End the edition wars


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange

crosswiredmind wrote:

Oh, I do bear responsibility for this. Far too often I have rushed to defend my choice. I agree that I have contributed to some fairly contentious threads.

I also know that some of those threads went from contention to understanding.

Does anyone in the Pathfinder RPG forum ever need to rush to the defend against thread crapping? Are people making unwarranted emotional attacks of Pathfinder? I have not read any and there should not be any.

That is my point. I get that the mere existence of 4e is an abomination in the eyes of some folks here. Too damn bad. They need to get over it. And they need to stop crapping on our threads.

With respect, CMW, things got so bad in the Pathfinder forums that people were given temporary (though ultimately permanent) bans. I got quite heavily involved in those exchanges and found it, in the end, a dispiriting process which really didn't achieve much purpose. I felt I had dishonoured myself and, while I don't miss the posters who are now gone, I question whether engaging in the hostility achieved much (or anything) for me personally.

Look, I suggest you relax and stop trying to police the 4e boards - you don't own them after all and you are not the only guy who likes 4e (even I have bought the PHB and am perusing it). Rising to Razz 's comments is silly - the guy is clearly a bit unbalanced on this particular issue, and froths with rage at any mention of 4e. He can't help it, quite clearly. You have reacted to some other comments you percieve as negative about 4e which, to me, looked fairly mild and even nuanced (albeit couched in fairly dismissive language, though probably par for the course for the posters in question) - in fact, where you detected hostility I detected someone previously implacably opposed coming round to the idea that 4e might actually be OK. You are in danger of losing your perspective - you and your attitudes are in danger of becoming the issue, rather than 4e.

I say this not be be hostile, but because you seem an OK guy and I sympathise (having been there a bit myself). I had a torrid time on the Pathfinder threads and it can be upsetting, I had a lot of people lined up against me, and I'm not convinced I achieved anything terribly worthwhile while I was doing it. It doesn't serve a lot of purpose - people will post on the 4e threads as they see fit, and it is their right unless they get a ban (and I wouldn't expect that action too often). You have probably made your point about 4e and others' attitudes - making it over and over is unlikely to achieve much.

The Exchange

Kruelaid wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:

Does anyone in the Pathfinder RPG forum ever need to rush to the defend against thread crapping? Are people making unwarranted emotional attacks of Pathfinder? I have not read any and there should not be any.

Yes, people have crapped all over PFRPG threads. No, nobody NEEDS to rush to defend against it.

Well, they shouldn't crap there and people should not tolerate it when they do.


I have a hard time getting behind a push to censor, though I do think discussions should be civil.

My biggest problem with pro-4E people (of which I am one) pushing this sort of thing is that in each of the internet forums I've been a part of (and I haven't been here long enough to know if its the case here, so I'm not making that judgment) it's been the pro-4E people who have been a large part of the problem, yet a push to make it so people can't criticize the new edition seems to ignore this fact.

To be honest, WotC forums are at the point where I'm almost embarrassed to be a 4E supporter, thanks to my fellow posters who are so insecure in their own decisions that they can't handle it if that decision isn't unanimously validated by everyone else. Worst yet are the people who have been playing 3.X regularly for 8 years and now bemoan the fact that it's such a terrible system and was never fun to begin with, etc. These people are fools, and that's being charitable.

Anyway, that's my frustration with my own pro-4E side over the past weeks. Like I said, I don't know if its been the case here, but I'm hesitant to adopt the view that people shouldn't be able to point out what they don't like in the various D&D editions. There are plenty of legitimate reasons a person might not like 4E. It's very "gamey," and despite what people say the video game (MMO) inspiration is evident. It's also different enough from previous versions of the game that I'm sympathetic to the argument that to some it doesn't "feel" like D&D. These are legitimate points, and if a person makes them respectfully as part of the reasons they dislike 4E, then they should be treated respectfully in turn. But my experience around the net has been that they are not. Instead, people get a bunch of tired insults in return. Not everyone is going to like 4E. That's shouldn't make people defensive.

Anyway, at least elsewhere on the web the pro-4E crowd is pretty insulting and juvenile in their defense of the game. It's a shame. And yes, many of the anti-4E rants are just as bad. But at WotC and elsewhere the pro-4E people are worse.

So I guess that's why a call for censorship or more moderation from the pro-4E side doesn't sit well with me.

We're all adults. Let's discuss the hobby, pros and cons, and get on with gaming.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

I do have one thing to say before I fade away:

D&D is not a game. Twister is a game. Crazy Eights is a game. Hell, even checkers is a game.

D&D is a hobby. It does not simply entail a set of rules. It entails a certain way of looking at the world, a way of having fun that transcends beyond rules and written words and mere opinions.

For me, D&D is the lifeline that I was not the only one who continued to love the old chivalric tales long after the other kids my age had moved onto monster trucks and explosions. It was the verification that there were others out there who thought, "Wouldn't it be cool to be a wizard? To wield the arcane fires that power reality? Wouldn't it be cool if dark things lurked in the deep places and dragons breathed smoky breath in hidden lairs? It gave me an outlet for the imagination that I couldn't express in the mundane, do your homework world of suburbia.

For many people I've met, it's the only social interaction they get. It gives them a community, a place to belong, a way to relate to people they otherwise don't relate to.

So don't demean D&D by dismissing it as merely a game. Don't demean the experiences of so many by condescendingly dismissing their concerns that WotC has changed their precious experience into something new and different that may not connect to their vision of this hobby. And don't be suprised when people react with anger, hatred or even vehemence when you suggest that they should just shut up and keep quietly to themselves.

What 4e represents to those of us who grew to love 3.x isn't a new edition. It's a loss of a stream of creativity that fed the hobby that we love. It's the loss of magic entering the field, it's a drying up of new ideas and new concepts because some corporation made the decision to bring in a new revenue stream rather than nurture the one they had. It's the loss of what might have been, a loss of what could be, and I applaud Paizo for recognizing that and realizing that even us old trolls deserve a game that's alive and evolving and growing.

That is all. Thank you for the floor.


One has to take responsibility for how chooses to feel or react to change.

No one can make you feel anything. One chooses to react on a personal emotional level. WOTC can not make you feel betrayed, or as if something has been taken away from you. Others can not make you feel demeaned by labeling D&D as "merely a game." One chooses to feel that way. I don't enjoy having to mention the importance of having 'self-esteem' on a hobby board, but there you go.

Responsibility for oneself tends to get tossed out the window in these discussions.

Change doesn't necessarily represent the loss of creativity. It can represent a new frontier, which may be a little sparse to start with but can be nutured. Anyway, the real creativity almost always came from the GMs, the players, and the support product / adventure writers and publishers.

There's a tendency to think that because this does create a new product line and 'revenue stream' (if thats what you choose to call it), that this was the sole motivation, the sole reason for creating a new edition.

::shakes head::

You can hate this edition, but I don't think I can rationally see this body of work as having been created just to make invent a new revenue stream. Far too much effort has gone into the crafting of this core game just to be some sort of dodge, hussle, or scam. I find any position that tries to promote that idea as being illogical to the extreme. However, that doesn't mean you have to like it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

Watcher wrote:
There's a tendency to think that because this does create a new product line and 'revenue stream' (if thats what you choose to call it), that this was the sole motivation, the sole reason for creating a new edition.

Please don't imply that I said that this edition was created solely as a revenue stream, but also you cannot look at WotC as creating 4e purely for artistry either. Make no mistake: WotC is a company that exists to make money, as its first goal. A crafted game is a secondary concern, because if it doesn't make money, it doesn't stay around. It gets sold off, folded under or otherwise removed from consideration. It's not a dodge, hustle or scam: it's reality in the world of corporations and capitalism. If it's not making money, it doesn't get made.


James Martin wrote:

I do have one thing to say before I fade away:

D&D is not a game. Twister is a game. Crazy Eights is a game. Hell, even checkers is a game.

D&D is a hobby. It does not simply entail a set of rules. It entails a certain way of looking at the world, a way of having fun that transcends beyond rules and written words and mere opinions.

For me, D&D is the lifeline that I was not the only one who continued to love the old chivalric tales long after the other kids my age had moved onto monster trucks and explosions. It was the verification that there were others out there who thought, "Wouldn't it be cool to be a wizard? To wield the arcane fires that power reality? Wouldn't it be cool if dark things lurked in the deep places and dragons breathed smoky breath in hidden lairs? It gave me an outlet for the imagination that I couldn't express in the mundane, do your homework world of suburbia.

For many people I've met, it's the only social interaction they get. It gives them a community, a place to belong, a way to relate to people they otherwise don't relate to.

So don't demean D&D by dismissing it as merely a game. Don't demean the experiences of so many by cond

escendingly dismissing their concerns that WotC has changed their precious experience into something new and different that may not connect to their vision of this hobby. And don't be suprised when people react with anger, hatred or even vehemence when you suggest that they should just shut up and keep quietly to themselves.

What 4e represents to those of us who grew to love 3.x isn't a new edition. It's a loss of a stream of creativity that fed the hobby that we love. It's the loss of magic entering the field, it's a drying up of new ideas and new concepts because some corporation made the decision to bring in a new revenue stream rather than nurture the one they had. It's the loss of what might have been, a loss of what could be, and I applaud Paizo for recognizing that and realizing that even us old trolls deserve a game...

I don't think anyone meant to 'demean' D&D by calling it a game. But it is a game. That a community has developed around it does not suddenly make it something else.

My grandmother plays Euchre every weekend at her retirement home. She has found and developed friedships while there. Still, it's a game.

I would never suggest that someone shutup and keep their opinion to themselves. But I would suggest that if you want your opinion heard, engaging in intelligent debate is better than ranting. And no...I am not pointing the finger at anti-4e posters alone. Pro-4e posters whose arguments can be summed up to "Our version rules...you suck" are equally to blame.

I am married with 2 young children. While my wife and I do 'escape' sometimes to have meaningful, adult interactions :), my only constant social interaction is my weekly D&D game. Even is I didn't like the 4th edition, I don't see how it's existence has infringed on my friends and I gathering once a week to play D&D.

This has been, and always will be, the part I don't understand about some posters on here. I can understand hating 4e. I honestly do. I can also understand loving 4e. What I don't understand, is how the existence of one seems to be taken as a slap in the face to the other.

If 4e didn't exist, and Paizo still decided to branch out with Patherfinder, would this have caused a schism between the community?
What about the different campaign settings? I don't rememeber such emotional posting when Eberron came on the scene.

My suggestion? If the thread is asking for your opinion of a particular version, or even between the versions...feel free to give it. Defend and attack to your hearts content. But if a thread is started about a particular aspect of the game, asking for clarification, or how people are handling certain things, don't feel the need to step in to defend the other versions handling of it. Case in point: a recent thread on Mounted Combat in 4e. Simply started to ask if there was a rule in 4e, and if not, how people would adjudicate it. Next thing you know, it turned into a debate on how 3.x Mounted combat rules were much better than 4e. Not asked for, not needed.

my 2 cents.

Liberty's Edge

While I fully support people taking time to evaluate the manner in which they adress a topic, I simply cannot support a call to end discussion of the topic itself,* even one as emotionally charged as a personal hobby.

I will agree that moderation can be useful when people are unable to regulate the method the choose to express themselves ("I hate game X, and everyone who likes it is a Y because rule Z sucks"). But we lose something important when we ban the discussion of a topic ("I don't like rule Z for reason A and as a result don't like game X") just to avoid the above. Thus, I appreciate Paizo's approach on the matter.

So, respectfully, I must dissent from CWM and ernestly oppose ENWorld's actions from an academic viewpoint. I won't go to their boards to protest, to rail against their site management decisions, but neither will I support their decisions or products during the ban.

*Some topics are so obscene or controversial that its very hard to have discussion about them on a gaming site like Paizo and they should be done in locations created to host such discussion. An illustrative list WILL NOT follow.

Sincerely,
FP


A few days only after the cosmic revolution of the arrival of D&D4, the spirits are starting to cool down.
The result is that we have two factions staring at each other, with despise and condescendance, each being sure to hold the holy torch of D&D. Both are D&D players.
Such are geeks, overreacting to anything that touches their trivial passions, whether it's a Star Wars prequel, a Star Trek series or a new edition of D&D.
But our "communication" age is so much out of reality and time that after a few weeks, sometimes after a few days only, the media turn the page and switch to another story. We forget and move on.

OK, we have D&D4 now. But we have also Pathfinder, True 20, Castles and Crusades, Iron Heroes...
Hey, we even have cheap leftovers of AD&D 1 and 2.
Hey, we even have gazillions of other games, heroic fantasy or not.
Just pick one.
We have the choice. Choice is good. Let's not fight about choices, that's a luxury we shoudl cherish. Some people don't have it.

Peace.

May the d20 be with you. Always.


James Martin wrote:
Please don't imply that I said that this edition was created solely as a revenue stream, but also you cannot look at WotC as creating 4e purely for artistry either. Make no mistake: WotC is a company that exists to make money, as its first goal. A crafted game is a secondary concern, because if it doesn't make money, it doesn't stay around. It gets sold off, folded under or otherwise removed from consideration. It's not a dodge, hustle or scam: it's reality in the world of corporations and capitalism. If it's not making money, it doesn't get made.

Okay James, I grant you this.. I don't deny the practical side of it either.


In my GammaWorld and Shadowrun books, both talk about how different groups of like minded people, drawn together through their beliefs or hobbies, became increasingly radicalized as each setting approached its "tipping point". I never understood how that was truly a believable event when I read them as a child.

Now, not so much ...


crosswiredmind wrote:

Pax - This is not about victory. This is not about debate. 4e is a freaking game! It is a product. If you want it then buy it. If you do not want it then do not buy it.

It really is that simple.

Don't complain just because it exists. If you do not like it then do not buy it.

Hiya.

CWM - I'd agree with you if you had made it a fair, 50/50, two-way street. In other words, if you had said something along the lines of "If you don't like 4e, don't buy it...and don't go on and on about how much it suxxors. Likewise, I like 4e, so I'll buy it...and I won't go on and out about how much it roxxors."

That would be 'fair'. What Enworld seems to be doing is highly favoring 4e and it's fans. Just look at the post and you can see the favoitism...they put "3e/4e" when talking about how much 'that version sucks'...and they put "4e/3d when talking about how much 'that version rocks'. Why not have it 3e/4e for both? Why switch which edition they mentioned first? (my tin-foil hat theory: people remember and equate the first thing in a 'list' to the reason for the list; so, listing 3e before 4e when saying it 'sucks', people will remember '3e...sucks', and the opposite for 4e...but that's just crazy talk! ...or is it...? ;) ).

They are setting up yet MORE rifts between various edition lovers. They are basically saying "Anyone who likes 4e has free reign to yell from the tops of the mountains just how damn cool this game is. They are allowed, nay, *encouraged*, to express how happy they are. But, to keep the boards civil, any and all discussion of 4e by those who don't like it can't say anything bad about it because it would upset those who do.".

...so it's OK to upset those who don't like 4e, but not OK to upset those who do.

Not. Cool.

Personally? I don't like 4e. I also don't like 3.5e ...3e ..."d20 systems as a whole" ...or 2e. I like 1e, Basic (BECMI) and Hackmaster. I've been happily playing 1e/Hackmaster for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong (each "o" is one year) time, so could really care less if 3e, 4e or 5e "kill" D&D. No matter to me...I *still* have 1e/hackmaster/basic stuff I haven't used! :)


Larry Latourneau wrote:
This has been, and always will be, the part I don't understand about some posters on here. I can understand hating 4e. I honestly do. I can also understand loving 4e. What I don't understand, is how the existence of one seems to be taken as a slap in the face to the other.

You are correct sir. The only explanation I can come to after the last few months is:

a. The internet allows the loudest/craziest to take center stage on whatever subject has a bug up their butt.
b. The internet promotes the idea that one has to be on a 'side' of any 'issue' even if there is no real side and the issue is not really an issue.

I take solace in the fact that all the gamers I know in real life are not 1/100th as spastic and unreasonable as the posters I have read online. The posters here at Paizo, at the WotC board, at ENworld are a statistically insignificant, loud, cranky group.

The Exchange

Panda-s1 wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
I hear that Mike Mearls guy eats babies.
Whole. And live.
Yeah, well Jason Buhlman eats live kittens. Think of the kittens!

There's a Buffy/Spike reference in here somewhere...

The Exchange

pming wrote:

They are setting up yet MORE rifts between various edition lovers. They are basically saying "Anyone who likes 4e has free reign to yell from the tops of the mountains just how damn cool this game is. They are allowed, nay, *encouraged*, to express how happy they are. But, to keep the boards civil, any and all discussion of 4e by those who don't like it can't say anything bad about it because it would upset those who do.".

...so it's OK to upset those who don't like 4e, but not OK to upset those who do.

Not. Cool.

Well, this is the 4e board. Shouldn't the board dedicated to 4e be a place where those that choose to play it can talk about it without the constant thread crapping and trolling from those that don't choose to play it?


drjones wrote:
Larry Latourneau wrote:
This has been, and always will be, the part I don't understand about some posters on here. I can understand hating 4e. I honestly do. I can also understand loving 4e. What I don't understand, is how the existence of one seems to be taken as a slap in the face to the other.

You are correct sir. The only explanation I can come to after the last few months is:

a. The internet allows the loudest/craziest to take center stage on whatever subject has a bug up their butt.
b. The internet promotes the idea that one has to be on a 'side' of any 'issue' even if there is no real side and the issue is not really an issue.

I take solace in the fact that all the gamers I know in real life are not 1/100th as spastic and unreasonable as the posters I have read online. The posters here at Paizo, at the WotC board, at ENworld are a statistically insignificant, loud, cranky group.

I agree. There are 7 of us in my gaming group. With the exception of 2 relatively recent adds, the other 5 of us have been gaming together since 3.5 came out. (That is how I guauge my time playing...I got invited into this group pretty much the same month that 3.5 launched.)

I DM mostly now. I wwas nervous about bringing in 4.0, as three of the members of the 5 have been playing D&D since they were in high school, 2 of them in the same game for years. I had read the boards and, despite actually knowing these guys pretty well, the posters here had made me paranoid that they were going to hate it. I wanted to purchase the books anyway, so I proposed we run the first module to decide if they were interested in it.

2 weeks later, 3 of the group have purchased their own sets of the core books, and the one who alternates DMing with me is developing his own campaign world around it. (Just a note...we are not abandoning 3.5 for 4.0. I still have 3 modules of Age of Worms to DM, and the other DM only has us a little way into Savage Tide)

The Exchange

Debate is good. We just need to be civil and just to each other.

When someone trolls, call them out.

When someone melts down, feed them a Newcastle.

The problem is that this is pretty much the only play that people who are not embracing 4.0 wholeheartedly can voice theri opnions without being silenced and moderated.

WOTC sees their boards as part of their marketing and custoerm service interface. I don't know what is up with Enworld, but I do know that I stopeed goign there because the level of discourse was dsirespectful and wholly partisan.

In truth, I trust the people on this board to give me authentic opnions. In other places I have run into people who are clearly walking through talking points.

Neither the OGL/PfRPG/3.5 nor 4.0 are going away. The game is now split into two fundametnally different developmental paths. we have a responsbility to grow our hobby, not tear each other down.

Peace Brothers and Sisters.


I would rather not be like ENWORLD. Folks are pretty much staying in threads that ask for such things and not thread crapping every 4e thread. I do not see an issue. Enworld lost me going there daily over there very heavy handed pro-4e stance. 3E vs 4E is gonna happen lest it stays mostly civil and in it's own threads here,

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

crosswiredmind wrote:
Well, this is the 4e board. Shouldn't the board dedicated to 4e be a place where those that choose to play it can talk about it without the constant thread crapping and trolling from those that don't choose to play it?

No this is the 4e board. It should be about discussing 4e. Maybe you should petition for a "4e Board for those who want to hear about how great 4e is?"

The Exchange

James Martin wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Well, this is the 4e board. Shouldn't the board dedicated to 4e be a place where those that choose to play it can talk about it without the constant thread crapping and trolling from those that don't choose to play it?
No this is the 4e board. It should be about discussing 4e. Maybe you should petition for a "4e Board for those who want to hear about how great 4e is?"

So, how welcome is this kind of crap over in the Pathfinder section? So welcome that persistent offenders were banned.


MisterSlanky wrote:
The Jade wrote:

Glad to hear it!

On July 4th I'm giving a rant on the subject of Gamer Elitism on Atomic Array, a new podcast by Ed Healy and yours truly. Should be worth a laugh.

Hey I'm not elitist, I just know that if your opinion isn't the same as mine it sucks. ;-)

LOL. Well it's funny cuz it's true!

Also, did I miss something? Are they not allowing any conversation about edition preferences? I'm not down with that. I thought they just weren't going to let any flaming go down.

edit: Ah. Just read it again. Hmm. Well, not to sound populist, but I'm certainly not down with there being no discussions. That's over the top and gone forever. I more focused on the nature of the posts them most wanted to avoid.


Can't we all just get along.....


"are so insecure in their own decisions..." and something else along the lines of cannot withstand civil debate about 4th edition.

Basically it seems like this to me, h4ters seem for some damn reason to be given carte blanche to b~#!# piss and threadcrap all over the place, yet for some reason if someone does call them on it the 4th edition friendlys are "insecure in their own decisions" or feeding the troll, or whatever.

Basically I don't think the 4th edition people really need to be told to bugger off or anything because really the worst I've seen is a bit of zealous self moderation, which considering the content of this thread is obviously Aokay. Calling someone a s+~&ter when they are one, isn't the problem here. Its all the s~~+ters, and you all know their names too.

Theirs lots of people on this board that are really reasonible, some are not. For some reason when people try to call them on it, they are being unreasonable, and quite frankly get treated worst then people who have made it exceptionally clear that trolling, threadcrapping, and b*@~@ing are the level of discourse they expect at paizo.

Thank you very much Crosswiredmind, I really think you've been doing an excellent job at responding to all of this, and its obviously not for the accolades considering the s*%*ty way some/most people in the forum treat you.

I somehow think that if anyone made a fraction of the effort to act like some of the big names in the 4th edition forum anywhere else, I think that in short order it would sorted out. But hey I'm not bitter I just know when a place appreciates a segment of their populace and I'll let my dollar votes count in the end. Its more or less all i can do, I honestly hope that paizo doesn't think that this doesn't reflect badly on them at least to a small percentage of the population.

Logos


This. Nicely put, Logos. Agree 100 %.


FabesMinis wrote:
This. Nicely put, Logos. Agree 100 %.

Me too.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Watcher wrote:
FabesMinis wrote:
This. Nicely put, Logos. Agree 100 %.
Me too.

I agree that the anti-4th flamers need to knock it off. However, I don't agree that the pro-4th camp is innocent, and I hope if the banhammer is used, the worst offenders in the pro-4th camp get banned too - particularly the ones stridently calling for moderation of the boards.

Scarab Sages

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
With respect, CMW, (...) I suggest you relax and stop trying to police the 4e boards - you don't own them after all and you are not the only guy who likes 4e (even I have bought the PHB and am perusing it).

With respect, I concur. You might not realize it, CMW, but you make things worse by policing the boards, not better. You're basically fanning the fires of flamewars by doing this. Not cool.

The Exchange

Russ Taylor wrote:
I agree that the anti-4th flamers need to knock it off. However, I don't agree that the pro-4th camp is innocent, and I hope if the banhammer is used, the worst offenders in the pro-4th camp get banned too - particularly the ones stridently calling for moderation of the boards.

Hey, if Paizo feels that I have broken the board rules then I would welcome the correction.


It's funny...
Whenever i read a post by Razz, I want to go out and give 4.0 a try.
Then I read the invariably immediate follow up post by CWM and the urge to try out 4.0 goes away.
It's like they cancel each other out.

As long as one is here, I hope the other stays.
Also I'd like to see them star in a buddy-cop movie together.
That would be awesome.

The Exchange

hazel monday wrote:

It's funny...

Whenever i read a post by Razz, I want to go out and give 4.0 a try.
Then I read the invariably immediate follow up post by CWM and the urge to try out 4.0 goes away.
It's like they cancel each other out.

As long as one is here, I hope the other stays.
Also I'd like to see them star in a buddy-cop movie together.
That would be awesome.

Geek Boyz - The d12 Connection

The Exchange

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
But CWM is as disruptive as any troll. And really seems to have a kindegarten mentality. Grow up dude, is fourth edition your girlfriend or something?

Hmmmm. No. Thanks for asking.

Scarab Sages

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
You probably kiss your 4th edition rules before you go to bed at night. Watch out for the smearing ink Blue Lips= the new brown nosers.

That's not being helpful either, Anthraxus. This is being a dick as well.


hazel monday wrote:

It's funny...

Whenever i read a post by Razz, I want to go out and give 4.0 a try.
Then I read the invariably immediate follow up post by CWM and the urge to try out 4.0 goes away.
It's like they cancel each other out.

As long as one is here, I hope the other stays.
Also I'd like to see them star in a buddy-cop movie together.
That would be awesome.

Truly hilarious.

The Exchange

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

You probably kiss your 4th edition rules before you go to bed at night. Watch out for the smearing ink Blue Lips= the new brown nosers.

Note to self - must go home and look for cameras. OH, and add more tinfoil to my hat. BETTER YET - tinfoil the entire attic.


Does the tinfoil thing really work?

Sovereign Court

The Red Death wrote:
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
You probably kiss your 4th edition rules before you go to bed at night. Watch out for the smearing ink Blue Lips= the new brown nosers.
That's not being helpful either, Anthraxus. This is being a dick as well.

Let's not forget immature.

Seriously, this is just ridiculous. It's not funny. I'm not too big a fan of moderation on these boards, but posts like this is what makes me think that it might not be a horrible idea.

The Exchange

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
Does the tinfoil thing really work?

Maybe. If I told you you would know. Then I would know that you know. Then I would need to add another layer just in case. It's a downward spiral from there.


Frankly, I think CWM is very helpful. Sometimes he responds to someone in a way that may make them feel as though he's saying they're not entitled to their opinion but the vast majority of his posts are corrections when someone misrepresents a new rule or claims that a rule in 4E is somehow a change when the same thing has been true in prior editions.

Sometimes people are annoyed (not focusing on anyone specifically, here) by this because, well, we don't always want to have our snap judgments pointed out to us.

For an example, it's perfectly logical for someone to claim that they don't like 4E because it doesn't play the way they like, or because the books look funny, or because it's missing classes, or destroyed some of their favorite sacred cows, or doesn't allow as much character variation at 1st level, or a host of other, true, reasons. But if someone said that they don't like 4th edition because of all the laser guns in it, it's only natural for someone else (usually CWM) to respond by pointing out that 4E has no laser guns.

Either way I don't think it's such a big deal. It's frustrating on all sides, I'm sure, when you either can't express exactly what you're trying to say or you feel that you're talking to a brick wall. If we understand that and make a conscious decision to cut each other some slack, most of the problem will be solved. There have been some excellent conversations on this board, some I've been lucky enough to be a part of. I think that those conversations make the occasional annoyances we may feel worth it.

The Exchange

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
Yeah i will admit that. Sorry, but i mean what is this Soviet Russia? I bet half the flame threads would just go away if more people ignored them. CWM promotes the very behavior he claims to dislike. Nothing personal man. I am just pulling chains.

I don't mind the chain pulling. I do mind irrational trolling cloaked as serious conversation. I also mind the blatant baiting that often goes on here. If calling it b@~&#!@~ when I see it adds to the fire - oh well. I am not the kind of person that sits by while bullies run rough shod over otherwise civil discussion.

Scarab Sages

I guess what I'm trying to say here is: whether reactions are legitimate or not, whether the arguments end up being true or not, is actually besides the point.

What matters really is HOW the arguments are produced/presented. If you call something bullsh!t, you cannot expect the conversation to get any better, even if you are in fact right. Calling on it doesn't make it any better. Keeping your cool, trying to build on the remark, no matter how insulting it was, in a constructive, respectful way, just might.


To be fair, I’ve been practicing auto-censorship internally for some months now. Whenever I see a crosswiredmind post, my brain shuts off and I shunt to another thread (sorry crosswired, but it is so true). However, based on this thread and the other along a similar vein, coupled with the fact you did admit partial culpability, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your efforts are sincere.

As a rule, you can’t napalm, salt the earth behind you, and then call for cloture. But, as they say, “fool me once,” and all that, so I’ll lighten up on my own “cerebral-veto” in the interest of improved 3E/4E relations.


mwbeeler wrote:
I’ll lighten up on my own “cerebral-veto” in the interest of improved 3E/4E relations.

Relations? You mean there's going to be a cross-editional orgy?

How will we roll to see who goes first?

51 to 100 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / End the edition wars All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.