It's an ironic gag, meant in jest, ... though I personally wouldn't wear it outside of my home in case it was taken the wrong way.Heh, I thought those t-shirts sounded hilarious, and in no sense disrespectful to Gary, and I've got one of my friends looking out for one for me as he's a volunteer at GenCon UK from today/tomorrow.
He's a 4e GM btw (presently struggling to find players), so ... see some of my best friends play 4e. :-)
Dude ... I get you really don't like 4E and like to bash on it. Whatever. But people who actually knew Gary were at Gencon, including some of his family.
I don't think its very cool to use someone's death to bash a game system you don't like. Seriously man.
Not cheery. :(
Rockheimr, if you wouldn't wear the shirt outside in public, why are you defending it here?
Perhaps the shirt was meant as a joke. That does not change the fact that it is in horrible taste and is seriously disrespectful to Gary so soon after his death.
Just because it's a joke does not mean everyone will find it to be funny. Humor is not always nice or respectful, it is in fact often rude and crude.
And if you would not feel comfortable wearing the shirt in public, then the joke is indeed crude and disrespectful, even if you consider it to be a funny joke. Jokes can be like that, both funny and disrespectful.
(For the record, I was not amused. Nor was the Queen.)
Basically, those who want discussion to stop are like wotc, in my opinion, treating gamers as though they were mindless sheep, expecting them to say nothing and just move along...
Well said Pax, thanks.
Well said Pax, thanks.Basically, those who want discussion to stop are like wotc, in my opinion, treating gamers as though they were mindless sheep, expecting them to say nothing and just move along...
Yeah! Let's all toss stones at the big old mean WotC! Yeah! Aren't we so cool![/sarcasm]
*yawn*
Well said Pax, thanks.Basically, those who want discussion to stop are like wotc, in my opinion, treating gamers as though they were mindless sheep, expecting them to say nothing and just move along...
agreed
Ah...so enough people asking a question makes it "valid?" That is some interesting logic you've got there.
i maybe wasn´t clear about what i wanted to say (english isn´t my native language).
What i meant is: The fact that people ask that question in the fist place is enough to discuss the question, regardless of the answer.So i don´t think it would be a good idea if the question wasn´t discussed any more.
Allow me to apologize; I didn't realize English isn't your native language, and consequently made some bad inferences.
As for whether the topic should be discussed...sure, if you think it is important, it should be. But I for one am getting tired of the same things coming up over and over (and over) again, especially when I would like Paizo's 4E forum to evolve into a place to discuss 4E itself and leave the edition wars behind. I don't generally go into the Pathfinder forum and post reasons why that games sucks...why do people who dislike 4E seem to feel a need to express that dislike here?
I agree to disagree.
Seriously, this 'my messageboard is better than your messageboard' argument is out-right nerdrage.
Or better yet, people who get offended when they read from a stranger from across the country 'I think 4E is better because BLAH BLAH BLAH' and then they get so angry that they feel like they have to argue back: '3.x (or anything other than 4E) is better because it is BLAH BLAH BLAH.'
The common poster is NOT going to sneak into your house and steal all of your gaming material nor will they buy out your rpg company of choice. If you feel that you have been 'slighted' then you really need to get a grip on reality. Step away from the computer. Talk to a person of the opposite sex who is not your family....think of SOMETHING to lower your nerdrage.
Like how drastically different the length of the necklace that holds the ring around Frodo's neck is from scene to scene in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Or how Picard was better than Kirk (unless you want the priceline negotiator).
I would love to see if someone's opinion was SOLELY changed or formed on which edition is better WITHOUT actually playing and/or reading through the book.
"I read it on-line....it has to be true!" I'm still waiting for my lottery winnings from Zambia.
Well said Pax, thanks.Basically, those who want discussion to stop are like wotc, in my opinion, treating gamers as though they were mindless sheep, expecting them to say nothing and just move along...
Yeah! Let's all toss stones at the big old mean WotC! Yeah! Aren't we so cool![/sarcasm]
*yawn*
WOTC is probably crying about it now.....and we keep trolling to keep things going...
Damn - now I'm guilty too!!!
NERDRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or how Picard was better than Kirk (unless you want the priceline negotiator).
Sisko was better than both. :P
Or how Picard was better than Kirk
Now you start a real faction war ;=) Everybody knows that Kirk was the best. Ah, and for the record Sisko was lame. Cheers.
Or how Picard was better than Kirk (unless you want the priceline negotiator).Sisko was better than both. :P
Bah! Sisko wasn't even a captain, that promotion crap later on was bogus.
|
Many of us view the behavior of wotc as lacking customer focus, having demonstrated very poor customer service, misleading expectations of the community, censoring their messageboards, killing dungeon and dragon print magazines, using non-disclosure forms, crafting a watertight GSL legal nightmare for 3PPs, hoarding intellectual property from the fantasy genre, crafting 4e to model Starwars Minis or WoW video game on paper, disregarding the tradition and shared history of 30+ years of the mileau and gamers.
...except that none of this has entered this discussion up to this point.
Mind you, I think WotC has a lot they need to be held accountable for. I specifically called them to task concerning the handling of the magazines, from initial promises, to final results. I discussed how badly they've handled the "4E is the new hotness, 3.5 is stupid and anyone who plays it is stupid" mindset expressed in the audio blogs and other commentaries. I've discussed on end the debacle over how certain things were all but promised by Scott/Linae in the pre-release of the GSL, only to find the snippets they've fed to the public were completely off base. I remain convinced that WotC is populated by some brilliant designers who are completely distanced from their core audience, and don't have the slightest amount of good business sense. Overall, I think their handling the release of 4E is ... EPIC FAIL.
Amusingly - so was my calling them to task. Not once did I ever get an official response, not even from a Wiz-O, generated next to no comment, and quite frankly, nothing has changed, no matter how lovingly-crafted my intellectual discourse was. However, I also never got banned, so I guess that was a good thing ...
I don't, however, equate that to either the game system itself, the "spirit of gaming", the "spirit of D&D" or anything else like that, just that, as a business, WotC sucks.
Right now, this is an EXCITING period to be gaming! You're seeing the opportunities exist for old core and new core to enjoy either or both settings for some time to come! If that isn't something to be excited about, I don't know what is! It's a GREAT time to be gaming, and it's a great time to game!
I'd rather share that enthusiasm and get about rolling dice.
It remains to be seen if it will happen with DnD.
If it happens - and it could happen to any commercial product, what good will it do to anyway ? Pathfinder and True20 are already out for those who don't like 4E, so you can still play the games you like, can't you ?
On the contrary, the 3.5 community is very much in a fight for it's life
I still DM 3.0, yes the .0 one, with my own house rules, and I didn't have the feeling my life was at stake. But thanks for the warning, mate, I'll reinforce the door ;=)
That means that DnD now has to compete against itself and that to my knowledge is new in the thirty years of gaming.
Sorry, as a 3.5-fanboy I have to say that Pathfinder is not D&D. And Paizo supports my view, the staff have quite often pointed out that it is not D&D, they don't want it to be D&D, it is PfRPG. Just as Conan is not D&D or any of the other 3.x derivates are not D&D.
DnD 4E seems to be very much like "New Coke" and I point out that this push and the GSL actually created the problem. There's only so far you can change a product before a critical significant minority no longer recognize it as the sucessor to that product. This did happen with New Coke (it was always a minority that rejected it). It remains to be seen if it will happen with DnD.
I don't think anyone claimed that New Coke was not actually Coke. It was just not their prefered version. They may have said things like, "This New Coke tastes like Pepsi." But I seriously doubt anyone claimed it wasn't actual a version of Coke.
More stuff that will fit here. ;-)
I guess I just don't see the drama. WOTC wanting (and encouraging) people to move to the newest edition of the game just doesn't seem like the stuff of a community fighting for its survival, so it strikes me as hyperbole.
I agree that the GSL as it stands is way overboard.
|
And if it were not for D&D then World of Warcraft would not exist. The fact that the riff of one another is a good thing IMHO.In defense of the op, you do have to call 4E D&D. Because you can get sued if you dont (read the GSL!)
On the other hand, maybe the only reason 1st Ed AD&D didn't look like 4E was because they didn't have World of Warcraft yet...
seriously, anything that gets kids away from a computer and interacting with live people can't be a bad thing. so what if 4e took some elements from WoW? i've never played WoW (or any other mmorpg, for that matter), so i have no basis to make an informed comparison, but if the 4e designers used some of the stuff from there as a hook to get new people interested, what's the big deal?
now, 4e isn't a game i'd like to run (too wrapped up in some older conventions), but i've played it a couple of times, and it is fun.
the hobby needs kids to get involved to survive, and if 4e gets them interested, that's a net positive. they'll progress like us old guys did: they'll play 4e, some will stick with that until 5e comes out, some will be lead to other games (pathfinder, WoD, true 20, just like we found runequest, traveller, shadowrun, etc...), but we'll have fresh blood, fresh perspectives and some really good players will find their way to our tables.
i don't see what the fuss is all about.
if WotC released a game you don't like, that is just a positive for a smaller publisher who now has a chance at your gaming dollar. and if you do like the new game, well, then you'll have a well supported (eventually, it's still too new to have a lot released for it), seemingly popular edition to enjoy new friendships and crazy adventures in.
my 2cp
Or how Picard was better than KirkNow you start a real faction war ;=) Everybody knows that Kirk was the best. Ah, and for the record Sisko was lame. Cheers.
Sisko lame?
Sisko's combination of being a thinking man and a man of action makes him more a complete man than either Kirk or Picard....thus Sisko is obviously superior to either Kirk or Picard.
|
|
Sisko lame?Sisko's combination of being a thinking man and a man of action makes him more a complete man than either Kirk or Picard....thus Sisko is obviously superior to either Kirk or Picard.
And he had that wicked beard! I mean, seriously, shaved head and beard - that was just too cool for school!
|
|
@CWM - When you say, "There is no rift here," I see you putting your head in the sand. You equate the rift with the kids at the con with t-shirts... that was tasteless, but not really what I'm talking about.
You apparently did not read my post. The rift is real but 4e is not the cause. 4e is a bunch of books and inanimate matter.
The rift is being caused by the people that have taken it on themselves to crusade against 4e. I have no idea why you guys do it. It make no sense at all.
Its just a friggin game. Don't play it if you don't like it.
You know what caused the rift? People posting crap like 4e killed Gygax, or 4e is for people with ADD, or 4e is for congenital idiots, or WotC is evil, and on and on and on.
If you want to get pissed off at something why not get pissed off about something that actually matters like social injustice, racism, poverty, etc. Those really do kill people.
You are complaining because someone changed a game on you. In the vast scope of human suffering that is the weakest excuse for moral outrage ever.
|
|
agreed
Well said Pax, thanks.Basically, those who want discussion to stop are like wotc, in my opinion, treating gamers as though they were mindless sheep, expecting them to say nothing and just move along...
No, bash away at each other all you want. Sometimes I get excited and wade in too.
Of course, the most productive thing you can do is set up games at your FLGS and teach newbs all about your favorite edition. That grows the hobby and supports your product.
However, most of the discussions we have on this topic just don't end well.
|
|
So which version of the GSL have you read?
That's a really good point.
Enough said.
Another good point.
However anyone might feel about 4th edition, it certainly bears little resemblance to anything called 'D&D', prior to 4e itself.
AD&D was quite a change from earlier forms. 3rd edition was quite a change again from AD&D '2.5'. But 4th edition has very little in common, system-wise. That, and most of the flavour (cosmology, etc.) has been altered fairly radically as well.
Unfortunately, many of the changes, system-wise and flavour-wise, seem to have been made for the sake of distancing 4e from D&D, quite deliberately, to ensure that all new material must be bought, and nothing older can be used with much ease. And, most likely if much of the fluff and crunch is anything to go by, to _attempt to_ lure the MMO crowd - as the OP surmised, actually.
It's an interesting RPG. Not one I like on any level though, and certainly not D&D.
@CWM - When you say, "There is no rift here," I see you putting your head in the sand. You equate the rift with the kids at the con with t-shirts... that was tasteless, but not really what I'm talking about.You apparently did not read my post. The rift is real but 4e is not the cause. 4e is a bunch of books and inanimate matter.
The rift is being caused by the people that have taken it on themselves to crusade against 4e. I have no idea why you guys do it. It make no sense at all.
Its just a friggin game. Don't play it if you don't like it.
You know what caused the rift? People posting crap like 4e killed Gygax, or 4e is for people with ADD, or 4e is for congenital idiots, or WotC is evil, and on and on and on.
If you want to get pissed off at something why not get pissed off about something that actually matters like social injustice, racism, poverty, etc. Those really do kill people.
You are complaining because someone changed a game on you. In the vast scope of human suffering that is the weakest excuse for moral outrage ever.
Ahem .. couldn't one respond to this as follows;
It's just a game. Play it if you like it, ignore what someone else says about it online, why get p'd off about what others say about it online? I have no idea why guys like you crusade online in favour of the game, it's only a game after all. Just ignore the nay-sayers and game on.
Oh or, people posting stuff like '3e is thoroughly broken', or jumping up and down on the head of anyone who voices the slightest qualm about 4e, are causing the rift.
Bottom line, the fervour of many 4e fans (and I would include yourself in that bracket personally) against many perfectly polite and reasonable negative reviews imo is what really perpetuated and made this Edition War the mother of all battles.
I see very, very few 'perfectly polite and reasonable negative reviews', particularly here. I see far more insulting, fallacious ones.
Very true. You want to see an extremely pathetic example of this. Look at the comments about the Wizards of the Coast Logo Watch. See the bile being spewed about a watch, A WATCH! If people feel the need to attack a company over a watch, how much more irrational are their comments going to get about the actual products of the company.
|
I have been reading the boards for a while now, and I've finally decided that this is worth posting. I'm tired of seeing, "4th Edition is not Dungeons & Dragons." Fortunately or unfortunately, it is. For those who think it isn't, obviously you don't like the direction it took, but there are some facts you have acknowledge, even if you don't like it.
There is a Dungeons & Dragons logo on it. Inside the books you will find iconic races, classes, and monsters. No, they're not quite the same as you remember them or want them to be, but you can't really change the fact they are in there and you can't change the fact it *is* Dungeons & Dragons. The rules are significantly different than before. But then the rules were just as significantly changed from the red box to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. They were changed in 2nd Edition. They were overhauled for 3rd. And they were overhauled again for 4th.
Yes, Pathfinder, and several other books out there using the SRD, their own rule sets, and the OGL also have iconic races, classes, and monsters. However, no matter how you look at it, there is no logo on them. WotC made 3.0 and 3.5 and no one is currently saying it is not D&D. But they have the rights to the name and the logo, and no matter how much you may dislike it, 4th Edition is Dungeons & Dragons for the foreseeable future.
The biggest complaint I've read is that 4th is a video game on paper. That's not a good assessment. It has the feel of an MMO in some regards, but let's keep something in mind here. The up and coming generation of gamers, and even some old veterans, play games like that. What's a good way to attract a new base? Have something similar. Personally, I think the change is for the better. Everyone has different powers and abilities, but I love the sense of balance I get from the game. Everyone has a fixed number of abilities they can use. So do the monsters. It all plays nice, and you don't have the huge list of abilities that over time simply won't be used.
But the biggest point I can make...
Arovyn. Thank you for brining up this question of weather 4.0 is D&D or not D&D. I think that do make some very valid points. Some of your points I happen to agree with, and others I do not agree with.
First I will tackle the points where I happen to disagree with you. While yes there has been significant changes from the red box, through 1.0 AD&D to 2.0 D&D to 3.0 and 3.5 D&D. In my opinion there has been a much more profound jump between the rule of 3.5 and 4.0. As I look through the editions, I can clearly see the evolution, of rules, classes etc between one edition and another. I have not been able to trace such evolution between 3.5 and 4.0. In my opinion there is very little to compare between 3.5 and 4.0. The math is different.Now one of the things you say that you like about the new game" is that everyone has a fixed number of abilities that they can use. So do the monsters. "It all plays nice, and you don't have the huge list of abilities that over time simply wont be used." I suppose this is a point where I fundamentally disagree with you. I dislike that everyone has the same fixed number of abilities they can use. In my opinion now since everything seems to be based off of the 10+1/2 character level + ability modifier, and since everyone has the same fixed number of abilities, the only thing to differentiate one class from another, besides hit dice, is some artwork, and a different spell list. Excuse me ability list. I like that the character classes are different. I like the variation one finds in 3.5.
Another point where I differ is the simplification of monster abilities. I prefer the long list of abilities. As an example let’s compare the special abilities of the incarnation of the ogre mage in 4.0 to the incarnation of the ogre mage in 3.5.
In 4.0 the ogre mage has freezing blast (recharge on 6 of a d6), lighting storm (recharge on 5,6 of d6), deceptive veil (at will disguise itself to appear as any medium or large humanoid) and invisibility (standard at will-ogre mage invisible until attacks)
In 3.5 the ogre mage has these special abilities at will: Fly, Darkness, Invisibility. 1/day charm person (DC 14), Cone of cold (DC 18), gaseous form, polymorph, Sleep (DC 14)
Now arguably in combat with a group of PCs, the 3.5 ogre mage probably will not use his charm person and sleep abilities, but these suite of abilities make the monster an excellent mastermind monster. With the polymorph, charm person the ogre mage can effectively insinuate itself into all sorts of places, and for infiltration, the gaseous form, invisibility, flight, makes the ogre mage very mobile, and able to get into and out of many places. Would put for that these "useless" abilities have uses beyond combat with the PCS.
I will admit the 4.0 ogre mages abilities are clearly presented and simple to use. They are abilities that make the creature more effective in combat. And yes the at will invisibility and deceptive veil, will aid it in impersonation and infiltration.
As for the ease of play, I played 1 a week for about 2 1/2 months. I began playing with the release of the keep on the shadow fell. I played a cleric, and I also DMed. I did not find the 4.0 game any easier to run compared to the 3.5. Perhaps this is due to the 4.0 rules set being unfamiliar as opposed to the 3.5 rules set being very familiar.
I will agree that 4.0 Is D&D. You have a valid point; WoTC who owns the Intellectual property can do what they want with it. I don't object to the company trying to turn a profit. As to the statement 4.0 isn’t D&D, I will clarify, in my opinion 4.0 feels and plays like a new game, and most of the familiar touch stones I was familiar with grew up with and liked have been discarded, so it does not "feel " like the game I grew up with.
I will put forth that there are two D&D games now, a 4.0 version and a 3.5+ pathfinder version.
I think there is enough room in the sand box for us both to play the version of the D&D game we prefer and there is no need to disparage the other.
As for 4.0 being a MMO on paper, I don't have a comment or opinion on it. I have never played a MMO or World of Warcraft. I have played Starcraft and warcraf III which I thoroughly enjoyed. So I have no experience with which to make a comparison.
I happen to agree with you, It is a good idea to bring more people into the hobby, and if they cam be lured in by something they are familiar with great.
"But the biggest point I can make about it is this: It is not the rules or their presentation that make a game fun. The players and the DMs are what make the game fun. The feel of a game is only partially in the rules. The rest is what you choose to make of it. You don't need a specific set of rules to make a game fun, nor do you need a logo. Stop saying that 4th Edition is not Dungeons & Dragons. But by all means, don't let me stop you from saying, "4th Edition doesn't feel like the Dungeons & Dragons I want to play."
I happen to agree with everything you said in this paragraph. Well said.
While we may disagree on the version of D&D we prefer I do happen to agree that “it is not the rules or their presentation that makes a game fun” . I will accept that 4.0 is D&D, just not the version I prefer.
I hope my post has not been too long winded. There are points where we both agree and disagree. Good luck.
While we may disagree on the version of D&D we prefer I do happen to agree that “it is not the rules or their presentation that makes a game fun” . I will accept that 4.0 is D&D, just not the version I prefer.
This is a good point from both of you. Just look at a just one version of D&D. How many different types of groups are there. Some are kick in the door, some are all talk and no action, most are somewhere in between. How can we get such wide ranges when people are using the same rule set? Because the rules don't dictate how a group plays, but the people themselves do. If people don't roleplay while playing 4e, that is the players' fault not the system's. Heck you could take a game like HeroQuest and roleplay in that if you wanted to and that was a board game.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Did you miss the perpetual clause that restricted the OGL even after the GSL terminated?
Nope. And that still has nothing to do with whether the GSL can stop people who are not using the GSL from using the OGL. It doesn't matter what the GSL says - it can't restrict your ability to use the OGL unless you choose to use the GSL.
Look, it's plain to most that the GSL is trying to use the commerical power of the DnD trademark to force the OGL into oblivion and several people within Wotc have at least implied the same (by saying the OGL was a big mistake or the like). I don't see how a reasonable person reads the GSL any other way. [Yes many features in the GSL are standard for most IP contracts, but game systems contracts are different because IP holders for game systems have fewer rights than other sorts of IPs since game rules can not be copyrighted.]
Because the OGL is unrevocable. That's the way it reads. The GSL doesn't change that unless you agree to abide by its terms.
If anyone does NOT think the GSL is a flat out attempt to commercially revoke the OGL, I'd suggest they wake up and smell the proverbial coffee.
Uh...it's not. It can't do any such thing as a matter of law. You only lose your rights to use the OGL if you agree to the terms of the GSL. If you don't agree to the terms of the GSL, you can use the OGL for as long as you please. That's the way the licenses work. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm confused. Are we discussing facts or intent? Because someone should give Paizo the memo that they're failing spectacularly by not using the GSL.
When I jumped on this particular bus, the comment seemed to be "the GSL is driving OGL games out of the market and destroying the OGL community." That's not true as a matter of law (the GSL can't drive the OGL games out of the market) or as a matter of fact (Paizo seems to be doing quite well). Whatever the intent of WotC may be, the facts are that OGL gaming is alive, well, and will almost certainly continue to thrive. OGL gaming is not some dying creature, hanging around at death's door waiting for a reasonable (or for that matter, functional) GSL.
Maybe I misunderstood where the bus was going. If it's only stop is "the GSL is worthless and fails to do what the OGL did so well" I couldn't agree more and will sit back to take in the scenery. If, however, the bus is continuing on to the land of "OMG! OGL gaming is dying because no company can survive unless they publish 4e compatible products", I think there is some confusion as to the existence of such a place and someone should alert the bus driver.
You also have Wotc employees openly lamblasting the OGL for it's very irrevocable nature, and you had at one time both Linnae (when she worked for Wotc) and Scott Rouse both quite openly attack on one infamous thread those that were unhappy with the GSL. There is no reason...And again, if you're going to make these accusations, please support them by citing your sources.
Or, in otherwords, links or it didn't happen.
eh No link but it was enworld I do believe since after there rant on just be glad you have a GSL and be quite I really stopped caring about anything they said.
believe it or not I don't care enuff to comb thought 40 pages to find it.But they did pretty much start getting short with folks over flaws and such in the GSL.
And me liking or not liking 4e has nothing to do with what was said.
Bottom line, the fervour of many 4e fans (and I would include yourself in that bracket personally) against many perfectly polite and reasonable negative reviews imo is what really perpetuated and made this Edition War the mother of all battles.
Let me get this straight.
Your position is that you should, of course, feel free to come to the 4E forum and trash the game and the real problem is that those that actually like the game insist on defending it.
Basically at the core of the Edition War is the refusal of the 4E crowd to just smile and suck it up.
News flash for you - if I go to the Pathfinder forums and start crapping on the game I'm going to get mobbed, and I won't be scratching my head wondering why I'm being mobbed nor be making statements along the lines that those that are excited by Pathfinder are some how wrong in defending the game on their forum.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Bottom line, the fervour of many 4e fans (and I would include yourself in that bracket personally) against many perfectly polite and reasonable negative reviews imo is what really perpetuated and made this Edition War the mother of all battles.Let me get this straight.
Your position is that you should, of course, feel free to come to the 4E forum and trash the game and the real problem is that those that actually like the game insist on defending it.
Basically at the core of the Edition War is the refusal of the 4E crowd to just smile and suck it up.
News flash for you - if I go to the Pathfinder forums and start crapping on the game I'm going to get mobbed, and I won't be scratching my head wondering why I'm being mobbed nor be making statements along the lines that those that are excited by Pathfinder are some how wrong in defending the game on their forum.
Wow. I missed that comment the first time around. My god, that's a stupid thing to say. That's like saying the problem with conservatives/liberals is that they refuse to accept what liberals/conservatives believe as the truth.
I think the problem is that people who don't like 4e have made many rude, ignorant, and ill-informed comments, which is what has perpetuated this Edition War.*
*I don't really think that. In fact, I think it's one of the dumbest things anyone has ever posted in the history of D&D on the internet. Well, except for maybe saying that the cause of the Edition Wars is 4e over-reaction to "polite and reasonable negative reviews of the game." That's even dumber for having been said and believed to be the truth.