults (and the hyperbole was known to get pretty thick), I do not share the OP's concerns. I think they have been very clear what they will moderate and why. Since the beginning of their moderation of this sub-forum there have been many threads with people discussing the negatives they see in the new edition. None have been suppressed.

I do not see any reason why hyperbole taken to such an extreme as to be insulting is necessary to a free and open discussion. And this goes to both sides of the argument as there have been several moments where a pro-4E poster has clarified a new rule while skirting very close to being insulting, when a simple statement or clarification would have been enough.

[Saracenus]

GVD,

I am sorry you feel constrained by the mod policies in place. But if you can't make your point without personal attacks, bad mouthing a company or non-paizo messageboards (which is the restriction here in the 4e section) then I don't see what "good" your contribution to the conversation is whether you are pro or anti 4e (pro 3e or anti 3e if you prefer it that way).

The idea that its OK to use all and any means to get your point across at the expense of anyone else is something alien to me. I do not encourage it on the mailing lists that I maintain. I say attack the ideas, not the person once or twice and then I step in if people cannot keep it civil.

What I saw was an increasingly strident few (on both sides) hammering away at each other drowning out any voice that was not willing to yell just as loud and as long. The tyranny of the few cut's both ways.

The fact is, you can still voice an opinion about 4e you just have to be more thoughtful about how you do it now. If that cramps your style, my heart really doesn't break for you.

Lisa, I for one strongly support the return to civility here. It favors those who have ideas instead of slogans and insults. I have seen some great posts by people in the last few days that would have never come to light before the crackdown. I for one say keep it up.

In Service,

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
4e Fence Sitter

[Vegepygmy]

I think GVD's post was 100% spot-on, and I thank him for saying it better than I possibly could have.

The "moderation" of the Paizo boards has struck me as a betrayal (others may disagree, but their disagreement won't change the fact that I feel that way), and let me just echo GVD in one very pertinent particular:

GVDammerung wrote:

I can withhold my patronage as easily as the previous guy, particularly if or when Paizo goes 4e.

Some guy comes on these boards and whines about how the free and open discussion here offends his sensibilities, and he's not going to buy anything from Paizo because of it, and Paizo kowtows to him?!?!

Well, I guess you're CENSORED if you do and CENSORED if you don't, Paizo, because as much as I love your company and its products, your decision to "moderate" your boards has made me feel very strongly that you aren't actually worthy of my patronage, after all.

I'm taking my dollars and going home.

[Kirk Reed]

My group has been gaming together since 1983. We all really liked the 2.0 rules but a year ago we agreed to switch to 3e. It is an axiom of game theory that when you change the rules/scoring, the strategy of a game changes. Its going to be a lot different (again) and I wasn't particularly thrilled with the computer game flavor the 3e rules layed down. Also, I like the clearer distinction of classes which helps a group be cohesive while maintaining a mix of skills. But, sigh, who am I to stand in the path of "progress" and profitability. However, I just checked to see how much I spent on D&D gaming over the last year and it comes out to about $7000. Now much of that is on things not affected by the rules, but if there is no conversion between 4e and 3e then the retailor's phone not ringing will be me not calling. I have more material already than could be used in a lifetime (or two) going all the way back to the Judges Guild. So I will let my patronage do the talking; no whining, no invective, just gone.

Also, one should note that there are a lot of other systems out there to play, like Champions, Chill, Cthulu, Paranoia, and White Wolf products that while old are still a lot of fun. The are also LARPs and the SCA. In any case I don't plan to buy another DMG, PHB and MM set with retreaded material....I already own three of each already.

You can make the case that dinosaurs need to leave anyway, and I'm ok with that....

Cheers,

Kirk Reed

[Tobus Neth]

Kirk Reed wrote:

So I will let my patronage do the talking; no whining, no invective, just gone.

The Wotc Nightmare

[Vegepygmy]

Hehe. Just delete this, please.

[GVD2]

First, pardon my need to go to a backup account. Seems this thread is locked to my primary account, symbolized by a black dot. Not sure what's the deal, but where there is a will there is a way, as they say. :-D

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

. . . I would like to point out that as far as I know, the moderation (at least in the sense of warnings being issued) has not been 100% in one direction. . . .

AZRogue wrote:

. . . I think the moderation has been targeted against posts that are insulting, NOT posts that are merely negative.

Charles and AZR,

I can't dispute with you as I have not been keeping close score. I can say that I have seen complaints in this regard. This brings up a point I consider important - perception. There is a perception, however, much supported or unsupported by any accounting of something resembling bias or unfairness, in practice if not necessarily intent. Such is just as chilling as any, in fact, bias or unfairness in application. I certainly perceive as issue.

The perception grows, I believe, from the manner in which the entire matter has been handled, particularly the leap to action from the "Is this board representative of how Paizo wants to be seen?" post. That post was freighted with negative meaning and its "logic" was unquestioningly adopted with moderation following immediately. If there was a problem that counseled moderation, given the supposed wonderfullness of the Paizo message boards and generally their participants, a word here or there would have, IMV, sufficed. I certainly saw nothing to require wholesale and immediate action in response to one rhetorically phrased post. YMMV.

Saracenus wrote:

. . . The idea that its OK to use all and any means to get your point across at the expense of anyone else is something alien to me. . . .

No one is suggesting this. As I noted George Carlin has not been invoked. No ones parentage has been brought into question. Etc. Were such the case, then it would be a different matter. What "insults" were present were of the off handed sort and then rare. With moderation in effect we now have "I'm looking for reasons to be insulted" "insults." Last one to cry "victim" is a rotten egg! Oh wait, can that somehow be seen as insulting? See my point? With a sufficiently strongly worded point in response to another it is easy enough to "find" an insult.

Case in point, I was warned that the phrase "It takes little imagination to think that . . ." or words to that effect were potentially inflammatory. I was shortening and paraphrasing, "by no stretch of the imagination" a common colloquialism or cliche. The phrase was used devoid of any reference to anyone or even the anyone behind a veil but was used to set up my thoughts that followed. In essence, I was referring to myself as I warmed to and expounded upon my topic! Yet, I was warned because "imagination" and the lack thereof is a frequent "drive-by" insult. The moderation was inexact, inappropriate and chilling to myself any anyone else inclined to write with a modicum of variety in how they present their thoughts.

I don't find your criticism apposite. Dealing with vulgarians and those who directly insult is one thing. Trying to divine intent in "passing" insults that the "insulted" may self-define or which the overly cautious moderator may define is a slippery slope and another matter entirely, and the one to which I address myself. Vigorous debate demands that such debate not devolve into insults but also demands a certain latitude of expression before one is branded "insulting" or warned that their language is too potentially inflammatory. YMMV.

[WormysQueue]

Vegepygmy wrote:

and he's not going to buy anything from Paizo because of it, and Paizo kowtows to him?!?!

That is not what happened. What happened was that Paizo had enough of people misusing their boards to vent about something they didn't like and to offend other people just for having another opinion. it is possible that said thread was kind of a catalyst for their decision but that doesn't define a cause-and-effect chain.

@GVDammerung: As far as I understand, black dots mark threads in which you already have posted before. I had to log out and log in again to be able to post this so I guess Paizo did nothing to inhibit you to add another post in this thread. Must be a bug in their software I think.

[AZRogue]

GVD, regarding your not being able to post to this thread with your main account, I think that this is a bug which they said would be fixed on Monday. It has happened to me several times and logging off your account and logging back on sometimes helps.

The black dots are a new feature added to the board. They show you the threads you've posted in. They have no other function from what I can tell.

As to your main post, I agree: It is about perception. Some people perceive that they can no longer have an open discussion here, and I don't agree. I think, as a person who reads the messageboard far too much, that the moderators have stuck with what they said they were going to do. They did heavy moderation on that first day and then loosened it up. I haven't seen any posts suppressed afterwards. There were a couple slip ups, but the Paizo moderators quickly reversed those decisions as they should have (Dead Horse, for instance).

Was something lost? Most definitely. Those people who wanted to use the board to vent no longer can do that. This is no longer a place where you can come in and vent to everyone about how angry and upset you are at WotC, or another messageboard; at least, you can't vent without being civil about it, which usually doesn't help the venting process. Those people who want to come here and share their anger have lost some of their freedom to do so. Also, extreme-hyperbole has been suppressed as people are afraid, for the time being, of stepping over a line.

I would say that neither of those two things, venting and extreme-hyperbole (though the hyperbole is NOT moderated but sometimes, depending on what is said, can be an insult or personal attack), is necessary for open discussions and reasonable debate. We can, and have been, talking about 4E, both the pros and cons, and I don't see that changing. As a matter of fact, some posters who previously had left the sub forum have returned and begun taking part. So, from what I've seen, the results are extremely positive.

As to the perception itself that Paizo is shutting down anti-4E posters, I think this is untrue. Those posters may think that they were suppressed because they were anti-4E but the truth, I think, is that they were suppressed for HOW they said what they said and not for the WHAT.

Can Paizo fix this perception? I don't know. I would say that the perception is false, or based on insufficient information, and so the best way to disprove it would be for them to just do what they said they would do and be consistent. The perception could then, over time, shift to more closely match the reality of the situation.

As to the drive-by-moderators who have begun posting to others that they just made a personal attack or insult, I would ignore them. They aren't moderators and their statements don't force Paizo's hand. I would listen if a moderator told me that I had gone too far, but not if that came from another poster. I know when I'm being insulting and I have, many, many times written something, read it, and then not hit the "submit" button. Self moderation was, and will be again, the norm. In my opinion.

[Aberzombie]

GVD2 wrote:

First, pardon my need to go to a backup account. Seems this thread is locked to my primary account, symbolized by a black dot. Not sure what's the deal, but where there is a will there is a way, as they say. :-D

Wormysqueue had it correct - the black dot is supposed to show you what threads you've posted in. Your previous problem with this thread was likely just a bug. I tried to post shortly after you and couldn't but now it seems OK.

[Disenchanter]

AZRogue wrote:

Was something lost? Most definitely. Those people who wanted to use the board to vent no longer can do that. This is no longer a place where you can come in and vent to everyone about how angry and upset you are at WotC, or another messageboard; at least, you can't vent without being civil about it, which usually doesn't help the venting process.

I disagree. As someone who vented, rather furiously, I can say that you can vent, be rather civil about it, and have it be very useful (to you at least).

AZRogue wrote:

As to the perception itself that Paizo is shutting down anti-4E posters, I think this is untrue. Those posters may think that they were suppressed because they were anti-4E but the truth, I think, is that they were suppressed for HOW they said what they said and not for the WHAT.

I also disagree. As someone who has received rather snide and negative remarks aimed, at least indirectly, at me since the moderating began I can say it really does look like one sided modding.

I am not claiming it is, nor am I crying over the comments. I can take it.

But it doesn't look good for the moderation here.

[varianor]

GVDammerung wrote:

Lisa Stevens wrote:

I really don't understand why one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa.

I would find more validity in your post if it was a discussion of the point you originally raised, instead of an unveiled screed against moderation. The point that one can no longer post with hatred is apt. That's all that's changed. I am heartily glad to see it, and have taken to reading this forum a lot more.

[Disenchanter]

varianor wrote:

I would find more validity in your post if it was a discussion of the point you originally raised, instead of an unveiled screed against moderation.

Did you skip the first 3/4ths of the original post?

[Rauol_Duke]

Disenchanter wrote:

Did you skip the first 3/4ths of the original post?

Well, it was really long...

[AZRogue]

Disenchanter wrote:

AZRogue wrote:

Was something lost? Most definitely. Those people who wanted to use the board to vent no longer can do that. This is no longer a place where you can come in and vent to everyone about how angry and upset you are at WotC, or another messageboard; at least, you can't vent without being civil about it, which usually doesn't help the venting process.

I disagree. As someone who vented, rather furiously, I can say that you can vent, be rather civil about it, and have it be very useful (to you at least).

AZRogue wrote:

As to the perception itself that Paizo is shutting down anti-4E posters, I think this is untrue. Those posters may think that they were suppressed because they were anti-4E but the truth, I think, is that they were suppressed for HOW they said what they said and not for the WHAT.

I also disagree. As someone who has received rather snide and negative remarks aimed, at least indirectly, at me since the moderating began I can say it really does look like one sided modding.

I am not claiming it is, nor am I crying over the comments. I can take it.

But it doesn't look good for the moderation here.

Well, you're most likely right on your first point. Civil venting can still be helpful to certain people, but I tend to think that you're in the minority on that one, Disenchanter, and most people wouldn't find civil venting to be nearly as helpful. But if it helped you, than it can still be effective for others.

As to your second point, I can't agree. There may have been indirect snide comments directed your way, but I don't think that this has anything to do with a persons' view on 4E. Instead, I think it has to do with the mods stated purpose of being heavy-handed the first day or so and being much looser after. I think the restrictions are looser on both sides, but not everyone has pushed against the envelope a bit to find out.

Or, some of those posts may have been overlooked. Maybe they were too indirect, I don't know. I know that one poster was told to change his phrasing when posting in response to Razz (I think it's safe to say he's anti-4E) and that poster has since apologized. I think the restrictions will be loosened even more around here now that the mods have made their presence felt.

But, no one is required to agree with me. It's just from what I've seen, and from the perspective of a person who just likes to post here.

[varianor]

Disenchanter wrote:

Did you skip the first 3/4ths of the original post?

I read it and thought about it in its entirety before posting.

[Mr. Slaad]

Vegepygmy wrote:

Your decision to "moderate" your boards has made me feel very strongly that you aren't actually worthy of my patronage, after all.

I'm taking my dollars and going home.

Just because of a fraction of their message boards being moderated, however heavily, you decide not to support Paizo? Could you please elaborate?

[Sean Mahoney]

Disenchanter wrote:

varianor wrote:

I would find more validity in your post if it was a discussion of the point you originally raised, instead of an unveiled screed against moderation.

Did you skip the first 3/4ths of the original post?

I read the first 3/4ths of the post the first time through, and then again once you said this... I am still not seeing anything in there that supports the idea that people should be free to personally attack others, other companies or the like.

Yep... people care about D&D, I am with ya. However, I think you can, as many people have post your displeasures about the ideas or the like rather than displeasure about the poster or the people who work for a company or the company itself.

If I am missing something in there that infers this type of activity is good in some way, help me see it...

Sean Mahoney

[Blastin]

I agree with Varinor. Regardless of the eloquence of your post and your apparent large vocabulary, the OP seems to be 50% a simple (if a bit long winded) complaint about the moderation.
I will also state that the rest; the reasons WHY the situation became what it is, I agree with and I think you summed it up very well. I just have no sympathy for anyone who feels slighted because they have been made to play nice after the polite request was ignored (which never seems to be mentioned by anyone except Paizo staff).
I also agree that most of this is about perception. That said, I also acknowledge that the most pertinent perception here is that of Paizo/Ms. Stevens. These are their boards and DO represent the company. If Paizo feels the 4e boards were overly negative and might drive away potential customers then they had an obligation to do something about it. If your perception is different, well, as you said, you can state your disagreement and go elsewhere if you disagree strongly enough.

[AZRogue]

I think the best cure for any perceptions that may have formed is to just see how the boards are moderated in the coming weeks. The reality of their actions is the only response, I think.

Now I need to go get ready to go see Vantage Point. ;-)

[Disenchanter]

Sean Mahoney wrote:

Disenchanter wrote:

varianor wrote:

I would find more validity in your post if it was a discussion of the point you originally raised, instead of an unveiled screed against moderation.

Did you skip the first 3/4ths of the original post?

I read the first 3/4ths of the post the first time through, and then again once you said this... I am still not seeing anything in there that supports the idea that people should be free to personally attack others, other companies or the like.

Yep... people care about D&D, I am with ya. However, I think you can, as many people have post your displeasures about the ideas or the like rather than displeasure about the poster or the people who work for a company or the company itself.

If I am missing something in there that infers this type of activity is good in some way, help me see it...

Sean Mahoney

I'm having a hard time figuring out your point Sean.

If I am getting the correct impression, Varinor stated that GVDammerung didn't address the original point of the thread and that the thread was really a commentary against/about the moderation.

I then questioned if Varinor skipped the first 3/4ths of the post - the part that addressed the original point.

And now you seem to be telling me that the post doesn't state that we can be free to say what we want.

Now I know I am missing something... Maybe your post was directed at Varinor?

[Andrew Turner]

I posted this in another thread, but it seems apt here as well. I should mention, this post is not directed at any individual.

I'm constantly surprised at how vocal everyone is over this.

If you don't want to give up your v3.5 material, then don't.

I don't mean to be smart-ass, but if you are satisified with D&D 3.5, then stick with it--there's no government fiat forcing you to convert your games.

I don't know why anyone would feel the need to be an activist against a new edition--and that's what it's starting to sound like, if you read all these posts collectively (across several threads and websites) and objectively: activism against WotC and the entire concept of D&D 4e.

I don't get it.

I especially don't get the apparent need of certain vocal posters to convince everyone around them that 4e is no good; and WotC is no good.

I especially don't get the vehemence that develops over this whole issue. I look through the posts --it's been a long, boring weekend, with my wife in London visiting family, my compatriots training, and me all alone :-( --I look at the gigantic collection of posts on this topic and there are actually, numerically, a significantly small number of posters who actively despise (my word) 4e and WotC. In fairness, the number of posters who actively approve of 4e and WotC is equally low. The significant factor is the number of posters who are for or against the new edition, but don't throw verbal razors at each other (my words again), and don't participate in rude or defamatory remarks regarding WotC, or any other company. This latter group is the largest number, but also the quietest, or least attention-getting.

As for me, I plan to buy the core rules for 4e, and I'll admit I'm gradually more and more excited to see the new books, but I don't find any desire in myself to encourage others to convert their games. Point-of-fact, my game 18 months from now will not necessarily conform to 4e, not any more than my current game 100% conforms to v3.5.

If WotC announced tomorrow that they decided to nix the whole idea, it really wouldn't make much difference to me. As far as being upset over an all-new set of rules books, supplements and accessories; being upset because the new version effectively makes my current version materially obsolete--I don't scream (my words) when Steve Jobs unveils a newer, sleeker iMac; I don't quit Apple, because the new iPod is faster, smaller and twice the capacity of the one I just bought. Maybe not the best analogy, but it works for me.

My point: if anyone can politely tell me why this topic requires an activist stance, please do.

PS:
I also think it's fair to point out that any moderation that has been done, at least from what I have been reading, stems from this you vs. me/them vs. us/4e vs. v3.5...etc., insomuch as posters devolve into patently derogatory remarks against companies and individuals--

Saying that you're disappointed in a company, or unhappy with a product, even with detailed explanation, is fine.

Peppering the comments with references to fascist regimes, terrorist tactics, Nazi politics, religious oppression, etc; or outright calling someone a cocksucking bastard; or calling an entire organization --say, the editorial department, or the Board of Directors at any given company; or the group of kids at your local FLGS--by such names: this exists for one reason, and one reason only--inciting subversion, which is another way of saying, being an activist. So, my question remains relevant--this activist approach doesn't make any sense to me--please explain.

[Set]

Some boards have a 'no talking about the boards on the boards' rule, and then open up another thread for people to talk about the boards and / or it's rules / moderation / moderators / 'tone,' rather than have such threads clutter up the threads on various topics.

In this case, I've seen more about moderation than I've seen about 4th edition, and that's a little too 'meta' for my tastes. Perhaps we should self-moderate and just drop it?

This section of the boards, and the threads in it, should be about 4E. Pro or Con. Not whining about each other or how put upon we feel by some one-post-wonder doing a drive-by non-topical post and getting us moderated.

[crosswiredmind]

I disagree with the overall message in the OP regarding the 3E/4E divide.

The subtext is that those staying with 3E care about D&D and those that want to play 4E do not.

That is simply untrue. I have read many posts from people that will be playing 4E AND care about this game. They are not heartless. They have simply made a choice to play the new edition, as you have made a choice to stay with 3.5.

I understand that you see your choice as limiting in that you will see the volume of new material for 3.5 slow and 4E will begin to see the bulk of new products. If you see that and still choose to stay with 3.5 then you are going into your decision with the full awareness of the consequences. You also acknowledge that, over time the player base for 3.5 will shrink. Again, you see it coming and understand that it is a consequence of your decision that it will become more difficult to find players.

In that light I can understand why you would want to persuade Paizo to remain a publisher of 3.5 products. Why would anyone staying with 3.5 sit by and watch a publisher wrap up support for their own favored edition of the game. That would make it easier for you to stay with 3.5 as it would mitigate one of the negative consequences of your choice.

Given the scenario you portray in your post of a shrinking player base, a decline in published material, and the overall disadvantages that 3.5 will have in relation to 4E - why would Paizo choose to follow that negative trend? Why would they risk the loss of sales that a shrinking customer base would foretell?

As for moderation - if the only posts being subject to moderation are those with insults directed at people, game companies, and other game boards then how is that possibly a slight to the 3E crowd? It would be a slight only if the 3E crowd were the only ones engaging in that behavior.

[Kruelaid]

crosswiredmind wrote:

The subtext is that those staying with 3E care about D&D and those that want to play 4E do not.

Perhaps you could explain how this subtext works, because I didn't see it and I'm very interested in understanding it.

[Tarren Dei]

Pssst. Kruelaid. Do you have the Coles Notes for the OP?

[Kruelaid]

Tarren Dei wrote:

Pssst. Kruelaid. Do you have the Coles Notes for the OP?

LOL. That's funny because when I wrote that post I felt like I was in my Brit lit class asking one of the study monkeys a question. And it sure is long enough to issue study notes for it.

[Saracenus]

GVD,

I will agree the January 12th D-Day hammerfest was heavy handed, but I think the sub-forum wide b!$@+-slap was needed to get everyone's attention. If that was what was intended, it got the job done. There was, quite frankly, just too much hate going in this sub-forum for a polite request to work (one that was made January 4th by Paizo).

As for the lack of finesse on the 12th, I understand that too. The personalized moderation to bring the firestorm on this board under control would have required a staff beyond what is available to Paizo. Given a choice of letting the 4e section burn for days while trying to control it on an individual level and dropping a bomb and sucking oxygen out of it, I too would have dropped the bomb.

I would have more sympathy for your position if the indiscriminant bomb dropping continued or spread to other parts of the Paizo forums, something that hasn’t happened. Moderation is now on a personal basis. When a post gets modded, there is an explanation. Warnings are being given when behavior hits the limits of what is allowed. Is it perfect, no. I did see a post get modded and then put back. It seems that Paizo is dialing in on what is and isn’t a violation of the rules.

Where you see a chill, I see a burnt forest ready to re-seed and become a beautiful place again. I actually have had a nice discussion of 4e news (from people of all sides and none) today and I am grateful for it. I have seen some posts in the past few days that would have never made it to the light if the previous hot tone had continued. I see faces who have left this forum come back for the first time in a while. I welcome them back.

As I see it, people have stopped reacting with their ids and have started thinking about what they are saying or at least considering how they are saying it. This is a good thing.
Passion has its place, but left unbridled it spirals out of control. I still see passion in people’s posts but it doesn’t overwhelm everything else. This is a good thing.

My Two Coppers,

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus

[Kruelaid]

Saracenus wrote:

I will agree the January 12th D-Day hammerfest was heavy handed, but I think the sub-forum wide b&!&%-slap was needed to get everyone's attention. If that was what was intended, it got the job done.

I've got to agree with that. Sometimes people need a boot to the head. Everyone needs to chill about this.

On the other hand, regarding the OP, I too have been offended by those saying "can't we all get along" because, as he has argued, there are VERY clear reasons for the conflict.

[GVDammerung]

varianor wrote:

I would find more validity in your post if it was a discussion of the point you originally raised, instead of an unveiled screed against moderation.

varianor wrote:

I read it and thought about it in its entirety before posting.

The original statement was Lisa Steven’s - “I really don’t understand why one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa.” I have endeavored at length to explain why this might be so. Understanding why goes a long way toward understanding the reaction to the announced moderation. The two are linked, as they were in the original thread Ms. Stevens responed to - “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?” I did not invent the connection; it was there from the beginning. I merely addressed the full equation.

You will also note, or not, that I have twice (and now for a third time) indicated that there is a place for moderation when there are clearly grounds for such.

Your reading is unsupported by any basis in fact and belied by a full reading of the facts of the posts referenced.

[Dragnmoon]

GVDammerung wrote:

In short the moderation, particularly the ban on mentioning specific companies in other than a positive light and other message boards is overblown and pretextual.

Before anyone asks... yes i read the OPs whole post..:-p..

This is the part I am having problems with.. I never saw Paizo say you could not put specific companies in other than a positive light on these boards when they started looking more into moderation *could have missed it though*

My understanding was that you had to be civil about your criticism on other specific companies.. that is all.. that is all they were asking.

In other words I could say.. "I am not happy with WotC what they are doing is bad for the game because blah blah blah..

But i could not say.. " WotC are a bunch of idiots and are ruining the game because of blah blah blah.."

They are looking for you to post like my first example..not the second.. they both say the same thing.. just one is being more civil..

am I wrong? *that just opened a can of beans :-p*

[GVDammerung]

crosswiredmind wrote:

I disagree with the overall message in the OP regarding the 3E/4E divide.

The subtext is that those staying with 3E care about D&D and those that want to play 4E do not.

There is no subtext of this sort. I do think that the case can presently be made more strongly as to why 3e advocates are feeling a pinch, they why 4e advocates might be upset.

First, 3e is going away as produced by the industry leader in favor of 4e. Where 4e advocates stand to gain, 3e advocates stand to lose. That isn't saying either side cares more or less, just that there is clearly more loss on the 3e side of the equation. Loss always pinches a better tighter than a putative gain. Wherein lies the second point.

Second, 3e advocates know in concrete terms exactly what they are loosing in terms of the 3e rules set. While more information about 4e emerges daily, the overall picture is incomplete. 4e advocates are advocating for an, as yet, incomplete picture. While 4e is as incomplete a picture to 3e advocates one thing is certain, the known that is 3e is being retired by the industry leader and official publisher. Again, this doesn't mean one side cares more or less. Rather, the 3e folks are simply more aware at present of what they are loosing than the 4e folks can be precisely certain of all that they will gain.

I hope this distinction does not ellude you. There is no comment being about about who cares more or less.

[Kruelaid]

CWM, having failed to explain your reading of the subtext, would you care to make a further comment?

Huh? ....waiting!...

[Werecorpse]

I agree with GVD 95%. Thank you for the post.

My only disagreement is that while putting the genie back in the bottle may be nigh impossible I accept Paizos decision to request that the genie constrain it's behaviour somewhat. I do not follow the boards cloely enough to have seen examples of moderation and I note GVD says he/she is in favor of some level of moderation if necessary, just that the moderation seems to be a bit heavy handed - so I dont know if I even disagree here.

[GVDammerung]

Saracenus wrote:

I would have more sympathy for your position if the indiscriminant bomb dropping continued or spread to other parts of the Paizo forums, something that hasn’t happened. Moderation is now on a personal basis. When a post gets modded, there is an explanation. Warnings are being given when behavior hits the limits of what is allowed. Is it perfect, no. I did see a post get modded and then put back. It seems that Paizo is dialing in on what is and isn’t a violation of the rules. . . . As I see it, people have stopped reacting with their ids and have started thinking about what they are saying or at least considering how they are saying it. This is a good thing. Passion has its place, but left unbridled it spirals out of control. I still see passion in people’s posts but it doesn’t overwhelm everything else. This is a good thing.

I do not necessarily disagree. In theory. We will have to see how things go in practice. To put a personal spin on why I care or bothered to post (I have not been a frequent poster for quite some time), I offer the following.

While I am presently not inclined toward 4e based on what I know, I have not seen it fully and thus remain curious. My first impressions have on occasion proven off the mark in the past and are not infallable. To that end, I have been an avid reader, even if not poster, on a variety of message boards. In my reading, I have found the negative posts as enlightening as the positive posts, more so, as regards 4e's specific features. Too many of the positive posts I have read have been uncritically positive. Negative posts have been uncritical at times too but less so and even when so have drawn critical, and enlightening, responses from those more positively inclined. I have learned more through the give and take. An unhappy thing happened on the way to the forums, however.

First, the Wotc forums (if I can say this) became dominated by 4e boosters and opposing, critical opinion was lost. I stopped frequently those forums because of this. Next, ENWorld came to be dominated in much the same way (if I can make that reference). I have scaled back my reading, again. Thereafter, I found Paizo to have the best discussion of the features of 4e. Now, this appears imperiled, albeit by good intentions. You know what they say about that road. I would very much not like to loose another forum.

As I now for the fourth time takes pains to point out, I am not opposed to objective moderation. I would not, however, like to see subjective moderation used as an excuse to, intentionally or not, chill comments critical of 4e. All the politeness and civility in the world are not a replacement, for me, of a solid critique, however rough around the edges.

As I have endevored to say, I think 3e and 4e advocates have solid reasons for feeling as they do, feelings Ms. Stevens indicates she does not understand. Without such understanding, I question how the moderation can be sensitive to those feelings. A blanket paen to civility and politeness in moderation is a "one size fits all" approach to a situation where not everyone is similarly situated. One size cannot fit all when there will be winners and losers, both in the move to 4e generally and with respect to Paizo's decision, and I think it naive to imagine otherwise. Indeed, I have, post-moderation, read attempts to use the threat of moderation for partisan pro-4e arguments. While not effective necessarily in drawing moderation, they are effective in chilling the atmosphere all the same IMV.

I would prefer that those going against the grain be given some leeway in making their points, not because one supports incivility, but because one wishes a robust dialog and recognizes the factors in play here, factors that as other message boards have demonstrated, can too easily stiffle such dialog. This is not a fear without a prescedent but a fear with two very real prescedents. I would prefer the admonition to civility now attached to the 4e sub forum be removed. As you stated, let the moderation be personal and tailored to the situation, not a general broadside. If Ms. Stevens comes to understand that which she admits to not understanding, I think the rest follows if there is any sympathy for why people feel as they do. I believe, by her own statement, that her reaction and hence Paizo's to the question Is this board representative of how Paizo wishes to be seen? was an overreaction based on the stated lack of understanding. Know the truth as the saying goes or, if you prefer, free your mind.

[Saracenus]

GVD,

I guess I don't see the need to understand someones reason for their anger or passion on either side of the debate. If you cross the line of civility and the posting rules I really don't care why you a jerk, just that you where. On my mailing lists, I really don't care if someone had a "good reason" to attack someone else, its verboten. End of subject.

As for Lisa's understanding of the divide, I don't see that as a moderation issue, I see that as a reason she and other Paizo folk didn't step in sooner. They didn't understand it and just hoped people would calm down on their own. Combined with Paizo's very open and trusting structure this lead to a perfect storm.

She did give people from Jan 4th to March 14th to pull it together. That didn't happen and what could have been done on a lower intensity level was delayed far too long to the point where the only choice was to b!$$$ slap the sub-forum.

My Two Coppers,

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus

[Charles Evans 25]

GVD:
I note that in your Opening Post you appear to have quoted one sentence from Lisa Stevens. Without seeing it in the context of the rest of the post that she made, I find that I can not be certain that she may not have been speaking poetically rather than literally, making some sort of bardic appeal to the message boards.

You seem to me to have been selecting the most important facts, as you see them, and presenting your interpretation of them, but you have not made it clear that this is what you have done; I appreciate that you have points which you are trying to make, to the Paizo CEO, and for this purpose you may well have selected solely the points/arguements which you felt best supported your case. The trouble is that this approach has left uncertainty regarding your position on potential counter-examples.
For example those who have internet access on a regular basis these days, can locate others who play older editions of the game more easily with such a tool and, even if they are not geographically located in the same area, can engage in Play by Post games (albeit very slowly) via the medium of the world wide web. I imagine that someone posting on the gamer connection thread here on the Paizo boards, stating that they were seeking 'players for a second edition AD&D Night Below campaign', might get a level of response from sufficient players that such a game could be run.
The approach which you have taken means that I don't know if you've even thought of this however, or if you have but consider it irrelevant to the arguements which you were presenting to Lisa Stevens?
This is unfortunate in my opinion, as you seem to me to have been trying to make some valid points.

[GVDammerung]

Saracenus wrote:

GVD,

I guess I don't see the need to understand someones reason for their anger or passion on either side of the debate. If you cross the line of civility and the posting rules I really don't care why you a jerk, just that you where. On my mailing lists, I really don't care if someone had a "good reason" to attack someone else, its verboten. End of subject.

I think understanding why someone feels or acts a certain way is critical to understanding motivation. Situations alter all things, IMO. Its not about having a "good reason" for being a jerk, IMO, but about why someone might behave like one when in other circumstances they would be entirely pleasant. If its jerk for jerk sake - its hammer time! If there is more to it, and in this case I think there is for the reasons set out, I think the appropriate response is not so clear and should certainly be carefully measured against the knowledge of what is behind the situation. How we got to a pass and where we go from there are IMO as important as the fact that we have come to a particular point. Does that make sense?

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

GVD: . . . The trouble is that this approach has left uncertainty regarding your position on potential counter-examples.

For example those who have internet access on a regular basis these days, can locate others who play older editions of the game more easily with such a tool and, even if they are not geographically located in the same area, can engage in Play by Post games (albeit very slowly) via the medium of the world wide web. . . . The approach which you have taken means that I don't know if you've even thought of this however, or if you have but consider it irrelevant to the arguements which you were presenting to Lisa Stevens?
This is unfortunate in my opinion, as you seem to be trying to convey some valid concerns.

You are entirely correct that there are factors in mitigation of some of the points I raise, legitimate counter-examples. I did not mean to ignore these and they are relevant. I consider the point you raise, quoted above, entirely appropriate and valid, for example. I think, however, that the counter examples do not sufficiently mitigate the points I raised to invalidate them or really undermine their main thrust. Thus, I did not make a longer post longer to discuss exceptions that do not sufficiently or materially impact the points of my post. YMMV.

For example, there are specialist websites that favor certain editions but those sites compare poorly with sites discussing the current editions. I know this first hand as I read some of those sites. Locating others to play out of publication editions on the internet or via the internet is also possible but these options are far less than ideal. I've had some prior experience here as well.

Certainly, a dedicated fan of an out of print edition or setting can find fellow devotees via the internet. All is certainly not lost. But much is lost at the same time. More is lost by almost any measure, I think. As a Greyhawk fan, loss and making the best of things via the internet when your game is out of print are familiar to me! ;-D

[Laeknir]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

GVD:

I note that in your Opening Post you appear to have quoted one sentence from Lisa Stevens. Without seeing it in the context of the rest of the post that she made, I find that I can not be certain that she may not have been speaking poetically rather than literally, making some sort of bardic appeal to the message boards. (...)

That's always the problem with pulling single sentences out of context. I think you're absolutely right.

Here's the original paragraph, from the original thread:

Lisa Stevens wrote:

(...)I am hoping that a time will come when the angst will have subsided and 3e and 4e fans can live together in peace and harmony. I think that 3e makes the perfect game for many folks, and can totally understand why many other people are excited about 4e. There is nothing wrong with liking one over another, just like it isn't wrong to prefer True 20, Castles and Crusades, RuneQuest, or any other RPG. I really don't understand why one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa. It is a personal decision and should stay personal, IMHO. My mom always told me that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything. I wish more folks would listen to that good advice. (...)

Sometimes we get so invested in our games (financially and emotionally) that it's hard to see beyond the immediate personal repercussions when a new update or complete revision comes down the road.

But the bottom line is that it really is just a game, something meant to be fun and enjoyable. When irritation boils over into anger, especially for a hobby / game / fun past-time, it might be time to take a step back and look at why exactly it is that we're angry. If the emotions overwhelm the fun, it's probably time for a brief break.

[GVDammerung]

Laeknir wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

GVD:

I note that in your Opening Post you appear to have quoted one sentence from Lisa Stevens. Without seeing it in the context of the rest of the post that she made, I find that I can not be certain that she may not have been speaking poetically rather than literally, making some sort of bardic appeal to the message boards. (...)

That's always the problem with pulling single sentences out of context. I think you're absolutely right.

Here's the original paragraph, from the original thread:

Lisa Stevens wrote:

(...)I am hoping that a time will come when the angst will have subsided and 3e and 4e fans can live together in peace and harmony. I think that 3e makes the perfect game for many folks, and can totally understand why many other people are excited about 4e. There is nothing wrong with liking one over another, just like it isn't wrong to prefer True 20, Castles and Crusades, RuneQuest, or any other RPG. I really don't understand why one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa. It is a personal decision and should stay personal, IMHO. My mom always told me that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything. I wish more folks would listen to that good advice. (...)

Perhaps, I'm missing something but I don't see the expanded quote/context adds anything or detracts from the statement that she simply does not understand "why one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa." Nor do I think the expanded quote invalidates my original post. If one does not understand how to drive, getting behind the wheel to go some place is probably not the best course, if I can use an extreme and exaggerated illustration. I read Ms. Stevens as owning that she doesn't understand "why one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa" and I see nothing in the expaned quote that modifies, explains or makes that poetic. I could be missing something, of course.

The key word in the operative sentence I quoted is, I believe, "threat" - Ms. Stevens does not understand how one group can feel threatened by the other, as I read it. I hope I have addressed this. Boiled way down it comes down to loss. For the 3e person loss of current edition status and all the entails and the specific potential loss of Paizo's well regarded support materials. For the 4e person the loss is mainly the Paizo support as they by definition are more or less pleased with gaining 4e.

I read Ms. Stevens literally in her professed lack of understanding seeing nothing in her larger post that casts this as other than a literal lack of understanding, specifically of the "threat."

[AZRogue]

GVD, I think I understand your posts and understand what you're trying to say (though I am wrong sometimes two, three times a day). I think your concerns are genuine. In my opinion, however, I do not believe that the forums will be stifled by the moderation. Indeed, after the "boot to the head" of the first day, moderation has been nearly zero. I expect that to continue (I trust Paizo to do what they said and they said they would back off on the moderation).

Let me just add, however, that any man that can type as much as you do has my respect. ;-)

[Laeknir]

GVDammerung wrote:

Perhaps, I'm missing something but I don't see the expanded quote/context adds anything or detracts from the statement that she simply does not understand "why one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa." Nor do I think the expanded quote invalidates my original post. If one does not understand how to drive, getting behind the wheel to go some place is probably not the best course, if I can use an extreme and exaggerated illustration.

Extreme and exaggerated illustrations are just that, though: extreme and exaggerated. And largely not useful.

GVDammerung wrote:

I read Ms. Stevens as owning that she doesn't understand "why one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa" and I see nothing in the expaned quote that modifies, explains or makes that poetic. I could be...

In my opinion, I think she's pointing out the larger picture.

The "loss" that you're talking about isn't really a true loss, except for the potential of future material that people might or might not use.

By going to 4E, people haven't actually lost anything. It's a perception of loss. Those who love 3.5 (or older editions) can still actually play those editions. Those who look forward to 4E, that's their choice as well, and they haven't lost anything in the process of making that choice.

Given the larger picture, which is expressed better by the expanded quote, by thinking of everything you still have and can continue to use, by thinking of other games that people often play on other days, it's definitely easy to see why -anyone- might have difficulty understanding an individual's choice to fight bitterly with someone over an updated version of a game rather than play either the old or the new version of the game.

[Blackdragon]

Andrew Turner wrote:

My point: if anyone can politely tell me why this topic requires an activist stance, please do.

The answer for my part is on two fronts. One is keeping with the history of the game. I woukd rather see a setting like Forgotten Realms discontinued that have it destroyed to force it into a little box for the new cosmology. It is destroying a realm that I've spent hundreds of hours reading about and getting to know the locations and characters, and now they're almost all gone. I think that the Core worlds of D&D should have been left alone because they are iconic fantasy settings that I would go as far as to say are on par with Middle Earth. I feel that it was an arbitrary decision to flush this history for no reason that the designers didn't like how the great wheel fit together. Personally It works just fine for me.

The second is lack of support for an older system. No new modules, no new books. Not even from outside companies. And the reason that this is a big deal is because 3.5 and 4.0 are not compatiable. This is not ok. Basic D&D was compatiable with 1&2ED AD&D. (I play 2E and I still use my rules Cyclopedia all the time.) but 3.0 & 3.5 don't mix with earlier version, and now 4E won't mix with any of it. It means that if you switch to 4E all of your old stuff is useless, and if you don't switch, you won't be able to find new modules or suplements. Not even the newest videogame consols would think of doing that. My PS3 still plays PS1& PS2 games. Why? Because they recognise that there is still some good stuff in the old systems.

Why are we so angry? Because if these systems were still compatiable, we would be happy to play it all together. But they won't let us do that. And we're tired of forking out big bucks to buy the same ten books over and over and over again to get the same information presented in a slightly different way. Fix the bugs in the old system, but make the new system an extension of the old.

Is that clear enough?

[The-Last-Rogue]

In reply to BlackDragon:

I believe a company name Dark Vistas (or horizons) or some such will still be producing 3.5 material . . .so that alleviates one of your concerns.

[The-Last-Rogue]

Also along the activist line . . .you know WoTC is making 4e, so how does being active against it further either of your hopes/reasons for being activist agains it?

[Andrew Turner]

Blackdragon wrote:

...Is that clear enough?

That was great! I understood everything you wrote, and not once did you have to allude to jackboots, imbeciles, incompetents, or fascists; not once did you need to remark on the genetics, upbringing, parenting, or education of any individual; and not once did you need to patently insult any company, organization, writer, or poster who might disagree with you.

I mean all of the above illustratively, Blackdragon; I don't mean that you have engaged in any of it.

Your response to me was argumentative and advocative, but not activistic or inflammatory. I wish all the discussion could be thus.

[etrigan]

Sorry if I am not as eloquent as the OP but english is not my native language...

I agree with the OP regarding the different reasons that can explain the anger and fear of the 3E or 3.5 Fan... But I fail to see what they try to accomplish by bashing Wotc and the 4E... 3E fan demonstrated their frustration to what purpose? I guess that they try to influence Paizo decision regarding 4E but I'm not sure that's the best way to accomplish that...

If a market still exist for 3.5 products and that the Paizo fanbase is solid why the more vocals of those fan decided to quit the boat as soon as Paizo ask for a minimum of civility?

To quote Erik Mona wrote:

The speed with which posters are ready to turn their back on Paizo because of this is really eye opening.

To see the distrust and the vitriol from some folks who I consider valuable members of this community here on this thread is, as the OP said, sorely disappointing.

Please give us some credit.

I think we've earned it.

How do 3.5 fan think that Paizo can do business with a fanbase so fragile and so volatile?

Until now, only 344 people answer the Paizo Pool indicating that they will play 3.5 and have no intention of playing 4.0 (at least not as their main compaign).. It's a small majority of the 600 votes, but it's only 344 peoples! And most of them have declare that they already have enough 3.5 adventures that they don't need to buy anything new...
Assuming that they will buy Paizo adventure, with an average of 20$ of purchase each month, that equal to 82,560$ Paizo income for 1 year (maybe just enough to pay the salary of one freelancer and the cost of printing material...and probably not...)

So instead of loosing their time bashing a system that they have no intention of playing why don't they try instead to make it clear to Paizo that there is enough people to support the 3.5 industry? By the comments they made regarding 4E until now, I am pretty sure that Erik Mona and James Jacob already prefer 3.5 over 4E as the system they wish to use to tell the story they want (at least this is the impression that they give me reading their post)... So maybe I'm naive, but If enough people write to Paizo that they will support them if they keep alive the 3.5 Edition... well.. it could happen...

If they could just receive the damn GSL...