Quote from: Zak S;728347If somebody says or thinks their game is objectively better, you say you ignore the comment.

I ignore them, and encourage everybody else to do so, because that one crazy belief is evidence that the entire tree of everything they think is crazy.

One crazy belief is not sufficient to discredit every other thought and belief.  The fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies doesn't make anything else he had to say outside of the realm of the existence of fairies suspect.  The fact that Henry Ford was an anti-semite doesn't mean we shouldn't have followed his example with the assembly line.  So, if I discounted everything anyone said because they started with crazy, I'd be ignoring you now, not responding.  

 

Quote from: Zak S;728937Its not at all a question of etiquette. It's a question of facts.

"I fucking hate everyone I've ever met who fucking plays that fucking game" is not necessarily a lie or edition warring. It's reportage.

"If you like ____(1e, AD&D, 4e, Pathfinder, whatever)____ you're a retard" is a lie.

If you accept that the first statement is true, you should accept that the second statement would appear true to the person making it.  We will naturally extend our observations to people and objects sharing similar traits.  If a bramble thorn is sharp and hurts, I probably don't need to touch a rose throrn to figure out that it would be sharp and hurts.  If I meet 100 people that (still) play AD&D and they're all cat-piss men, until I meet one that doesn't, it wouldn't be illogical to assume that most are that way.  Obviously, any categorical statement is almost guaranteed to be wrong - there are always exceptions.  There are potential issues - it's very possible to make uniformed generalizations based on an insufficient sample size (all Indians walk in single file - at least, the one I saw did), but it's also possible that your generalizations are right often enough to make them useful.  For example, see assumptions that 99% of this board would make about you if you advocated for playing MAID.  

Usually in game discussions, there is a certain amount of shorthand that gets included in the conversation.  When someone is using THAC0, it's possible that they don't know how to convert it into an attack bonus or it's possible that they do and prefer not to.  But usually people say something like 'I like THAC0 because it is easier'.  In general, that statement is false.  For most people, subtracting negative numbers is not as simple as adding positive numbers.  When someone responds with 'BAB is BETTER' they're assuming the 'easy' already referenced is the goal.  Outside of mechanics that build 'mood', you can talk about what mechanics achieve in an objective way.  

But that doesn't necessarily make anyone an edition warrior.  That term gets thrown around here a lot, and usually without cause.

Quote from: talysman;728946This thread is about Player D -- assuming Player D is really a player at all -- who interrupts every thread with something that basically translates as "I WILL FIGHT YOU ALL!" A thread derailer. And my point was that, although there are some "Player Ds" who interrupt threads to say "THAT EDITION SUCKS!" there are many times more "Player Ds" who interrupt threads to say "I CALL YOU AN EDITION WARRIOR!"

And I see no difference between the two.

I'll spell it out again, a different way:

If Person X says something about a game, and Person Y accuses Person X of "edition warring", unless Person X is going around derailing discussions, Person Y is the bastard who should be shunned.

Don't be Person Y.

Exactly, compounded by the fact that the term gets used out of context.

Me: d20 Gamma World has some really broken rules, and abysmal art direction. But has some really neet ideas in it and a great DMG.
Nut: You filthy edition warrior!

Joe: I like 4th ed. AD&D doesnt appeal to me...
Nut: You filthy edition warrior!

ad nausium.

Swap "edition warrior" with "storygamer" and the same thing crops up to a lesser degree.

I think part of the problem is that the edition warrior or whatever fanatic of the week it is this time, tends to be frequently obnoxious and unreasonable. And this sets up a defensive reflex after a while in those who keep running into it. After a while they just give up trying to reason and tag anyone that looks like they are going to start in as an edition warrior.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729005Its the folks who do this regularly, loudly crapping on every thread and derailing discussions that get on my nerves (the folks who will endlessly debate minor side points in a discussion). I have no problem passing judgment on people who engage in that sort of behavior.

Exactly.  Not liking something is cool.  Making not liking something a part of your identity, and feeling the need to tell people that like it how bad it is, is just plan weird.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729005I agree though, you dont want to establish rigid rules that make expressing any negative or positive opinion about an edition an act of edition warring. I strongly dislike fourth edition and will gladly tell people why it doesnt feel like D&D to me.

Bolded part for emphasis.  The ability to express why you don't like a particular system is what elevates an opinion to being part of a discussion.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729005But i dont jump into threads where people are discusding their latest 4e campaign or discussing aspects of the system, to announce my dislike and prove that their latest campaign sucked.

Which is where 'edition warrior' mentality really comes into play, IMO.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;729026But usually people say something like 'I like THAC0 because it is easier'.  In general, that statement is false.  For most people, subtracting negative numbers is not as simple as adding positive numbers.

I think that in most cases, it's not a matter of addition vs. subtraction.  It's a simple matter of THAC0 being internalized.  If you look at the four stages of competence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence), someone that's been using THAC0 for years is probably at the 'unconscious competence' level with that mechanic.  They'd have to *think about* BAB, which moves them down to 'conscious competence', and that can be jarring.

Quote from: Omega;729045Exactly, compounded by the fact that the term gets used out of context.

Me: d20 Gamma World has some really broken rules, and abysmal art direction. But has some really neet ideas in it and a great DMG.
Nut: You filthy edition warrior!

Joe: I like 4th ed. AD&D doesnt appeal to me...
Nut: You filthy edition warrior!

ad nausium.

Swap "edition warrior" with "storygamer" and the same thing crops up to a lesser degree.

Yeah.  I find most 'edition warrior' behavior to be:

1) threadcrapping
2) erroneous statements
3) overly vague statements that add nothing to the conversation
4) ad-hominems against people that like that system

I find it hard to classify someone as an 'edition warrior' unless they're doing one of those four things.

Quote from: robiswrong;729048I think that in most cases, it's not a matter of addition vs. subtraction.  It's a simple matter of THAC0 being internalized.  If you look at the four stages of competence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence), someone that's been using THAC0 for years is probably at the 'unconscious competence' level with that mechanic.  They'd have to *think about* BAB, which moves them down to 'conscious competence', and that can be jarring.
.

Another factor is the player versus the gm experience of thac0. For players, it was common practice to chart out your thac0 ahead of the game. So the live experience of it often had little to do with mental calculations, you simply referenced the chart on your character sheet (later TSR character sheets often had such a tracker on them). So it was more like just looking at a table, which for some could be easier than adding the sometimes robust BAB bonuses with multiple attacks you had in 3E. On the other hand, if you were the GM, using Thac0 you still had to calculate for each monster.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729050Another factor is the player versus the gm experience of thac0. For players, it was common practice to chart out your thac0 ahead of the game. So the live experience of it often had little to do with mental calculations, you simply referenced the chart on your character sheet (later TSR character sheets often had such a tracker on them). So it was more like just looking at a table, which for some could be easier than adding the sometimes robust BAB bonuses with multiple attacks you had in 3E. On the other hand, if you were the GM, using Thac0 you still had to calculate for each monster.

This is why H&H has an optional THAC0 equivalent. It was just a way of removing a small step of the math, by calculating it ahead of time, so then you only needed to know the AC you were targeting.

I almost just removed the +X bonus tables altogether. They're basically there because 1) some people still liked them, and 2) makes cross-compatibility easier.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729050Another factor is the player versus the gm experience of thac0.

I also think that there's an inability to recognize that people like to play and run games differently, using different procedures, and that from that standpoint different tools fulfill different needs. For instance, taking the THAC0 example, different people juggle with numbers differently, to begin with. Some people are visually inclined and just prefer to look at a two-line chart, find the AC, look at the number and roll d20 to see if it beats the number, instead of adding and subtracting modifiers mentally. They have the THAC0 chart on their character sheet and *boom* done.

Others might not want to manage numbers at all, or a very limited number of them, and/or the referee wants that type of game where the numbers are kept on one side of the screen and not the other, and that's where the to-hit charts of 1e come into play - this is really effective with newbies to the game and 1st level characters, where modifiers from magic weapons or whatnot simply do not exist, and players can just roll d20 and announce their results, the referee determining whether that hits or not. It's part of the initial magic of the game for some people. For some veterans, it's preferable to not obsess on the numbers, to not know the exact AC of the monster, in order to concentrate on what's actually going on in the make believe. I personally like NOT to know the AC of a monster when I play. I'm one of those.

None of these things are objectively bad or wrong, nor are alternatives objectively better or worse. These elements form a particular, subjective context which explains particular preferences for to-hit tables, THAC0, or ascending ACs, depending on the procedures adopted, personal inclinations regarding math, ambiance and role playing, and how one wants to approach game play in general.

Quote from: Benoist;729060I also think that there's an inability to recognize that people like to play and run games differently, using different procedures, and that from that standpoint different tools fulfill different needs.

Well, that's the key, ain't it?  The quality of a mechanic can really only be determined in context of the individuals using it, and what they're looking for in their gaming.

On the subject of edition warriors, that's probably the *key* point that edition warriors (of any stripe) don't get.

JRT

QuoteActually, I believe you're wrong here. If you start off with a sentence like that, even if they can have a conversation, it really starts it off on the wrong foot. It's not just irrational arguments that cause problems, it's emotional ones.

Why?

Let's say someone is making a totally rational argument and using facts, they just happen to be impolite about it.

Everyone rational will understand that it makes sense, only irrational people will be diverted or confused by the emotion. So it's the opposite of a problem--it eliminates the stupid from the conversation.

QuoteOne crazy belief is not sufficient to discredit every other thought and belief. The fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle...

Ah but he was writing fiction, not discussing what rules to use to build a fun social experience among groups of people which, in the end, is what we do here. It requires the ability to accurately observe reality at your game table and respond to it in real time and to be able to accurately communicate true ideas to be used in real places by real people.  It is both practical and non-fictional.

Also: If he's crazy about fairies, then his craziness is mostly obviously a factor when you're near the subject of fairies. Edition warring is demonstrating irrationality not just near but in the very subject we discuss here: RPGs.

(ALSO: He comes to our attention because of his work--whereas the average RPG person comes to our attention because they're the next person who said something in the thread. The bar for testing their relevance should be higher.)

Quote"
Originally Posted by Zak S  View Post
Its not at all a question of etiquette. It's a question of facts.

"I fucking hate everyone I've ever met who fucking plays that fucking game" is not necessarily a lie or edition warring. It's reportage.

"If you like ____(1e, AD&D, 4e, Pathfinder, whatever)____ you're a retard" is a lie.
"
If you accept that the first statement is true, you should accept that the second statement would appear true to the person making it.

1. Incorrect: I know because I personally agree with the first statement and not the second. I'm not dumb enough to assume my experience is universal.

2. If the second statement "appears true" to the person they are extrapolating to thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people based on their small circle of acquaintance. This is called bigotry and is a very obvious mark of a dull mind. Even people who are at cons all day long have a sample hopelessly skewed toward people who get their gaming done at cons.

QuoteUsually in game discussions, there is a certain amount of shorthand that gets included in the conversation

And it is this very shorthand (people who use it to think with) that is largely responsible for the abject stupidity you hear daily in RPG conversation.

Quote from: Zak S;729073JRT
Let's say someone is making a totally rational argument and using facts, they just happen to be impolite about it.

Everyone rational will understand that it makes sense, only irrational people will be diverted or confused by the emotion. So it's the opposite of a problem--it eliminates the stupid from the conversation.

Because if people are put off by the rudeness of an individual, whether or not the person has a rational arguments is off-put by the impoliteness.  If you think people who dislike somebody who is rude or vulgar is their problem, you might not have the empathy required to understand why this may turn off people from listening to the argument.

Quote from: JRT;729074Because if people are put off by the rudeness of an individual, whether or not the person has a rational arguments is off-put by the impoliteness.

Then that person, in being "put off" has demonstrated their stupidity.

QuoteIf you think people who dislike somebody who is rude or vulgar is their problem

You can dislike them--but disliking their argument is all that matters. In the end, unless you meet them in real life (which 99% of the time you won't) they are usually a mere vessel for the information they communicate. An internet name connected to rational or irrational thought.

Quoteyou might not have the empathy required to understand why this may turn off people from listening to the argument.

I know why it turns them off. I just have no respect for the reason they are turned off.

The person making this judgment has, in a discussion of practical matters, let their emotions cloud their judgment. They are, therefore, useless if what you want is useful, meaningful ideas about what to do with 2-5 hours of your time every week.

Quote from: Zak S;729075I know why it turns them off. I just have no respect for the reason they are turned off.

They have, in a discussion of practical matters, let their emotions cloud their judgment. They are, therefore, useless if what you want is useful, meaningful ideas about what to do with 2-5 hours of your time every week.

Well, put it this way.  If both people have differences of opinions with you, but one is polite and respectful and doesn't treat games as "serious business", and the other person calls your camp names and uses profanity, and insults you even if they are correct--who would you rather hang around with, or have a debate with, or chat with.

I get that this forum is more or less conversation with the filters off, but for most people, how you present your argument is just as important as the argument itself.  And in part, when people complain about edition wars, that's part of the reason why they complain.

Quote from: JRT;729076Well, put it this way.  If both people have differences of opinions with you, but one is polite and respectful and doesn't treat games as "serious business", and the other person calls your camp names and uses profanity, and insults you even if they are correct--who would you rather hang around with, or have a debate with, or chat with.

If they say only true things and also say interesting things then they are both interesting and there is nothing to choose between them. If neither does, they are both boring and I save time by ignoring both of them.

I know why people make the terrible, stupid, decision of valuing politeness or their stupid feelings over sanity or useful game stuff but it just leads to endless timewasting bullshit. And it turns nasty and cliquish very fast, because as soon as someone in a community built that way is actually wrong in any way that matters then suddenly all the other polite people line up to defend their bullshit.

It's a bad long term strategy. It's a bad short term strategy. Presuming your goal is: log on to the internet, get things you can use in your game off of it, move on with your life. If your goal is just to find as many dorks as possible then, sure, ignore whether any of what they're saying makes sense.

Quote from: Zak S;729080I know why people make the terrible, stupid, decision of valuing politeness or their stupid feelings over sanity or useful game stuff but it just leads to endless timewasting bullshit. And it turns nasty and cliquish very fast, because as soon as someone in a community built that way is actually wrong in any way that matters then suddenly all the other polite people line up to defend their bullshit.

It's a bad long term strategy. It's a bad short term strategy. Presuming your goal is: log on to the internet, get things you can use in your game off of it, move on with your life. If your goal is just to find as many dorks as possible then, sure, ignore whether any of what they're saying makes sense.

Suffer fools gladly, and you surround yourself with fools.

Quote from: Benoist;728852There's also a heavy dose of irony in these types of discussions. The same people who will tell you that "game balance" is "objectively better game design" or who tell you that "ascending AC is objectively superior to descending AC because" are the same ones who will bitch at others for saying this or that is "objectively" superior to what they like. Sounds to me like some gamers need to take a healthy dose of their own medicine before ranting about "edition warriors".

Actually, I hate to break this to you, but ascending AC is objectively better than descending AC.

How can I make this outlandish claim? Well let's look at the bare minimum systems for resolving attacks:

Standard Procedure for determining basic hit or miss

1st Edition AD&D – Attack procedure (Descending AC)

Step 1 - DM cross references Player level with target's AC on the to-hit matrix to determine target number
Step 2 – Player Rolls die; adds/subtracts relevant modifier to result
Step 3 – DM compares total result to target number to determine success/failure of attack
Step 4 – If the attack is successful, player then rolls for damage against target

3rd Edition D&D – Attack Procedure (Ascending AC)

Step 1 – Player rolls die; adds/subtracts relevant modifiers to result
Step 2 – DM compares total result to target number to determine success/failure
Step 3 – If the attack is successful, player then rolls for damage against target

Now both of these systems are designed to do the exact same thing:

Input – Roll die; add modifiers
Output – Determine success/failure of attack

The difference is that one of these systems resolves the attack in 4 distinct operations, while the other does so in 3, with the extraneous operation adding no value to the process. Therefore the Ascending AC procedure is objectively more efficient.

Now even if we add in the extra stuff, like Armor Type vs. Weapon type in 1E, or Critical Hit Confirmation in 3E, there is still the question of intuitiveness:

If you roll 15 on a d20 and add 3, you know immediately whether or not you hit an AC of 16. The only thought process involved is 15+3=18>16.

If you roll a 15 on a d20 and add 3, it is not as immediately immediately apparent whether or not you hit an AC of 4.

I'm not arguing that 3E is a better all around game than 1E (for the record, 3E is my least favorite version of D&D), nor that you are wrong for preferring 1E. But this specific resolution mechanic in 3E is superior to the resolution mechanic in 1E because it achieves the same goal in a more efficient and intuitive way, which are the only ways to objectively measure a particular mechanic's value.

Also, I think that class balance is of the utmost importance in a class-based game because that is the whole point. That said, I find that class balance in TSR era D&D is perfectly fine in practice.

A 1E sheet with a thaco section is pretty much the same as 3E for calculating a hit.