# What's really at stake in the Edition Wars



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 22, 2010)

Hi, all.

Before I begin, I'd like to stress that I do *not* want to fan any edition wars flames.

One of my friends lured me into a panel for my university's English Grad Student Conference (I'm at Virginia Tech). The panel is on gaming, and my particular talk is on the rhetoric surrounding the Edition Wars, specifically  addressing what is at stake for the participants. I'm mostly arguing from an ontological basis, that is, the rules determine and implicitly argue for ways of being in a game world. I'll also be talking about how the rules affect the "means of production" in terms of creative control of a shared narrative/imaginary universe.

I know these discussions don't get so heated based solely on these reasons, and that's why I'm asking you for your opinions. I'd like to use fodder from this thread to let the community represent itself rather than having me talk for you.

So...

...for you, what's really at stake?

(The next post is a copy of the abstract.)


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 22, 2010)

What's in an Edition? The Stakes of the Dungeons and Dragons Edition Wars

Table-top roleplaying games began in the 1970's and became particularly prevalent in the 1980's. In particular, Dungeons & Dragons has been the standard for the roleplaying game industry. Since its inception in 1974, Dungeons & Dragons has gone through a number of iterations. Because each of these iterations introduces and revises the rules of previous editions, they do what Bolter and Grusin refer to as “remediation”--that is, each medium works to bring a more authentic experience of reality than that which preceded it. Bolter and Grusin characterize the development of media as an oscillation between immediacy and hypermediacy and between transparency and opacity: “Although each medium promises to reform its predecessors by offering a more immediate or authentic experience, the promise of reform inevitably leads us to become aware of the new medium as a medium” (20). As these editions have progressed, fans have become more aware of the role the rules play in moderating their experience in an imaginary world.

The rules in these games are particularly important because they provide a stabilizing influence and act as a sort of “social contract” between the players and referee. Further, they structure the experience of gameplay itself, acting as a sort of ontology for the game world. Subsequently, each iteration argues for certain normative assumptions about not only they ways in which players interact with their imagined environment, but about the nature of that environment itself.

The latest (4th) edition of D&D has thus engendered a number of discussions on the internet regarding these issues. The rhetoric that surrounds an edition change is limited not only to the rules themselves, but the way the new edition is marketed and how players and fans react to the change. In this talk, I describe the game and examples of its changes to argue that the reason discussions between fans/players become so heated about edition changes is not due to quibbles about rules; rather they are tied to issues regarding creative control, the means of production over a shared narrative, and how sense is made in both the game and real worlds.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 22, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> ...for you, what's really at stake?




My sanity.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2010)

- Being right on the internet
- Honor and Glory of playing "the real" D&D or "a real roleplaying game" instead of "merely" a MMORPG in tabletop form or a miniatures wargame
- Not being considered merely "nostalgic" or unable or unwilling to move with the times, not being outdated.
- Not ending up with no one to play because everyone hates your edition, not being left out or behind.
- Not being turned into a consumer slave by corporations that are only in for the money.
- Not being just seen as a consumer slave with no own opinions or decision-making capability.
- Being among the cool guys and the in-crowd. 
- Ensuring that your opinion is heard and that games you like instead of games you dislike are being supported and created.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> - Being right on the internet
> - Honor and Glory of playing "the real" D&D or "a real roleplaying game" instead of "merely" a MMORPG in tabletop form or a miniatures wargame
> - Not being considered merely "nostalgic" or unable or unwilling to move with the times, not being outdated.
> - Not ending up with no one to play because everyone hates your edition, not being left out or behind.
> ...





This....with the caveat that, even by posting on the InterWeb, you know you will _*never*_ be "right".


----------



## ggroy (Feb 22, 2010)

For some individuals, there is one simple reason:  ego.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 22, 2010)

I would say that for sopme people, Edition wars are less about showing that your point of view is right, and more about proving the other point of view wrong.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 22, 2010)

What's at stake is the future of a person's favorite hobby or at least their continued participation in that hobby.  For the most part you can continue to play whatever edition you'd like as long as you have access to the rulebooks, enough other people to play with, and enough free time.  However, if you love 3.5 and only 3.5 and your regular 3.5 group breaks up because people move away or some want to play 4E or Pathfinder instead, you may have a problem on your  hands.  It's pretty hard to get players, or rulebooks for the players, if the rules for that edition are out of print and no future support will be given to that edition.  So most likey you will have to play an edition that you don't particularly like or not play at all.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 22, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> In this talk, I describe the game and examples of its changes to argue that the reason discussions between fans/players become so heated about edition changes is not due to quibbles about rules; rather they are tied to issues regarding creative control, the means of production over a shared narrative, and how sense is made in both the game and real worlds.




Hr.  The problem I have is that I don't think your thesis here is correct.  In my mind, as someone who has been trying to moderate the conflicts, the reasons the discussions get heated has little to do with the content of the game, the means of production, or the like.

What is/was at stake?  Well, consider - for there to be a stake, there must be something you can win, and something you can lose.  In the discussions on this board, there was... nothing to be won, and nothing concerning the game to be lost.  There was no reason to believe that discussion with random parties on the internet would have any measurable impact on the development of the game.  

So, the question then becomes - why would a person get into a heated argument with (and lash out at) people who have no real influence on how the world around them is changing?  Answer that, and you'll know the real reason for the Edition Wars.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 22, 2010)

For me...honest discussion. I have no stake in what another gamer likes to play, but please don't use your dislike of any edition of any game to ascribe attributes to a game that are reached through ignorance, applied through malice, or are purely your opinion as if they were facts. I will defend any game against un-truths and have been dragged into too many editions wars because I can't back away.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 22, 2010)

Understanding, truth, fact.

Bullgrit


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 22, 2010)

Nothing is at stake, because the so-called edition wars actively involve only about a dozen people.


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Hr.  The problem I have is that I don't think your thesis here is correct.  In my mind, as someone who has been trying to moderate the conflicts, the reasons the discussions get heated has little to do with the content of the game.
> 
> What is/was at stake?  Well, consider - for there to be a stake, there must be something you can win, and something you can lose.  In the discussions on this board, there was... nothing to be won, and nothing concerning the game to be lost.  There was no reason to believe that discussion with random parties on the internet would have any measurable impact on the development of the game.
> 
> So, the question then becomes - why would a person get into a heated argument with (and lash out at) people who have no real influence on how the world around them is changing?  Answer that, and you'll know the real reason for the Edition Wars.




Hi, Umbran.

Thanks for your response! I think as a moderator you certainly have an insight into the arguing that I lack, but I disagree with your assertion about "measurable impact on the development of the game." Does internet talk directly affect it? Well, no, of course not. However, I think that enough of that talk (not its most egregious instances, to be sure) helps to create the conditions for change, even if it isn't necessarily going to affect the official iterations of the game (I'm thinking of the OSR, for example).

As for the winning and losing, I think that's a valuable way to look at it, and I think I'm going to consider it more. What do you all of you think? Is there something to be won or lost? I know it's easy to say "everybody loses" in these squabbles (and I'm certainly not inclined to disagree). I guess what I'm asking is "what specifically is intrinsic to D&D (or rpgs in general, if you like) that leads to this particular form of interaction.

Thanks!

Dan

P.S. Umbran, can I PM you to see about getting a gander at some of the more egregious instances to use as examples? If not, I understand. Thanks!


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 22, 2010)

As a fan of older editions, I could care less that someone likes the newest edition.  4e has not in any way cut into my enjoyment of the game, because it hasn't made it impossible for me to play the edition I like, or to find others who like the same edition that I do.

So anyone who wants to claim that 4e is better for them, godspeed.  I would only mix it up with someone if they took the position that 4e is a better version of the game, period.

To me, the thing that make TTRPGs great is their looseness, their variety, the feeling that anything can happen, and as a participant, you can do anything you can think up.  Their inclusivity, if you will.

And anyone who claims ownership of the game enough to claim that their preferred version is the right one, or any_thing_ that seeks to dismantle that inclusive spirit--well, that gets my goat.

Because the game doesn't belong to any one.  Its all of ours.




(Now, I'm not claiming that my feelings on this subject are correct, or even rational.  But thats how I feel about it.  And yes, I know that WotC owns the brand--thats not what I'm talking about.)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 22, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> Because the game doesn't belong to any one.  Its all of ours.




"You must spread some Experience around..."

Well said.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2010)

ggroy said:


> For some individuals, there is one simple reason:  ego.






mudbunny said:


> I would say that for sopme people, Edition wars are less about showing that your point of view is right, and more about proving the other point of view wrong.




There is definitely some truth to this sort of answer, but I would caution you to avoid them.  Specifically, this sort of answer is used to render the speaker's statments moot -- one ascribes the motive, and then one can dismiss the content.

"Reader bias" is a very large part of any Internet discussion, IMHO and IME.  No matter how well-meaning one is, it is impossible to always avoid reading someone else's words on the basis of "If *I* wrote that, _*this*_ would be the intended subtext" and responding to that perceived subtext.

A better rule of thumb might be:  People get hot under the collar when they believe they -- or something they love -- is being attacked.  In the rush to defend and counter-attack, rationality often goes out the window.  Even in the most well-meaning, if the attack comes close to the heart.  The faceless nature of Internet communication probably makes this worse, both because of "reader bias" and because people feel comfortably typing things they probably wouldn't say in person.

Add to this that you have people sitting on the sidelines, on other forums, dropping by to "stir up the pot" (troll).

Add to this that 4th Edition seems to offer some indications that WotC listens to Internet chatter, and takes it into account when making decisions.  If this is true....or if it even _*seems to be true*_.....then it becomes a "smart" thing to petition for what you want in 5th Edition now.  After all, the reasoning goes, when you were _*less*_ vocal, the vocal guys got what they wanted in 4th Edition.  From what I am told, revised skill challenges seem to have paid attention to the boards.

Finally -- and this gets drowned out a lot in the more general bickering -- the advent of 4th Edition generated some amazing discussion of what the game should look like in the future, and how it has been played by various groups in the past and present.  

WotC opened up the discussion with "Here is problem X; we propose solution Y", which allowed folks to discuss what they believe are the root causes for X, and how Y will actually affect those root causes.

I don't know about other people, but those discussions were very valuable to *me*.


RC


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Feb 22, 2010)

Personally, I think "edition warriors" just like to argue.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> "You must spread some Experience around..."
> 
> Well said.




I was going to cover you, but, sadly, I also must spread some XP around.  

RC


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 22, 2010)

A very interesting question, and I'd love to see your findings in the end.

In my opinion an important distinction is WHICH edition war? The 2e versus 3e saw a change in publishers but much of the game remained the same. The 3e to 4e changes remained with the same publisher but QUITE a few sacred cows were changed...and "sacred cows" may minimize how much these features mattered to people. For me, Vancian spellcasting was not a cow...it was prime rib, baby.

Similarly, if we're exclusively talking about the 3e to 4e edition war, I personally prefer 3e over 4e, but have no war against it. It makes me sad that third party publishers dried up along with most of the support for 3e...but I'm glad Pathfinder provides for the edition (more or less).

However, when 4e was released I had MANY gripes against WotC. (These included, but are not limited to: the dungeon and dragon magazines which were quite poor when originally released, and were not even monthly; the promises made and not kept - at least until forced- such as releasing 4e versions of 3e books like Elder Evils; their general interaction with customers; the GSL release including the late date and poor original GSL; and so on). I was frequently characterized as hating 4e without that being the case. Just a heads' up that this might be worth parsing out...the change of the direction of the company at the same time as the edition conflates some of the emotion and reasoning. For example, one thing I don't like about 4e that I loved about 3e is robust third party support. I HATE WotC adventures for BOTH editions. But for 4e there are few and far between 3pp adventures compared to 3e.... So, you might say that a drawback of 4e is that the adventures aren't as good. But that's only true from a situational/business standpoint, and not from the standpoint of the game itself. I love the Open Design adventures for 4e, for example.



That out of the way, in terms of edition wars, my overall stake is:

* I would like to promote an edition I prefer over one I do not with the hopes that elements of that edition are carried forward as the game continues to evolve.

* The degree of change. I personally don't think 4e and 3e play as if they are the same game. I think this was intentional on the part of the WotC developers. I think some prefer one, and some prefer the other, but I haven't yet met someone who thinks they're "essentially the same, but with a few tweaks". I'd argue that "essentially the same, but with a few tweaks" might be true for 2nd edition to 3rd edition. They've completely revamped the game, and, as such, have begun catering to a new set of people. If you change checkers so much that it becomes chess, different people will want to play. 

*...Which leads to some of the more philosophic questions you want to ask. Is it the same game? (To some, yes...to others, no.) What defines "Dungeons and Dragons"? Is Pathfinder D&D? Castles and Crusades? What can be changed and what can't and how do we define it? Similar to Agammemmon's ship...how many old boards can you replace with new boards and still have the same ship...and what if you take the old boards and build a separate ship with THEM (similar to the games mentioned).

*These questions lead to "issues" when talking with other gamers. 4e has been out for quite some time, but (no joke, this really happened) yesterday I went to the carwash with D&D books in my car and the guy there noticed. "A fellow D&D player?" he asked. "Yes, 3rd edition, I answered." This is something new for me compared to the switch from 2nd to 3rd. I'd say "yep" without mentioning edition then. Again, the degree of change here has been so large that, at least to me, it feels like playing a different game. It is no longer sufficient for me to say I play D&D, or if I were invited to a random game, I'd want to know which edition to set my expectations (though I'd be no more likely to play one than the other, assuming I wanted to join the group).

*In my opinion, there could become an element of philosophic dishonesty if a game is changed to such a degree that it is no longer recognized. It's re-defining an identity, and in the case of D&D this may be an identity that is a subset of the gamer's own identity. I'm not necessarily claiming this is objectively true from the changes of 3e to 4e (it is for me subjectively). However, if D&D morphed in 5th edition to, say minis with microchips in them, and they fought each other with audio outputs (all the dice and rules are pre-established for you! No need for math or rolling!!!). It would not be the same game as in the late 70s. There comes a point (that is different for different people....and this itself leads to the edition wars...where 4e isn't D&D for me, it might very well be D&D to someone else) when a game is changed so much that it is no longer the same as when it started. For others this change may have been 2e to 3e. 

*In the end, I conceptualize it as Agammemnon's ship. There is no clear answer as to what "is" or "isn't" the ship. For each person there are emotional and logical preconceptions and rules that define where such breaking points fall. This is especially true when the changes are "better" to some people or "worse" to others. I wonder if I liked 4e more than 3e if I might be more charitable in conceptualizing them as "The same game". Similarly, if I was less irritated at WotC, I wonder if my overall perspective on 4e would be different. It's my opinion that the edition wars are very individualized and personal for each individual, and that you'll rarely see people, even people on the same "side" of the wars agreeing, as, in the end, it all comes down to the personal relationship you have with the game.

EDIT: AH, it's been a while. Not Agammemnon's ship. Theseus's ship. D'OH!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_and_change#The_Ship_of_Theseus

*If someone took the gearshift off my first car (an 86 Toyota Celica), put in in a Porsche, and told me it was my first car, I'd sure as heck want to drive it. If someone did the same thing with a rusty 72 Fiat....well, I wouldn't want to drive it. It'd be a lot easier getting me to call the Porshe "my first car" than the Fiat. BUT 4e isn't better than 3e...and it isn't worse. It's better to some and worse to others. For some it's don't call that fiat my trusty, beloved Celica! And for others it's "Dude, I'm driving a porshe...This totally brings back the fun memories of doing donughts in my school parking lot. Maybe I'll do one for old times sake."


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 22, 2010)

Wow. Thanks to everyone for the prompt replies. In the next day or so, I'll be responding to individual entries to ask you to expand on some of what you've mentioned.

I really appreciate the responses and the community!


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 22, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> In this talk, I describe the game and examples of its changes to argue that the reason discussions between fans/players become so heated about edition changes is not due to quibbles about rules; rather they are tied to issues regarding creative control, the means of production over a shared narrative, and how sense is made in both the game and real worlds.



I disagree with this premise.  Most of the edition wars I looked at very much were about specifics of the rules.

I think that your premise proposes a false dichotomy anyway... those things that you say it's about instead of rules?  Those are all products of the rules.

Perhaps it's a chicken/egg scenario: does creative control come first and players demand rules that give them the creative experience to which they're accustomed?  Or do the rules come first, and people react badly to rules that they don't like?  I certainly saw plenty of each.

I think it comes down to simply human dislike of change, personally.


MrGrenadine said:


> 4e has not in any way cut into my enjoyment of the game, because it hasn't made it impossible for me to play the edition I like, or to find others who like the same edition that I do.



I'd be careful with that argument though.  That may be true for you, but certainly for people who are on the lookout for groups, it _can_ be materially more difficult to find players of out of print games, or even simply "obsolete" games.


> And anyone who claims ownership of the game enough to claim that their preferred version is the right one, or any_thing_ that seeks to dismantle that inclusive spirit--well, that gets my goat.
> 
> Because the game doesn't belong to any one.  Its all of ours.



"The game" isn't yours, mine, or all of ours.  _My_ game belongs to me and my group.  _Your_ game belongs to you and your group.  _The_ game doesn't belong to anyone.  

I don't put a lot of trust in discussions of the "D&D community" and its relationship with the game, because fundamentally the only unit that has a significant interaction with "the game" is "the group".  And on that level, each group's interaction with the game can be intensely personal, and their iteration of the game could very well be significantly "proprietary", depending on how they play it and what modifications they've made to it.

EDIT: That said, those individuals seem to have the least to lose in an edition change.  If they've got a version of the game that they really like, and a group that they're already playing with, then I'm not sure why it should matter so much to them what the rest of the world is doing, and if editions come and go.  Certainly that's what happened with our group; we glanced at 4e, weren't really all that interested in it (from a purely rules perspective) and said, "who cares, let's keep playing what we're already playing?" and that's exactly what we've done.  Then again, I've more played the part of "bemused spectactor" rather than "edition warrior."

I think the only way you can find out what edition warriors really are thinking is to talk specifically to edition warriors, not merely observers of edition wars.  Several edition warriors I've seen are, for example, RPGA players, or otherwise play with on-the-fly groups in gaming stores, rather than with more firmly established groups of pre-existing friends.  So, to them, what goes on in the greater gaming environment is important, whereas to me, it's just something about which I'm academically curious.


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 22, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I disagree with this premise.  Most of the edition wars I looked at very much were about specifics of the rules.
> 
> I think that your premise proposes a false dichotomy anyway... those things that you say it's about instead of rules?  Those are all products of the rules.
> 
> ...


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 22, 2010)

Hmm.

There is a _real _edition war: WotC trying to get people to buy the current edition, and then various sources of resistance to that, for a range of reasons. 

Then there is the "I like it...don't like it" war. These are linked, and the second should not be totally dismissed for the first. 

Something _is_ different this time: there does seems to be a real split in the community. To speculate, it may be the combination of starker changes, less time since the last round (3.5), and the OGL given more in-print alternatives. And of course the ubiquity of the internet itself.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 22, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> However, I think that enough of that talk (not its most egregious instances, to be sure) helps to create the conditions for change, even if it isn't necessarily going to affect the official iterations of the game (I'm thinking of the OSR, for example).




Before you make such an assertion, check your timelines.

The "Old School Reference and Index Compilation" (OSRIC) was first released in 2006.  I don't know the detail, but the development of it must have begun well before the release.  Meanwhile, 4th Edition D&D was announced in August 2007 - thus, OSRIC was in motion well before the Edition Wars.  It is hard to see how the motivations behind creating it and it's overall form would depend on heated discussions that would not happen for a year or two after its release.  

If you were going to make such an argument, you need to instead point at things that came out after the release of 4e, such that their creation could have been informed by the Edition Wars.  So, you might argue that the Edition Warriors were working to influence the creation of something like Pathfinder.



> P.S. Umbran, can I PM you to see about getting a gander at some of the more egregious instances to use as examples? If not, I understand. Thanks!




You can always PM the moderators to discuss things.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 22, 2010)

Looking at some of the above, one key point is that we are still talking about editions of the same game, and those editions still have more in common with each other (levels, classes, races, fight monsters for stuff, general "gamist" approach...) then D&D does with many other RPGs. 

But there is an old saying about small stakes and big fights...


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 22, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> And of course the ubiquity of the internet itself.



Actually, I think that can't be overstated as a factor.

But to understand edition wars, I think you've somehow got to build the profile of a "typical" edition warrior, and I don't know if you can get that from observation of edition wars.

Edition warriors certainly feel that _something's_ at stake, unless they're just people arguing because they like to argue (which, perhaps, can't be underestimated as motivation either, for that matter.)  I, for example, didn't really have anything at stake.  But lets envision another scenario: my group is really enthused about 4e and wants to migrate over to it.  I don't want to.  Could be that I don't like the rules.  Could be simply that I don't want to spend the money all over again when I don't feel like I've sufficiently "amortized" the cost of 3.5 yet.  It could be that I feel personally snubbed by Mike Mearls and don't want to support "his" edition.  Could be any reason, really.  But the bottom line is, I don't really have a horse in the race unless, for some reason, I feel like it's going to be more difficult for me to find the game I want to play in the future, or that I'm going to forced to choose the lesser of two evils: 1) break up with a group that I otherwise like playing with, or 2) play a game that I don't like as much as what we're already playing.


----------



## knifie_sp00nie (Feb 22, 2010)

Ahh, college. The privilege to navel-gaze and over complicate things for just thousands of dollars a year. How long have you been on this here internet thing?

Your error is looking at the edition war as an isolated thing. It's one of countless "Tastes great! Less filling!" wars that happen every second of every day online, and previously in bars or the Water Buffalo's Lodge.

The DnD edition war is no different than any of these other great wars:

Mac vs. PC
Coke vs. Pepsi
Nikon vs. Canon
Edward vs. Jacob
my religion vs. your religion
Ford vs. Chevy
John Deere vs. Bobcat
Nike vs. Reebok
Democrat vs. Republican
Craftsman vs. Snap-On
sports team vs. other sports team
Beatles vs. Rolling Stones

Get the point? If the internet was united in love for an edition of DnD there would still be endless arguments about this class vs. that class. In fact those wars exist as well for every edition. 

The edition war is an outgrowth of human nature. Humans enjoy arguing about everything and a subset of them enjoy being s about it.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Feb 22, 2010)

I believe it's personal pride, mainly. The following four things in particular spring to mind. Please note the following is based only on my own thinking and opinion, and isn't meant to describe anyone in particular.

*Pride in Belonging
*This is the warm feeling one tends to get when one is a part of something "greater" than oneself. A new edition can fracture this feeling in a person who's uncertain where the "greatness" will lie: with the stalwart old or with the shiny new. Because, as humans, we tend to hate to feel like outcasts, we sometimes respond by reflexively trying to cast out those who don't agree with us.

*Pride in Correctness*
This is how I would generalize one's desire to be adjudged "Right" and "Correct" when stating one's opinion. People that like it when other people agree with them tend to seek that agreement, even when stating their opinions (with the aim being to validate the opinion as being the "Right" or "Correct" one). While we as humans often respond better to emotion than to logic, we also like having the certainty that comes with logic, so some people will seek to "prove" that what they feel is "right" is also "true."

*Pride in Exclusivity*
On the flip side, there are people who enjoy feeling that they're part of a small and very exclusive club. I would characterize the main difference here as being the size of the "in crowd." If (whatever is perceived as) the majority opinion can be proven "wrong," then the contrasting opinions of (what is perceived as) the small minority become "right" by default. People striving for exclusivity sometimes go so far as to adopt a "noble crusader" attitude.

*Pride in Authority*
More than simply being right, some people desire to teach. Teaching by showing others the error of their ways is not exactly a form of teaching I'd recommend, but it can still result in people suddenly coming around to the "correct" mode of thinking. This change of heart in others is sometimes sought by people with strongly held opinions, even when the subject matter is inextricably tied up in opinion.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> So, the question then becomes - why would a person get into a heated argument with (and lash out at) people who have no real influence on how the world around them is changing?  Answer that, and you'll know the real reason for the Edition Wars.



I think Umbran is wise.

My participation in Edition Wars threads has been fairly muted.  To the extent that I've participated, there are two reasons, one secondary and one primary.

The secondary reason is that I'm a bright guy, with going on three decades of gaming experience, and I think my opinion is worth putting out there.

The primary reason, though, is gonna sound odd: it's grief.  I mourned the game that I feel left me behind, and I was angry and sad that I was left behind.  I expressed that anger and sadness in poorly chosen ways.  Honestly, I count myself lucky that I recognized what I was feeling so early in the time-line, because knowing what was going on really helped me quite a bit in toning down any lashing out.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Before you make such an assertion, check your timelines.
> 
> The "Old School Reference and Index Compilation" (OSRIC) was first released in 2006.  I don't know the detail, but the development of it must have begun well before the release.  Meanwhile, 4th Edition D&D was announced in August 2007 - thus, OSRIC was in motion well before the Edition Wars.  It is hard to see how the motivations behind creating it and it's overall form would depend on heated discussions that would not happen for a year or two after its release.
> 
> If you were going to make such an argument, you need to instead point at things that came out after the release of 4e, such that their creation could have been informed by the Edition Wars.  So, you might argue that the Edition Warriors were working to influence the creation of something like Pathfinder.



OSRIC was indeed out before 4e was announced, but that's completely different from saying that the OSR _movement_ online had gathered a lot of steam and a high profile.  That timing becomes a bit trickier, and it becomes more difficult to separate the announcement of 4e as a possible contributing variable.  I heard about OSRIC for _at least_ a year before I heard of the OSR acronym and discovered that there was an online "movement" associated with OSR, including other retroclones, new publications, a fairly active blogosphere, etc.

Although I obviously can't prove it, I suspect strongly that the migration to 4e by WotC greatly spurred the OSR movement like a shot of anabolic steroids.  You're right that it can't be a cause of the movement existing at all, but I don't think anyone can claim that it wasn't a contributing factor to the growth of the movement into what it is today; people who were dissatisfied with the direction 4e was taking (according to previews of the edition) were turned off and went looking for something else, finding the OSR and realizing that their tastes really were along those lines all along after all, etc..  The question becomes one of degree, and how much did it contribute, but in my opinion, it's _not_ a question of did it contribute.  I think the answer to that is definitely "yes."


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 22, 2010)

Knifiespoonie and Terradave bring up another interesting point...yes people will always quibble about small things, or large things, or really anything. 

However, I'd also propose that the degree to which such a change (and of these...Chevy versus Ford, etc) matters is entirely dependent upon _investment._ 

Investment, as I'm using it, can mean multiple things:
*Investment in terms of dollars spent (how many 3e books does one own).

*Investment in terms of how many dollars one even HAS relative to those spent (If uber rich, you might not miss $3,000 spend on out-of-edition D&D books).

*Investment in terms of career and perhaps career dreams (paid and unpaid, and realistic and unrealistic). E.G. If I write for 3e and don't like 4e, that's a big hit (or moderate ENworld and no longer like the current edition). If I even (however unrealistically) think I'll write for D&D in the future and the rules change to something new that I don't like/understand/feel I can't write for...then that's a blow.


And now the MORE important investments:

*Investment in D&D as _time_ spent. D&D involves building up a character and story over many, many sessions...sometimes over years or even decades. To lose that investment, is to lose quite a bit.

*Investment in D&D as _emotion_ spent. Maybe I love a specific character who "just wouldn't be the same" in a different edition. Maybe I love the ruleset for something it achieves that the new set doesn't (gamist versus simulationist rulesets for example). Maybe it IS just familiarity. Familiar is comfortable and a comfortable fun activity isn't often somethine people want to leave behind. Here, I'm thinking of "The Little Prince" where, and I may get this wrong, the prince comes to love a friend (maybe a fox?). It is just a fox (just as my dog is just a dog). However, the time spent and shared experiences create an emotional bond that makes that fox (my dog) _special_. Depending on people's experiences, a ruleset, a specific character, a campaign, or even a group (where some people want a given game and others don't) can become special. That's a lot of emotional investment to give up.


In the end, I wonder if people who state that "edition warriors" are just arguing about small things had as much "invested" as did the "Edition warriors" themselves. I don't deny there are some who like to "stir the pot" as trolls...or just like to argue. But, as you've astutely pointed out, there is something a bit more about D&D than, say, pepsi versus coke. I think to many who come back to these kinds of discussions again and again, they do not consider these to be small things.






Edit to add:
If you're looking for some particularly egregious instances, just go back to the locked threads here...especially those after the announcement of 4e and the release of 4e. Also, go to the WOTC forums. At the bottom of the page they (used to or may still) have the forum for the transition of the editions. 

It might be particularly interesting data for you to read through these two time periods (the anticipatory change and then the actual release and reaction).


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 22, 2010)

knifie_sp00nie said:


> Your error is looking at the edition war as an isolated thing. It's one of countless "Tastes great! Less filling!" wars that happen every second of every day online, and previously in bars or the Water Buffalo's Lodge.
> 
> The DnD edition war is no different than any of these other great wars:
> 
> ...




This, a hundred times this. It's about self-validating a choice or (more often) an investment you _already _made, and to *defend *it in the face of countervailing factors (usually) brought up by people who've made a contrary investment. 'Contrary investment' here means having committed oneself to an alternative choice from a limited but _jointly exhaustive_ range of options, all of them _mutually exclusive_. See, you only ever get one PC or only ever play one RPG at campaign length _at any one point_. 

Now, *the higher the investment* - in both cost and time (time spent on both the product itself and on having defended it online on previous occasions) - *the higher the fierceness of the defense*. *(*Per exemplum, the fiercest defenders of 4E are LFR regulars high up in the administration chain, and among the worst people 'defending' Pathfinder RPG are people who dedicate 80% of their waking life to a website called paizo.com. Frankly, if it turns out for them that the game of their choice is utter trash they are up for the unpleasant realization that they've wasted a pretty substantial part of their life.*)*

And oh, the 'opposite party' is usually _in the exact same position_, except reversed. Which explains that the exchange can only escalate from here on as both sides heighten their investment in their own stakes. Which as stated, consists in self-validating their choices and de-validating others'.

There are the feeble sideliners who suggest that one's person choice need not be another's. Good point. Unfortunately, totally irrelevant. The whole question from the get go for anyone into _self_-validation isn't about someone _else's_ choices, and how could it. Self-validation only ever cares for a choice _you _made, and casts a nagging doubt on whether _you _made the right choice to begin with, or whether you sank all that money, time, and effort into an inferior product.

The only way to liberate oneself from this madness is to _not _engage in self-validation - and simply enjoy what you've got. Self-validation is a downhill slope, so you better not push yourself over the edge in the first place. So frankly, who cares if _Revenge of the Giants_ and the new _Realms Campaign Guide_ are utter trash written by third rate hacks (as I believe they are) when I'm having a jolly good time with my players running either of them (as I do)?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 22, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Although I obviously can't prove it, I suspect strongly that the migration to 4e by WotC greatly spurred the OSR movement like a shot of anabolic steroids.




Quite possibly.  However, the migration to 4e and the Edition Wars are by no means the same thing. 

Given the thesis in the OP, it seems to me the question would be: were people engaging in Edition Wars - taking on highly aggressive and even vitriolic stances - _to try to drive creation_ of things like the OSR?  Were such publications one of the stakes in the war?

I, personally, am not willing to attribute that kind of malice of forethought to the people involved.  Do not attribute to a cunning plan that which can be explained by people behaving badly.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 22, 2010)

Some of it _really is_ just XBox vs. PS2 / XBox 360 vs. PS3 / Intel vs. AMD / ATI vs. nVidia / sports team X vs. sports team Y / sect vs. sect, etc., etc. . . all over again.

Or, in other words, very bored individuals with (apparently) nothing better to do at the time. Not the most profound or compelling of 'motives', but there you go. 

Otherwise, it's often simply gamers putting across their point of view (e.g., likes, dislikes, beliefs) in a manner considered inappropriate, according to the rules or guidelines of a particular site, and/or according to the perspective of one or more moderators at that moment.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 22, 2010)

I THINK, if I read you correctly, I agree with you Windjammer...to a point. You've well said some of the points I was more feebly trying to address.

However, I'm not sure about your characterization or minimization of people with the term "self validation".


What, exactly, are people "self validating?" Here I mean...ok, we both agree that an older edition had people of varying levels of investment. If I read you right, you seem to be claiming that the self validation occurs when people need to prove that their edition is somehow objectively better? 

I guess I'm not sure how to read you. Don't take that as a strawman...it was conjecture, I'll admit. What exactly do you mean by "self validating"? 

I mean, it's not like people are validating whether or not it was a good choice to buy a house in a given market...it's about fun and emotion...I equate editions more to friendships than stock markets....it's about enjoyment, not winning or "making a SMART investment".


Not sure what ya mean. Can you explain a bit more please?


----------



## darjr (Feb 22, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Although I obviously can't prove it, I suspect strongly that the migration to 4e by WotC greatly spurred the OSR movement like a shot of anabolic steroids.  You're right that it can't be a cause of the movement existing at all, but I don't think anyone can claim that it wasn't a contributing factor to the growth of the movement into what it is today; people who were dissatisfied with the direction 4e was taking (according to previews of the edition) were turned off and went looking for something else, finding the OSR and realizing that their tastes really were along those lines all along after all, etc..  The question becomes one of degree, and how much did it contribute, but in my opinion, it's _not_ a question of did it contribute.  I think the answer to that is definitely "yes."




First, I agree, and believe, that the large majority of those turning to old school D&D because of 4e were dissatisfied with 4e but there are those of us that play and enjoy 4e that also play and enjoy old school D&D. I know there a more than just a few of us who saw some of what they liked in the older games in 4e. I know because of all the waring that ensued around that kind of statement.

4e and the edition change got me interested in old school D&D again, because I liked 4e not in spite of it.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 22, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> <snip>
> Or, in other words, very bored individuals with (apparently) nothing better to do at the time. Not the most profound or compelling of 'motives', but there you go.
> 
> Otherwise, it's often simply gamers putting across their point of view (e.g., likes, dislikes, beliefs) in a manner considered inappropriate <snip)




I don't get the impression of "boredom" from edition wars posts....I usually see "passion".

Are we to assume that all "edition warring" is inappropriate? Maybe it's polite disagreement when editions are discussed, but when the flames start burnin' the trolls, it's "edition warring"? I wasn't using the term this way, but it does seem that this is a negative label that might equate to this.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 22, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I don't get the impression of "boredom" from edition wars posts....I usually see "passion".
> 
> Are we to assume that all "edition warring" is inappropriate? Maybe it's polite disagreement when editions are discussed, but when the flames start burnin' the trolls, it's "edition warring"? I wasn't using the term this way, but it does seem that this is a negative label that might equate to this.



Really? As a rule, I tend to get the impression that there's more 'passion' in your average medical drama. (See? Taste in TV shows is not immune! )

But anyway, I thought edition warring was indeed a Bad Thing, yes. It's generally mentioned, when it's mentioned at all, in that light. Well, to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## resistor (Feb 22, 2010)

I think Marius raised from very good points when he said it all boils down to pride.  I'm doing to take a related tack and say it all boils down to *identity*.

We're not just talking about a hobby, we're talking about something that people sink vast amounts of time, money, and emotion into.  It's practically a subculture.  And because of this, people _identify_ themselves as being D&D (or tabletop RPG, to be more general) players.  The statement _"I am a D&D player."_ is a strong statement about the kinds of cultural activities one enjoys, the kinds of people one is likely to be friends with, and the kinds of shared cultural background one has.

For people whose personal identity is heavily based on that statement, changing the definition of D&D is very threatening.  If they don't like the new edition, they're suddenly no longer D&D players, and lose that strong statement of identity.  _"I'm a D&D play who doesn't play D&D."_ doesn't have the same strong identity.  Ergo, they fight tooth and nail against the changed definition, under the subconscious belief that, if they can win everyone back to their definition, they'll be back in the group again.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 22, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> I guess what I'm asking is "what specifically is intrinsic to D&D (or rpgs in general, if you like) that leads to this particular form of interaction.



1. Nothing.  You can find the same interaction in other settings.  Boardgamegeek.com, for example, doesn't have edition wars because boardgames generally do not have editions.  But that site does have wars between excited fans of new games, and curmudgeons angered that something new is more popular than whatever old thing they prefer.

2. I think the fundamental error your thesis is making is in the assumption that edition wars are in any way honest.  Its verboten on this forum to suggest that specific people are liars.  But they are.  Edition wars occur in significant part because some people derive pleasure from angering other people by telling lies designed to incense them.  If forum moderators deleted every edition war post that included statements known to be factually wrong, or as-of-yet unprovable statements of alleged fact that the speaker has no particular reason to believe, half the content from the announcement of 4e to its release would vanish.


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 22, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> If I read you right, you seem to be claiming that the self validation occurs when people need to prove that their edition is somehow objectively better?




That's the surface level at which such debates are usually conducted, yes. It's not the proximate cause of whipping people into debate, though. Ironically, we aren't even talking about the time people invest into _playing _their game of choice - but about the time people have intested in _defending it online on previous occasions_. 

Does that sound recursive? Because it absolutely is. Look at the *post count* of some of the usual suspects.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 22, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Does that sound recursive? Because it absolutely is. Look at the *post count* of some of the usual suspects.



Nyet.

Some of the most toxic of all have had either a post count of 1, or something rather close to that.

And then, there's Crothian.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Feb 22, 2010)

I think it's a group identification thing. When a new edition reflects my tastes and desires, I feel like I'm part of the group. If sales figures for that edition are strong, I feel good because lots of people share my values; if the new edition wins awards, I feel like it's a validation of who I am. Contrariwise, if the new edition doesn't fit my preferences I feel shut out, and relish sales figures that imply that a retroclone of my preferred old edition is doing well, or that the new edition that usurped it is doing poorly.

Mind you, this is crazy talk, but it's not different than other kinds of fan identification (Mets fans feel bad when their team loses) and I'm not immune to it


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 22, 2010)

I think Windjammer sums it up very nicely. It's got nothing to do with D&D per se and everything to do with the human urge to draw lines in the sand and defend them to the death. Edition changes are just the excuse. It's like that Emo Philips joke:



> I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"
> "Why shouldn't I?" he said.
> "Well, there's so much to live for!"
> "Like what?"
> ...



Human beings like to claim their territory, then pick a fight with the guy in the next territory over. And the more you've fought for your territory in the past, the harder you'll fight for it in the future, because your brain figures, "If I've put so much into this, it must be valuable, so I can't afford to back down."

The Internet just provides a new venue, and I have to say I'd rather wage edition war on the Internet than holy war in real life.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 22, 2010)

*Wow*

You know, I have a very hard time with assigning malicious intent to anyone arguing about the 4E/Pathfinder split.  

4E made radical changes to the game, and was accompanied by some very heavy handed corporate manuevering that damaged a lot of smaller d20 companies who created good products.  I think it's understandable to be passionate about either of these things if you think they were bad outcomes.  

Of course, I'm one of those people.  And for the record, if Pathfinder came about because the Paizo folks looked at these boards and concluded that there were enough unhappy people to support an alternative to 4E, well that would thrill me.

Ken


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 22, 2010)

The 3.x/4E "edition war" is unique because it's more than just gamers.

Publishers (such as Paizo) have taken sides/made choices as well.  Also, because of the OGL, there are now even more versions of D&D being actively supported than at any other time.

From one point of view, it's not only 3.x vs. 4E, it's *every other OGL variant or edition of D&D* vs. 4E.

And more are on the way!  Goodman - a 4E supporter - is now (reportedly) going to release *their* version of D&D in an RPG.  Reportedly a hybrid of 3.5 and 1E.

There is so much divisiveness over 4E it's no wonder that there are edition wars....


----------



## billd91 (Feb 22, 2010)

resistor said:


> I think Marius raised from very good points when he said it all boils down to pride.  I'm doing to take a related tack and say it all boils down to *identity*.




Tied up in all of this with pride and identity, and exacerbating the edition wars, is a countering dismissive attitude which tends to inflame the wounded pride and assaulted identity. Whether the dismissives are right in that people shouldn't be getting so worked up about a game or not, the dismissal is counter-productive in quelling the dispute even if the sentiment is sincere. It may even be particularly galling to the one side when the dismissal comes from someone who seems to have identified with the other side (though they may not have even consciously done it).


----------



## rogueattorney (Feb 22, 2010)

Hobo said:


> OSRIC was indeed out before 4e was announced, but that's completely different from saying that the OSR _movement_ online had gathered a lot of steam and a high profile.  That timing becomes a bit trickier, and it becomes more difficult to separate the announcement of 4e as a possible contributing variable.  I heard about OSRIC for _at least_ a year before I heard of the OSR acronym and discovered that there was an online "movement" associated with OSR, including other retroclones, new publications, a fairly active blogosphere, etc.
> 
> Although I obviously can't prove it, I suspect strongly that the migration to 4e by WotC greatly spurred the OSR movement like a shot of anabolic steroids.  You're right that it can't be a cause of the movement existing at all, but I don't think anyone can claim that it wasn't a contributing factor to the growth of the movement into what it is today; people who were dissatisfied with the direction 4e was taking (according to previews of the edition) were turned off and went looking for something else, finding the OSR and realizing that their tastes really were along those lines all along after all, etc..  The question becomes one of degree, and how much did it contribute, but in my opinion, it's _not_ a question of did it contribute.  I think the answer to that is definitely "yes."




As much as 4e may have spurred others to look into the OSR, the creation of the OSR had already happened before 4e was announced.  OSRIC was published and had more than 30 products for it before 4e's publication date.
Encounter Critical, Mazes & Minotaurs, Labyrinth Lord, Mutant Future, BFRPG, Swords & Wizardry, and Fight On! magazine all preceded 4e's release.

There were kind of two waves.  First, with 3e, there was an upsurge in interest in D&D, particularly "old school" D&D.  In 2000, WotC was going "back to the dungeon" and Necro was offering "3rd edition rules and 1st edition feel."  Hackmaster followed in 2001, and in the first half of the decade, you saw a lot of attempts to latch on to some "old school cred" ("fishing for grognards" is what I called it): the Judges Guild products, the Blackmoor products, Goodman's DCC, and really, culminating with Troll Lord's Castles & Crusades.  All were by professional game designers and all were using "updated" rules to present "old school" settings/scenarios.

At the exact same time, the Internet was becoming a much larger part of everyone's lives, and people were using it more and more for things they hadn't done before.  One of those things was D&D.  Simultaneously with the creation and growth of places like EnWorld and WotC's site, sites for disenfranchised D&D fans began to pop up.  Dragonsfoot became the most prominent, but there were also places like the Guild of OD&D, the Vault of Pandius, and even WotC's own OOP board that were all popping up around 2002.  These places became the breeding ground of the 2nd wave.

The 2nd wave was largely made up of consumers within the "disenfranchised" online D&D community who weren't satisfied with the professional attempts to produce "old school" products and who decided to do it themselves.  Using the OGL to reproduce O(A)D&D had been floated as an idea on Dragonsfoot as early as 2003.  When Troll Lords announced its project later that year, a lot of members of the community participated in the play testing.  When C&C came out in 2004, to be diplomatic, there were some who were disappointed in the end result.  This led to OSRIC and the retro-clone movement.  This sort of mingled and intertwined with the more D&D friendly members of the indie-rpg movement of the first half of the decade to become the fan/hobbyist produced movement of blogs and fanzines that is the OSR. 

Thus, in a lot of ways it was complete happenstance that the OSR was really hitting full stride when 4e was released.


----------



## Anselyn (Feb 22, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> Because the game doesn't belong to any one.  Its all of ours.




This is approaching where my thoughts lie on this.  BTW - This post is not about the details of the edition war - it's about the fuel stoking the fire.

The geek/nerd social identity is not defined by what you wear or what you  believe - it's defined by what you do. So - we're all "gamers".  The dominant RPG is D&D [1] and so, yes, sharing D&D is a strong shared currency of interaction. However, the individual experience of the relationship with the game, which itself is of course very immersive, makes the game a strong part of self identity.[2]  So, I think if you attack/change/challenge my game then I can take this very personally. You are attacking me.

If you consider this in terms of "Geek Social Fallacies"http://http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html, we see that #1 is "Ostracizers are Evil". I think that while the fall out of "Edition Wars" is seldom real ostracism - this may be its emotional resonance in some cases.

[1] I haven't played D&D for 19 years - so I have been spectating on the edition discussions with interest. I've never played a 3.0/3.5 game. However, it has lead to me acquiring views that aren't important here.
[2] Thinking about this, I realise I think of myself as a "Traveller player" rather than a D&Der as this was the game I really got into having found RPGs via D&D.  In practice, only a few % of my game time over recent years has actually been with Traveller but that hadn't shifted this internal calibration.

Note: other Identity posts came in while I was trying to craft this post - apologies for apparent repetition.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 22, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> But anyway, I thought edition warring was indeed a Bad Thing, yes. It's generally mentioned, when it's mentioned at all, in that light. Well, to the best of my knowledge.



Not to me.  I think the prevailing opinion 'round here is unusual in that regard, and has more to do with the moderators and the posting climate in general.  Edition wars don't _have_ to be bad.


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 22, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> And more are on the way!  Goodman - a 4E supporter - is now (reportedly) going to release *their* version of D&D in an RPG.  Reportedly a hybrid of 3.5 and 1E.




THANKS! That's absolutely great to know. I loved the simplified 3.5. char' sheets Goodman did for his Dungeon Crawl Classics.* Always wanted a 'lite' version of 3.5. without changing system (too much, anyway), so here's hoping that's what he's been up to.

* And yes, I'm aware that he also did a couple of 1E DCCs, so in a sense, I'm not utterly surprised by the news.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 22, 2010)

rogueattorney said:


> Thus, in a lot of ways it was complete happenstance that the OSR was really hitting full stride when 4e was released.



That's only true if you assume that the direction late 3.5 was going, the rumors that were thick at the time of later 3.5 and Star Wars SAGA products as "dry runs" for a new edition, and then the announcement of 4e itself with its attendant previews, wasn't a strong contributor to that feeling of disenfranchisement. 

Like I said, I can't prove that, but I don't believe that for a minute.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 22, 2010)

> the reason discussions between fans/players become so heated about edition changes is not due to quibbles about rules; rather they are tied to issues regarding creative control, the means of production over a shared narrative, and how sense is made in both the game and real worlds.




I know it is very fashionable on the internet to fight the battle of "who can care less," to argue that everything basically boils down to personal ego and guys who take things too seriously, to characterize any discussion as heated "wars," to condescend, and act above it all...

...but I think yer onto something. 

Discussions about the changes editions bring (whether or not you want to use the term "Edition Wars," with its negative connotations, to describe all of these, or just the subset of them that become overly passionate) are, I'd agree, about what it means to make the game _your own_.

It's not a problem unique to D&D, but I think in D&D it is especially distinct, because the game encourages you, from the get-go, to make the game your own. The DM and the players all come up with their own world, characters, and adventures, and this fosters a powerful sense of ownership over the game. You don't just see the rule as a rule, you are invested in the rule, it becomes a cornerstone of your world, or your characters, a cause of a lot of the fun you've had in adventures.

And then someone comes down "from on high" and tells you that the rule, and hundreds of other rules, were no good, were wrong, were in need of revision.

And it becomes very easy to get defensive about it, for a lot of players. For them, this isn't The D&D Game, this is _my personal_ D&D game, that people who don't know me, who don't know my table, are suddenly telling me, is not good enough to continue to support.

It feels like outside interference of the worst sort. 

For me personally, the only thing really at stake in any edition discussion is the principles behind certain rule choices, and how they reflect the game that I personally want to play. For instance, I am a fan of the earlier editions' choice to have the dungeon be the basic challenge in play, and I am not so much a fan of the recent editions' choice to have the encounter be the basic challenge in play. I like to get at the actual cause and effect of certain rules choices, to see what they were meant to achieve, what they do achieve, and which ones I would like to use in my own games. 

Edition discussions, especially heated ones, reflect much more than the personality defects of those who participate in them. I think that dismissing the "edition wars" as the work of trolls and fanboys is disingenuous. 

It's a little like telling a little girl who is upset over her dead puppy that the only reason she's upset is because she cares too much about some dumb animal. 

There's something different going on there.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 23, 2010)

Wanted to give you XP for:


"It's a little like telling a little girl who is upset over her dead puppy that the only reason she's upset is because she cares too much about some dumb animal. "


But! It appears I must spread some more love first.


Well said.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 23, 2010)

I actually enjoy debating a topic that is important enough to me that I care (my gaming hobby that I spend a lot of time on), but isn't something I care so much about that the debate stops being fun (for ex, politics).

It is just fun.

Of course, even though I'm often labeled a big time "edition warrior", people who have known me for the past near decade know that I don't argue with any more energy now than I did before I ever heard of 4E.  It is just that 4E is now the low hanging fruit.  

I'll still go at it just as strong over 3X issues, given a good platform.  Just ask Wulf Ratbane.  

So "nothing" is at stake.  I just say what I believe because I believe it and enjoy saying it.


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 23, 2010)

Personally, I think the Old School movement taking off like it did had more to do with our community's loss of Gary Gygax (and later Dave Arneson, as well as Judge's Guild's Bob Bledsaw) then it did the release of 4e. It was the end of an era, and for many (myself included) nostalgia is a way to hold on to those fond memories of our gaming past. Note I said "take off", not "cause" or "start", and not everyone is attracted to the old school movement because of nostalgia or nostalgia alone (some, in fact, never even "left" old school gaming). 

Just my 2 coppers.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Not to me.  I think the prevailing opinion 'round here is unusual in that regard, and has more to do with the moderators and the posting climate in general.  Edition wars don't _have_ to be bad.




Well, maybe we have a bit of a difference on what we are calling an "Edition War".  Amongst us moderating staff, it's edition warring when people step beyond mere debate and discussion about the edition, and move on to being hurtful to each other.  

It is fine and dandy to be passionate about a game, and the hobby.  Spirited debate is great.  It isn't fine at all to care more about your debate than the human being with whom you're debating - that's the point when the dialog ceases to have any constructive merit.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 23, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Personally, I think "edition warriors" just like to argue.




No they don't.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 23, 2010)

I think (and hope) that the OP is using "edition war" in the non pejorative sense...that is...."heated and sometimes angry debate about the editions, that may, and even often, become overblown"

as opposed to:

"edition war" in the sense of "nothing of sense is being said.....this is flames and pain and angst and vitriol and moderation on good sites...YUCK.


Because in the former, there's something to study. In the latter, it's rubbernecking at a car crash.




And I do realize that the OP wants examples of the horrors of the edition war................but I HOPE that these are to be introductory as to how bad it CAN be, along with the majority of the empahsis of his work presenting where the real crux of the issue rests....

...because the crux of an issue never lies at the edges...it's in the middle.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, maybe we have a bit of a difference on what we are calling an "Edition War".  Amongst us moderating staff, it's edition warring when people step beyond mere debate and discussion about the edition, and move on to being hurtful to each other.



Quite possibly.  I do think that edition wars are an unintended side effect of the way ENW is moderated, though.  

I mean, I know that ENW is what it is, and most of the time that's a _good_ thing, so I'm not trying to knock it.  But other forums that are more self-moderated in style tend to have little patience for the worst aspects of edition warriors, and tend to eliminate them (not literally!) through more naturalistic social cues.

I dunno; maybe I'm being naive, but in my experience, edition wars, and the reaction to them as well, are a specifically ENW phenomena.  Other places, they tend not to rage nearly as hotly nor as long, nor do they simmer in a "cold war" state like they do here.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo...

...ENworld is one of THE BEST moderated sites.

Check out WotC's site or RPG.net.

UGH!




This is T.A.M.E in terms of edition wars.



The moderators here do an excellent job compared to those at WotC...which is somewhat understandable...WotC's sorta have their hands tied (if they moderate substantially, they can be seen as shutting down the opposition to their product...and result in a backlash). Here it's about building a solid commuinity for reasonable expression.

I've been temporarily banned/suspended here.

I was a News guide on the WOTC forums (even when I hated them). Wotc has to put up with more hate, and hate speech. Here, there is a luxury of stopping that without the perception that "THEY'RE TRYING TO SHUT US UP CAUSE THEIR PRODUCT SUKKS!!!!!!"

Just saying....While I don't like wotc...and I've been tempo-banned here... Wotc's more gentle and ENworld's more firm...as they can be, as they should be, and I respect them both for those particular stances.


----------



## AngryMojo (Feb 23, 2010)

There's been quite a bit of mentioning of why the edition war happens, any of which or all may be correct, there's been a lot of insightful comments.  What about the second half though, what's at stake?
What worries me about the edition wars is what they've done to the hobby as a whole.  Some sort of edition war breaks out at just about every new edition of a game, look at World of Darkness, WFRP, even Shadowrun and you'll see this.  Most of us will just live and let live and not have a problem if people like a different game.  We are, after all, gamers.  The true problem lies when new blood enters the world, and without new blood the hobby will die.
Picture this; you're a new gamer in late 2008 who's interested in the hobby, so you decide to research a bit on the internet.  You find a giant cesspool of angry fighting with no real discussion that you can understand happening.  If you even post that you're new to the hobby and you'd like to know more about the game you're interested in, a fight breaks out over which edition to play.  Many people at this point would be turned off completely, and not look back for a long time, if they ever do.
In a hobby that already has enough negative stereotypes, throwing fuel on the fire by creating such an environment isn't any definition of good.  It's not something I lose much sleep over, because I know when the wars die down, new people come about and fall in love with the game just like I did when I was twelve, but it would be nice if we didn't have a year or two out of every eight where the environment was so darn hostile.
So, in my humble opinion, that's what's at stake with the edition war.  The entrance of new people to continue the hobby we all love.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 23, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> No they don't.



Yes they do!


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 23, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Yes they do!





I think SOMEONE is about to talk to the HAND...Because YOUR edition is clearly WORSE than MINE!!!!!!one11111!!1!


----------



## AngryMojo (Feb 23, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I think SOMEONE is about to talk to the HAND...Because YOUR edition is clearly WORSE than MINE!!!!!!one11111!!1!




Well, my edition is like rubber and your edition is like glue!!

Doody head!


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I think the only way you can find out what edition warriors really are thinking is to talk specifically to edition warriors, not merely observers of edition wars.  Several edition warriors I've seen are, for example, RPGA players, or otherwise play with on-the-fly groups in gaming stores, rather than with more firmly established groups of pre-existing friends.  So, to them, what goes on in the greater gaming environment is important, whereas to me, it's just something about which I'm academically curious.



Talk to me, then: I'm one, but I don't fit Hobo's profile at all.

I've been fighting the edition wars here at home for slightly under 10 years now.  I have a few long-time friends who are passionate in their support for 3e-3.5e and have been since it came out; I and a few others are just as passionate in supporting (and all too often defending) the 1e-based game we've spent so long in building.  And it's not like I don't know 3e - I gave it a 6-year run as a player before bailing on it to start my latest campaign - and while I freely admit it has some good ideas and did much to rejeuvenate the franchise, I long ago became tired of hearing "this is how the game is played now - adapt or die".  I sympathize with the 3e types now getting the same from the hard-core 4e-ers.

Beyond the home front, the root cause of the overall edition wars is blindingly obvious but very few seem willing to stand up and say it: what *should be a hobby* has long ago *turned into an industry*.  Industry by its very nature has an insatiable thirst for money, leading to unnecessary bloat in edition x requiring the release of edition x+1 to clean up the mess...until the cycle starts again; and with every new edition comes another army into the war.

As an edition warrior, what am I thinking?  That I've long ago been left behind by the "official" game, so I might as well do my own thing anyway.  That the industry doesn't care about me as a player or consumer, evidenced by ongoing refusal to support editions earlier than the current one at any given time.  That institutions like the RPGA, Living --- games, etc. might as well not exist for me.  And that in communities like this I have to seek out and cherish such common ground as I can find and look at people as more than just supporters of edition x or edition y.

Which is largely why I don't throw down in here more often.  I mean, I'll argue editions with anyone - hell, it's not like I haven't had lots of practice - but I'd rather find the common ground and share the fun regardless of edition.

Lan-"why is the word 'edition' so hard to type?"-efan


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I dunno; maybe I'm being naive, but in my experience, edition wars, and the reaction to them as well, are a specifically ENW phenomena.  Other places, they tend not to rage nearly as hotly nor as long, nor do they simmer in a "cold war" state like they do here.




Based on that statement, I honestly have to wonder how many other RP forums you frequent. The phenomena of edition wars _certainly_ isn't isolated to ENWorld nor, IME, do they burn as brightly here as they do elsewhere. I visit a _lot_ of RP forums on a regular basis and, frankly, edition warring as it exists here is _incredibly_ tame by comparison.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Quite possibly.  I do think that edition wars are an unintended side effect of the way ENW is moderated, though.




Well, I've spoken with people who spend no time on ENW talking about edition wars (by the definition I use), so I don't believe it is a local phenomenon.

That being said, I will say that I think we (the ENW moderating staff) were not exactly prepared for how things turned out.  We simply lacked experience with such things.  If we knew then what we knew now, we would probably have handled the time from 4e's announcement through... perhaps the a year from the release... a bit differently.



> But other forums that are more self-moderated in style tend to have little patience for the worst aspects of edition warriors, and tend to eliminate them (not literally!) through more naturalistic social cues.




I can understand what you mean.  That is great for smaller places - kind of the equivalent of the small town, where everyone knows everyone.  Peer and social pressures work well there, where you probably have a personal relationship with (or at least know the reputation of) whoever chastises you.  Or, in fairly homogeneous communities, where those who disagree can just be expected to leave.  But such systems tend to fail pretty dramatically for larger communities that want to support multiple views at once.

So, we weren't perfect about it, but I don't think the moderation style you're talking about would have worked here.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> So...
> 
> ...for you, what's really at stake?
> 
> (The next post is a copy of the abstract.)



The hobby started out when a man put a simulation game behind a screen and the players tried to guess the rules as they played.  At the time this was recognized as a roleplaying game because it focused on acting as a human being strategically, while allowing any possible action by the participants.  Crafting strategy == roleplaying after all.

The current divide lies in the failure or success of the new philosophy of roleplaying and the embarrassment of pre-"modern" games, new games not being pattern finding games at all, but games where everyone is an improvising participant at the table.  These games and theory remove mystery, strategy, and reasoning for narrative quality and the addition of non-role authorship.  

It isn't that one game form or category is better than another.  It is one is trying very hard to define the other game form (entire category of game) out of existence so to speak.  The vocabulary of gaming has been rewritten and a number of terms are attributed to old games (3.x, d20, and all pre-2000 games), terms like abashed, dysfunctional, and deluded to gamers in order to deride non-conformers still desiring the feeling engendered by these old games and their game designs.  

Gamers who want their games to be fiction stories, wanna-be authors, and those who enjoy in depth character studies are probably enjoying this turn of events.  Hard core strategists, mystery solvers, explorers of the unknown, and lovers of logic and reasoning (like me) are left out in the cold.

The "Edition Wars" aren't a war really.  They are simply about a game form that is highly misunderstood even by its' patrons which is currently being swept aside by zealous followers of a philosophy you shouldn't have difficulty finding repeated vociferously.


----------



## Mark (Feb 23, 2010)

One can avoid edition wars but not necessarily edition warriors.


As someone who plays all editions and hundreds of other games besides, I feel less invested in any particular game and that can sometimes lead to discussions about the flaws of a game that make others uncomfortable.  Once that starts, it is difficult to remain unpainted with the _broad brush of involvement_ (it's +5!).  I think there are far fewer edition warriors than one might surmise at first glance.


----------



## UniversalMonster (Feb 23, 2010)

AngryMojo said:


> So, in my humble opinion, that's what's at stake with the edition war.  The entrance of new people to continue the hobby we all love.




It probably doesn't help that a good chunk of edition warring is specifically resentment of new/younger players, ie "stupid kids". I do agree that it has a lot to do with feeling left out and identity. (for example, around New Years I noted a couple of posts on blogs that said things like "it was another year removed from the game we used to play, the game that we supported and held a central place in our gaming landscape...") Those are poignant laments! I'm not trying to be funny here. 

But in the end, whatever you play, 1) it's _just _a game(don't forget, right?) , and 2) it's a choice. I recall not playing D&D for almost the entirety of 2nd edition myself. I CHOSE that, I wish people were more cognizant of that no matter what, it isn't the end of the world. 

The other thing is some people can't seem to untangle a whole host of feelings about corporations and (for lack of a better term) under-dogism, and the various sizes of the companies involved in producing these games--from the games themselves. In my experience, the guy who says "he's in it for the hobby, but not the industry" that then spends a lot of time posting the transcripts of the Hasbro quarterly earnings conference call.. that guy is probably never really going to be able to discuss the way you can cast magic missile as an at-will in a rational manner. You'll be all like "now my magic user has the ability to fight.. and it works with Wizards fury, and my wizard is totally awesome.." and he's going to be come back with "So THIS is what the CORPORATE OVERLORDS of HASBRO have decreed!"

Ok, that's an exaggeration. But often the edition war talk is like both sides are having two different conversations.


----------



## MacMathan (Feb 23, 2010)

AngryMojo said:


> So, in my humble opinion, that's what's at stake with the edition war.  The entrance of new people to continue the hobby we all love.





This exactly.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 23, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> Beyond the home front, the root cause of the overall edition wars is blindingly obvious but very few seem willing to stand up and say it: what *should be a hobby* has long ago *turned into an industry*.  Industry by its very nature has an insatiable thirst for money, leading to unnecessary bloat in edition x requiring the release of edition x+1 to clean up the mess...until the cycle starts again; and with every new edition comes another army into the war.



This is, I believe, a short-sighted way of looking at things.

In order for a hobby to continue to flourish - at least, any hobby that requires some kind of material to participate in - an _industry_ is required to back it up. Just because an industry exists that keeps the D&D game in print doesn't mean that D&D is no longer a hobby. It absolutely is.

You could certainly _avoid_ having an industry behind the hobby. You could have some company set up to do nothing but keep the current state of the game in print. Of course, that game would stagnate, die, and be replaced by some other game that was actually willing to put effort into the maintenance of a hobby.



> As an edition warrior, what am I thinking?  That I've long ago been left behind by the "official" game, so I might as well do my own thing anyway.  That the industry doesn't care about me as a player or consumer, evidenced by ongoing refusal to support editions earlier than the current one at any given time.



See, I don't get this either. You can't take their refusal to continue to support earlier editions as evidence that they don't care about you. That's just silly. Of course they care about you. They'd really prefer it if they had you as a customer, in fact. But there's only so far they can go. Supporting previous editions means a) dividing their resources, and b) dividing their audience. If it made good business sense for them to do these things, I'm sure they would, but as it stands it's already extremely difficult for tabletop gaming companies to get by. I imagine WotC has it a great deal easier than the other guys, but based on the layoffs and project cutbacks we've witnessed it's clear that they're feeling the pressure too. I'm sure they'd like to give you what you want, if they could; after all, your dollars are just as good as anyone else's dollars. It's simply an unfortunate reality that what you want just isn't feasible.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 23, 2010)

_



So, in my humble opinion, that's what's at stake with the edition war. The entrance of new people to continue the hobby we all love. 

Click to expand...


_ 
That is, for some, the SAME hobby WE love. Not the hobby of the same name that others play.

While not a meaningful difference for all, this might be a meaningful difference for some.

What I mean here is that, yes, I want more people to play the D&D I love. I have very big plans to introduce my son to it (and any future children...and No..I won't force it on them lest this get derailed).

BUT...This is the D&D I love. It might be 4e, 3e, 2e, Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, OSRIC, Trailblazer, or anything else. The degree of difference from the game I play will be the degree of difference between our connection over a wonderful game.



Can you, a 1e grognard, bond with a child or grandchild playing 4e? Can you play "the same game"? 

I don't doubt you could compromise, or come to some happy medium...but either you'd invent a new game of houserules, or one of you would bend to essentially play the game of the other.



We should all play what we like. The edition wars fight over not what I like, but what I want OTHERS to like, including strangers, offionados, my children, my friends and so on.

I want my kids to play D&D with me. 

And I want it to feel like D&D.



So much parsing of meanings when things get complicated....


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> That being said, I will say that I think we (the ENW moderating staff) were not exactly prepared for how things turned out.  We simply lacked experience with such things.  If we knew then what we knew now, we would probably have handled the time from 4e's announcement through... perhaps the a year from the release... a bit differently.




If it makes you feel any better, I feel that the edition warring here was far worse when this was Eric Noah's 3e News Site and 3rd Edition was in its infancy (i.e., when 3rd Edition was less than one year old). I posted here then (albeit under a different name) and vividly recall real screaming, knock down, drag out, arguments (frex, another poster and myself went for pages at a time comparing each other to squealing pigs). 

I've rarely (if ever) seen the 3e/4e split here produce the seemingly endless stream of colorful pejoratives that the 2e/3e split did. There were pages upon pages of bile-filled, profanity-laden, screeds here back in the day. And, to be clear, this isn't meant to criticize Eric Noah's moderation — what was moderated was moderated well; I think it was simply hard for the relatively small staff to keep up with all of the nastiness. 

And to be honest, there was also a time after that when edition warring seemed to be more prevalent here, as well. This would have been about three or four years ago. . . there was another online community _planning_ incursions to ENWorld for the purpose of trolling. They actually had a whole forum dedicated to such efforts. I had over _one-hundred_ posters on my Ignore List during that period of time. 

So, all things considered, this past two years has been comparatively quiet and I think that is due in no small part to the mods.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 23, 2010)

AngryMojo said:


> So, in my humble opinion, that's what's at stake with the edition war.  The entrance of new people to continue the hobby we all love.



I think the entrance of new people is one aspect of it. Another related aspect is the entrance of new material, and when you get down to it, the real issue is the *type* of new people and new material coming into the hobby.

Think about it: if you don't want new material that supports your favored way to play the game, and you don't need an influx of new players who want to play the game the same way you like, then you don't really have many pragmatic reasons to engage in an edition war (you might have plenty of _*emotional*_ reasons, though - but this has been well covered in previous posts in this thread).

Hence, the pragmatic edition warrior probably has a number of objectives: communicating his wants to influence the producers of new game material, persuading existing players and new entrants into the hobby to adopt his preferred game style, and (in some extreme cases) driving or keeping those with incompatible game styles out of the hobby.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Quite possibly.  I do think that edition wars are an unintended side effect of the way ENW is moderated, though.
> 
> I mean, I know that ENW is what it is, and most of the time that's a _good_ thing, so I'm not trying to knock it.  But other forums that are more self-moderated in style tend to have little patience for the worst aspects of edition warriors, and tend to eliminate them (not literally!) through more naturalistic social cues.
> 
> I dunno; maybe I'm being naive, but in my experience, edition wars, and the reaction to them as well, are a specifically ENW phenomena.  Other places, they tend not to rage nearly as hotly nor as long, nor do they simmer in a "cold war" state like they do here.



I disagree.  While I am highly critical of certain ENW moderation policies, I do not think they are responsible for the edition war here.

I do think they were and are responsible for the _style _and _strategies _utilized in the edition war, and that they are responsible for a complete vulnerability to certain styles of trolling.

But they were not responsible for the edition war itself.

To give quick examples, on ENW its forbidden to directly insult someone.  But you can indirectly insult indistinct groups of people.  So calling someone immature is against the rules, but responding to a fan of a game by saying that his favored game game was designed to appeal to 14 year old narcissists is literally moderator approved discourse (I checked).  This results in a forum in which trolls, through Darwinian selection, are highly skilled manipulators of language who avoid technical violations of the rules while provoking less sophisticated forum members into anger and three day bans.

On the WOTC forum, by contrast, trolls tend to just shout abuse, and the regulars have learned how to abuse them back without committing their own rules violations.  This is no less of an edition war, but its a very different experience.

As for the overall issue, I adamantly maintain that any analysis of edition wars is lacking if it doesn't take into account the fact that many edition warriors are just trolling, and therefore have no discernible motives other than to make others suffer.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 23, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> Based on that statement, I honestly have to wonder how many other RP forums you frequent. The phenomena of edition wars _certainly_ isn't isolated to ENWorld nor, IME, do they burn as brightly here as they do elsewhere. I visit a _lot_ of RP forums on a regular basis and, frankly, edition warring as it exists here is _incredibly_ tame by comparison.



rpg.net, therpgsite.com, circvsmaximvs.com, mostly.

Granted, my appearances at a lot of those locales is hit or miss.


Umbran said:


> I can understand what you mean.  That is great for smaller places - kind of the equivalent of the small town, where everyone knows everyone.  Peer and social pressures work well there, where you probably have a personal relationship with (or at least know the reputation of) whoever chastises you.  Or, in fairly homogeneous communities, where those who disagree can just be expected to leave.  But such systems tend to fail pretty dramatically for larger communities that want to support multiple views at once.
> 
> So, we weren't perfect about it, but I don't think the moderation style you're talking about would have worked here.



I don't disagree.  I didn't bring that up by way of complaint or suggestion that you do something differently.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 23, 2010)

Cadfan said:


> I disagree.  While I am highly critical of certain ENW moderation policies, I do not think they are responsible for the edition war here.
> 
> I do think they were and are responsible for the _style _and _strategies _utilized in the edition war, and that they are responsible for a complete vulnerability to certain styles of trolling.
> 
> But they were not responsible for the edition war itself.



Fair enough.  I'll accept that correction and clarification of my stance.


			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> To give quick examples, on ENW its forbidden to directly insult someone.  But you can indirectly insult indistinct groups of people.  So calling someone immature is against the rules, but responding to a fan of a game by saying that his favored game game was designed to appeal to 14 year old narcissists is literally moderator approved discourse (I checked).  This results in a forum in which trolls, through Darwinian selection, are highly skilled manipulators of language who avoid technical violations of the rules while provoking less sophisticated forum members into anger and three day bans.



Indeed.  The edition wars at ENWorld are characterized by a quick smackdown of any overt discussion, but in my opinion, that kind of loud, angry response is a quick-burning flame, and when it dies down, it's over.  The ENW style response tends to favor the passive aggressive smarmy type of edition warriors, while punishing those who lose patience with the passive-aggressive jibes... which leads to a longer, dirtier, nastier, lingering edition war, in my opinion.  And that's what I mean when I say that the moderation style unintentionally promoted the edition war, or at least the format in which it happened.

At circvsmaximvs, on the other hand, all attempted edition wars, and some were deliberately provoked, ended up stillborn.  Those few who proved unable to hold a rational discussion about the issue were quickly marginalized by everyone on _both_ sides of the discussion.  Perhaps surprisingly, what ended up happening is that the discussions quickly evolved into fruitful and interesting discussions.

I'm not for a second advocating a circvsmaximvs style moderation (i.e., no moderation) for ENW; as Umbran says, it's two different populations in many ways, and requires a different touch.  It is, however, and unfortunate side-effect of the ENW basic rules that it becomes, unintentionally, a haven for a particularly virulent and dirty version of edition wars that I haven't really seen anywhere else.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo said:


> rpg.net, therpgsite.com, circvsmaximvs.com, mostly.




D&D Edition wars aren't too frequent at RPGNet or TheRPGSite, but that's mainly because those aren't D&D-centric sites — the latter of those two sites, however, wages a war of sorts against "The Swine."  And Circvs, as much as I love it, it's only tangentially a RPG site. If you start digging into other D&D fan sites, however, you'll find some absolutely _insane_ levels of edition intolerance.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Feb 23, 2010)

I think there was one thing very much at stake for the passionate defenders of 3.5e, at least in their minds: continued third party support.  Also, to the extent that Pathfinder can be considered 3.6e, the survival of Pathfinder.

I think there was a fear, maybe even an assumption, that no one would ever again publish anything for 3rd edition D&D, because the game no longer existed on the market.  Some of the players who wanted to stay with it felt they needed to be loud enough to persuade/ reassure publishers that there was a market.  Whether they were correct in that perception, and whether the tone or tactics used contributed to their success, I can't say, but a fervent fan base has saved other dead properties or extended their life... see Star Trek and Firefly.  I think some of the urgency of that side of the argument was driven by fear of being shut out or marginalized.

I don't think there was a similar fear on the other side; 4E was never in danger of being New Coke or Highlander 2, rolled out to universal disdain and quickly buried with an apology.  I think rather that the type of criticism leveled at 4E was easy to hear as criticism of 4E players.  

We are a species of social ape that has evolved from flinging feces at each other over rights to a water hole, to civilized beings who trample each other at soccer matches and fight wars over different interpretations of a book.  Ford trucks have decals of Calvin urinating on Chevy emblems.  No surprise that we take criticism of our games as criticism of we who play them, and strike back in kind.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 23, 2010)

Self respect is what's at stake in the edition wars. Pretending to be a frolicking elf is an inherently embarassing activity. It's only by proving with incontrovertible logic that your way of pretending to be a frolicking elf is superior to another person's way of pretending to be a frolicking elf that you can salvage some amount of personal dignity and thus "win" at life (for certain definitions of the word "win").


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> ...for you, what's really at stake?



First, I think, you have to understand why people have any interest in which edition _other_ people choose to play. For me, it's because I need other people who play the same edition as me, or else I can't play (or have to play a non-preferred edition). Others may also be concerned about whether the edition is "supported" by publishers (though that has never been a concern of mine). There may be other reasons as well, but I think those are the main two.

So given that it does matter to me what edition other people choose to play, why would I participate in online arguments about which edition is better (i.e., the Edition Wars)? Quite simply, because I believe that such arguments _can_ influence the outcome. While my voice alone has effectively no impact, the cumulative effect of many voices is not insignificant.

I believe that if there had not been such an obvious split of the D&D base, many players would have assumed that the new edition was an irresistable force and either (1) made the switch or (2) simply given up the hobby. By adding my voice to the chorus, I did what little I could do to let those players know that _they were not alone,_ and that there was a reason to resist making the change.

FWIW, I saw this play out in my own local pool of players. After 4E was announced and we began to learn what it would be like, there were two "leaders" in my community of gamers: myself (championing 3E) and one of my good friends (who was excited about 4E). The dozen or so D&D players we associated with were undecided, and waiting to see which way the rest of the herd would go. My friend and I argued over the merits of the two editions, to the point that it actually strained our friendship. In the end, all but a few of the "undecideds" rejected 4E and stayed with 3E. Even my friend who was pushing for 4E ultimately decided to stick with the group (and 3E). I am convinced that if I had just (1) accepted 4E or (2) given up D&D, the "undecideds" would have followed my misguided
[*] friend over to 4E.

That's why I fought in the Edition Wars (though like most veterans, I wish I could have avoided the battle).

[*] EDIT: "misguided" was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, and not a serious attack on 4E admirers. I apologize for causing anyone to take offense.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> So...
> 
> ...for you, what's really at stake?




For me?

At its simplest, I'd like to be able to walk into a store and find new & exciting material for the game that brought me into the hobby in a version that I (and others) enjoy playing from either side of the screen...  To be a part of a vibrant game that is growing and changing, as opposed to sitting on a shelf gathering dust.  To be able to find a table to sit at with others and play this living game.

The current edition was designed by a combination of those who listened to those who didn't share my view of D&D and who didn't share my view of the game themselves.  It became almost unrecognizable to me: even though its design is well thought out, it lacks things I liked about previous editions.

So in that regard, lots of what I post is letting others know what my opinions are in the hopes that some of those who read them will share them...and be in a position to effect a change in the future editions.  We all know that there are designers on these (and other) boards- we're hoping that they hear us...and that we're numerous (and rational and cogent and so forth) enough to warrant serious attention.

And to be perfectly clear, even though the 3.X iteration of D&D is my favorite to date, its entirely possible that a very different design could capture my heart.  Its just that 4Ed ain't it.

All the other stuff in the Edition Wars?  The snippy rhetoric, the examples, counterexamples, etc.- that's mainly saber-rattling.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 23, 2010)

Vegepygmy said:


> I am convinced that if I had just (1) accepted 4E or (2) given up D&D, the "undecideds" would have followed my misguided friend over to 4E.



IMO, posts like this are what keep the edition war dragging. Was it necessary to use the word "misguided"? Would it have made much of a difference to your point if you had left it out? As it is, you seem to be implying that people who like 4E are "misguided".


----------



## billd91 (Feb 23, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> As an edition warrior, what am I thinking?  That I've long ago been left behind by the "official" game, so I might as well do my own thing anyway.  That the industry doesn't care about me as a player or consumer, evidenced by ongoing refusal to support editions earlier than the current one at any given time.




I believe this is a stronger argument now than at any other previous point in time. If the only means of supporting a previous edition is by actually printing new materials, the costs become fairly prohibitive as the market naturally shrinks. But the expansion of electronic media like pdf options, internet distribution, and print on demand have significantly reduced the costs of providing some form of old edition support.
Lack of previous edition support becomes less a question of economic impossibility and more a question of planned obsolescence and business strategy.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 23, 2010)

Vegepygmy said:


> I am convinced that if I had just (1) accepted 4E or (2) given up D&D, the "undecideds" would have followed my misguided friend over to 4E.




This sentence defeats the entire purpose of everything else you wrote.

You seem to think reasonable minds cannot differ on their preference for editions, and your friends could not have had the same amount of fun playing a different edition.

There is no "right" or "wrong" edition of D&D, and your friend was not "misguided" for wanting to play a different edition of D&D than the one you prefer.  It's just a matter of personal preferences.  

I hope you did not strain your friendships in your arguments over editions with them.  Friendships are more important than what edition of D&D you play.


----------



## darkseraphim (Feb 23, 2010)

Personally, my interest in the edition wars dimmed considerably when 4E was released.

Prior to that event, a lot of the 3E/3.5E advocates were very proud of their game and the destruction of the old.  Not here so much, but at other sites which I am far too much a gentleman to mention by name, such as rpg.net.  

Once 4E came out, many more people understood what it felt like to have your favorite game abandoned by the publisher, and mellowed out quite a bit.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 23, 2010)

@OP

Well now you have 99% of all edition warriors together in the same thread, to it should just be a matter of time before someone fires the first shot and things go south.

IMO there are two types of edition warriors. Strikers and defenders. Strikers spend their time surfing threads, looking to attack whichever edition they do not like. Defenders do the opposite - defend when their edition of choice is attacked.

As to why, only God knows I think, and I do not believe in God.

If I am an edition warrior, I am definitely a defender. Why? Mostly because I get tired of people spreading what I perceive as lies or misguided opinions about 4e. 

ENworld being the premier Internet forum for D&D, I think it's a shame if people do not get the right idea because some people are allowed to not stand corrected.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 23, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I hope you did not strain your friendships in your arguments over editions with them.  Friendships are more important than what edition of D&D you play.




I agree, civility and common sense are also not worth giving up.


----------



## evileeyore (Feb 23, 2010)

Vegepygmy said:


> That's why I fought in the Edition Wars (though like most veterans, I wish I could have avoided the battle).




Good for you.  It is far better to lose a friend than to give in on one's principles.

Besides, in the end you have properly instructed him in how best to think and what he should prefer.


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 23, 2010)

howandwhy99 said:


> Hard core strategists, mystery solvers, explorers of the unknown, and lovers of logic and reasoning (like me) are left out in the cold.




XP given. Exactly how Mearls described the difference between 0D&D and 4E, but yours is more thoughtful - and also more forcefully expressed.


PS. That said, if you treat 4E as only half a game where the other half is spent on the players solving  problems _by means not codified in the game_ ... then you sort of get the best of both worlds. 

Funny moment at my table couple of weeks back (this was in a 3.5 game, but the same applies). I ran the _Indiana Jones_-"In Latin, Jehova is spelled with an 'I'" puzzle in a dungeon of mine (modified, with Roman numerals representing the alphabet in reverse, and the 'safe' floor tiles not spelling Jehova but Vecna) and one of the players says,

"Hold on guys! I think _this _one we can solve by logic on its own." 

(They actually didn't figure out the puzzle... but the dwarven fighter kept throwing heavy pieces of rock at the tiles from a safe distance - to see which ones were stable.  )


----------



## BryonD (Feb 23, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> If I am an edition warrior, I am definitely a defender. Why? Mostly because I get tired of people spreading what I perceive as lies or misguided opinions about 4e.
> 
> ENworld being the premier Internet forum for D&D, I think it's a shame if people do not get the right idea because some people are allowed to not stand corrected.



Hear Hear! 
Of course it just *might* be better to stop lies and misguided opinions about OTHER editions as well....    

And I'm all for correcting the stands of some people.  That badwrongfun has got to end!!


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 23, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Well now you have 99% of all edition warriors together in the same thread, to it should just be a matter of time before someone fires the first shot and things go south.




I think that may have already happened.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 23, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Hear Hear!
> Of course it just *might* be better to stop lies and misguided opinions about OTHER editions as well....
> 
> And I'm all for correcting the stands of some people.  That badwrongfun has got to end!!




I don't think he's talking about correcting opinions or personal tastes as you suggest but, rather, about explaining away many of the outright falsehoods being spread about D&D 4e. There's not so much of that going on anymore (i.e., people spreading said falsehoods), but in the time leading up to D&D 4e, and shortly after its release, there were a lot of people making crazy things up from whole cloth about the game in an effort to get their hate on. Such intentional spreading of disinformation was little more than deliberate trolling and had no real value insofar as discussion went. It was intended merely to confuse and incense; as such, it probably should have been corrected.

[Edit: And you're right. Similar disinformation about other editions also deserves to be debunked.]


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 23, 2010)

I don't know whether my story is at all prevalent, but my stake in the edition war is not over which game is better (which is as absurd an argument as always), but over the honesty used in the discussions. On the rare occasions I got involved, it was almost entirely because someone had said something, or because something was being perpetuated and used as the lynchpin of an argument, that I thought was factually incorrect, intellectually dishonest, or outright fabricated for the purpose of stirring up trouble.

Thing is, I would do the same on any topic I felt I had experience in, on any forum I currently post to.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 23, 2010)

As for my own role in edition wars. . . I'm currently a defender of 4e, not because I particularly like it, but because I'm absolutely sick of seeing certain parties take each and every opportunity they can to deliberately bag on the game in the most insulting way that they can conceive of or criticize its players in a similar manner. Sick. To. Death. 

I don't play 4e, I don't own the books for it, and if you look at my .sig, you'll see that my tastes in gaming actually run in the opposite direction altogether. Having said this, as somebody on another forum recently mentioned, _it has been two years since D&D 4e was released_. If you're still bent about it, get over it already. 

If you're one of those people whose only contribution here (or anywhere else) is to talk about how 4e ruined your life or how people who play it are some kind of wrong, you're contributing _nothing_ worthwhile. Instead of calling people names and making fun of their preferences in gaming, why not try some _positive_ promotion? 

Start a thread about the games that you like instead of shitting up threads about games that you don't, post some links to games that you like in your .sig (see my .sig for examples), or otherwise _positively_ represent your favorite edition of D&D (or other games). 

That seems like a really easy solution but, apparently, some people just don't have a positive bone in their bodies.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 23, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Hear Hear!
> Of course it just *might* be better to stop lies and misguided opinions about OTHER editions as well....
> 
> And I'm all for correcting the stands of some people.  That badwrongfun has got to end!!



Sarcasm doesn't become you. But as JD mentioned (quoted below), it has nothing to do with what you are implying. I couldn't care less if you do not like 4e. I do not however like if you run around and claim that you can't roleplay in 4e, or that only 13-year old WoW-lovers play it (just two out of a gazillion of examples). And no, the "you" in my post is not you, BryonD, just another random 4e-basher.



jdrakeh said:


> I don't think he's talking about correcting opinions or personal tastes as you suggest but, rather, about explaining away many of the outright falsehoods being spread about D&D 4e. There's not so much of that going on anymore (i.e., people spreading said falsehoods), but in the time leading up to D&D 4e, and shortly after its release, there were a _lot_ of people making crazy things up from whole cloth about the game in an effort to get their hate on. Such intentional spreading of disinformation was little more than deliberate trolling and had no real value insofar as discussion went. It was intended merely to confuse and incense; as such, it probably should have been corrected.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 23, 2010)

i have only read up to the first page so far. i'll go back later and reread this thread after i get some thots down here first.



Umbran said:


> Hr.  The problem I have is that I don't think your thesis here is correct.



Spider Monkey,

i agree with Umbran here. but for a different reason.
i believe that since before the game saw print in 1974 and on gamers have always been well aware of the rules. that's why we still tweak them.
i would say your choice of the term remediation is part of the bias of edition wars.




> What is/was at stake?  Well, consider - for there to be a stake, there must be something you can win, and something you can lose.  In the discussions on this board, there was... nothing to be won, and nothing concerning the game to be lost.  There was no reason to believe that discussion with random parties on the internet would have any measurable impact on the development of the game.





again i'll agree with Umbran here a little too. a stake or side needs to be chosen and a condition for armistice.

for me, i want to see OD&D(1974) back in print. edit: on page two i see Hobo brings up another point for me. i'd like to find groups to play it.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 23, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> As for my own role in edition wars. . . I'm currently a defender of 4e, not because I particularly like it, but because I'm absolutely sick of seeing certain parties take each and every opportunity they can to deliberately bag on the game in the most insulting way that they can conceive of or criticize its players in a similar manner. Sick. To. Death.
> 
> I don't play 4e, I don't own the books for it, and if you look at my .sig, you'll see that my tastes in gaming actually run in the opposite direction altogether. Having said this, as somebody on another forum recently mentioned, _it has been two years since D&D 4e was released_. If you're still bent about it, get over it already.




I'd say this is also an issue that exacerbates edition war threads. By your own admission, you really don't have a dog in the fight, yet you participate anyway. I wonder how many other participants this applies to. 

As far as the OP goes, how does a participant in the edition war who does not have a stake in it fit into the theory?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 23, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> As for my own role in edition wars. . . I'm currently a defender of 4e, not because I particularly like it, but because I'm absolutely sick of seeing certain parties take each and every opportunity they can to deliberately bag on the game in the most insulting way that they can conceive of or criticize its players in a similar manner. Sick. To. Death.




Yes, I understand the feeling.  This, however, is when we of the moderation staff highly recommend that you WALK AWAY.  There's really no sign that the person(s) in question is going to have their mind changed at this point, right?  So why bother?  Isn't continuing to engage only giving these parties more opportunities?



> Instead of calling people names and making fun of their preferences in gaming, why not try some _positive_ promotion?




Quite.  As I've said before, I make a general challenge (not to you, jdrakeh, but to everyone): I _double-dog dare you_ to tell us why your game is super-cool, without comparing it to other games or editions!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2010)

diaglo said:


> for me, i want to see OD&D(1974) back in print. edit: on page two i see Hobo brings up another point for me. i'd like to find groups to play it.



For someone with such a clear, noble and difficult goal, you are rarely seen on the edition war battlefields, though. 

But considering what you achieved regarind Of Sound Mind 2 and our good old Piratecat, I would say that whatever you did was a lot more effective than what the entire edition war did achieve so far. 

Sure, it's not OD&D in reprint, but it's adventure support, the next best thing. (aside from having a group, which is, as far as I know, not a problem for you anyway.)


----------



## Prism (Feb 23, 2010)

Vegepygmy said:


> First, I think, you have to understand why people have any interest in which edition _other_ people choose to play. For me, it's because I need other people who play the same edition as me, or else I can't play (or have to play a non-preferred edition). Others may also be concerned about whether the edition is "supported" by publishers (though that has never been a concern of mine). There may be other reasons as well, but I think those are the main two.
> 
> So given that it does matter to me what edition other people choose to play, why would I participate in online arguments about which edition is better (i.e., the Edition Wars)? Quite simply, because I believe that such arguments _can_ influence the outcome. While my voice alone has effectively no impact, the cumulative effect of many voices is not insignificant.




I agree with you totally that discussion within your group matters. We used to be a group of 5 playing 3e for 8 or so years. When 4e came out and 4 of us switched (for something new more than any other reason), one guy left. He's still our mate but for us we are one person short and for him he gets no 3e game. Discussions of the benefits of either edition were had but we could find no middle ground

However I hold no belief that any form of internet war has any effect on my gaming week to week and therefore have zero interest in getting involved in one. I barely understand those that do to be honest - maybe I'm not as passionate in general about such things. Maybe I'm more selfish as to only get involved in things that directly effect me


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 23, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I'd say this is also an issue that exacerbates edition war threads. By your own admission, you really don't have a dog in the fight, yet you participate anyway.




Well, actually, I _do_ "have a dog in the fight" — I want to see people stop bashing D&D 4e (here). I'm not voicing my observations and discontent simply for the sake of doing so, contrary to your belief. I'm voicing these views because, to me, there are enough people regularly bashing 4e here (for no reason other than to breed contempt) that it makes ENWorld less attractive to me. There's my dog. That's what is at stake for me — _my enjoyment of ENWorld_. 

If you absolutely _must_ attribute my position to a "side" in the edition wars, you can pencil in "Pro-4e" next to my name. I don't play the game, I don't own the books, and I don't plan to anytime soon. . . but I'd rather associate with the Pro-4e crowd when it comes to edition wars, because I simply don't see them going to forums largely dedicated to past editions of the game and trolling them to sow the seeds of discontent. Conversely, I see fans of past editions coming to ENWorld and doing that on a pretty regular basis*.

*Although, as mentioned earlier, it's not occurring anywhere near as regularly as it was several years back.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Quite.  As I've said before, I make a general challenge (not to you, jdrakeh, but to everyone): I _double-dog dare you_ to tell us why your game is super-cool, without comparing it to other games or editions!




i've got a few threads like this and on other sites over the last 11 years. talking about how cool OD&D(1974) is. most of them end up devolving into fights and then get closed.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yes, I understand the feeling.  This, however, is when we of the moderation staff highly recommend that you WALK AWAY.  There's really no sign that the person(s) in question is going to have their mind changed at this point, right?  So why bother?  Isn't continuing to engage only giving these parties more opportunities?




Give me _some_ credit.  While I still step into these threads on occasion, I do so much less frequently than I have in years past. Yes, you're right, I would _personally_ be much better off stepping back and letting the other edition warriors tear themselves apart — but I also think that if the rest of the forum just steps back and lets all of the 4e bashers go at it full tilt, then the whole forum turns into a cesspool of 4e hate (again). That said, I wholly concede that I _may_ be wrong about this (and hope that I am).


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 23, 2010)

Wow. One night off and seven pages later...

Thank you all for responding. I think there's some really productive stuff here; those of you who are challenging some of my assumptions are making me work to re-frame and be more deliberate about how I am wording them, so I appreciate it (well, maybe not the "navel-gazing" comment, but it iz teh interwebz).

As I mentioned yesterday, I'll try to respond to individual posts for clarification.

I'll start here:

Diaglo, can I ask what you mean about remediation and my bias? I'm not trying to be defensive here, I just think I need some clarification before I can address it. Thanks!


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 23, 2010)

resistor said:


> I think Marius raised from very good points when he said it all boils down to pride.  I'm doing to take a related tack and say it all boils down to *identity*.
> 
> We're not just talking about a hobby, we're talking about something that people sink vast amounts of time, money, and emotion into.  It's practically a subculture.  And because of this, people _identify_ themselves as being D&D (or tabletop RPG, to be more general) players.  The statement _"I am a D&D player."_ is a strong statement about the kinds of cultural activities one enjoys, the kinds of people one is likely to be friends with, and the kinds of shared cultural background one has.
> 
> For people whose personal identity is heavily based on that statement, changing the definition of D&D is very threatening.  If they don't like the new edition, they're suddenly no longer D&D players, and lose that strong statement of identity.  _"I'm a D&D play who doesn't play D&D."_ doesn't have the same strong identity.  Ergo, they fight tooth and nail against the changed definition, under the subconscious belief that, if they can win everyone back to their definition, they'll be back in the group again.






Tav_Behemoth said:


> I think it's a group identification thing. When a new edition reflects my tastes and desires, I feel like I'm part of the group. If sales figures for that edition are strong, I feel good because lots of people share my values; if the new edition wins awards, I feel like it's a validation of who I am. Contrariwise, if the new edition doesn't fit my preferences I feel shut out, and relish sales figures that imply that a retroclone of my preferred old edition is doing well, or that the new edition that usurped it is doing poorly.
> 
> Mind you, this is crazy talk, but it's not different than other kinds of fan identification (Mets fans feel bad when their team loses) and I'm not immune to it






billd91 said:


> Tied up in all of this with pride and identity, and exacerbating the edition wars, is a countering dismissive attitude which tends to inflame the wounded pride and assaulted identity. Whether the dismissives are right in that people shouldn't be getting so worked up about a game or not, the dismissal is counter-productive in quelling the dispute even if the sentiment is sincere. It may even be particularly galling to the one side when the dismissal comes from someone who seems to have identified with the other side (though they may not have even consciously done it).






Anselyn said:


> This is approaching where my thoughts lie on this.  BTW - This post is not about the details of the edition war - it's about the fuel stoking the fire.
> 
> The geek/nerd social identity is not defined by what you wear or what you  believe - it's defined by what you do. So - we're all "gamers".  The dominant RPG is D&D [1] and so, yes, sharing D&D is a strong shared currency of interaction. However, the individual experience of the relationship with the game, which itself is of course very immersive, makes the game a strong part of self identity.[2]  So, I think if you attack/change/challenge my game then I can take this very personally. You are attacking me.
> 
> ...




Great stuff. I think a lot of what you all address here is some of what I was trying to get at in a rather round about way. This is one of the themes I'll definitely pursue.



Aberzanzorax said:


> I think (and hope) that the OP is using "edition war" in the non pejorative sense...that is...."heated and sometimes angry debate about the editions, that may, and even often, become overblown"
> 
> as opposed to:
> 
> ...




You are correct. I'm looking to talk about it as an overarching phenomenon rather than "gamerz gone bad." I'm considering using the more overblown examples to show just how uncivil it gets--to show how strongly people can feel about something that is, in the end, just a game. But that's only a small rhetorical flourish at most, and I'm still not sold on doing it yet. We'll see.

(And thanks for interpreting my question in a positive light--that stuff doesn't always translate well on the web).


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 23, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> The 3.x/4E "edition war" is unique because it's more than just gamers.
> 
> Publishers (such as Paizo) have taken sides/made choices as well.  Also, because of the OGL, there are now even more versions of D&D being actively supported than at any other time.
> 
> ...




Thanks for responding! This is one of the things I hope to address in my talk, but I'm not sure time will allow for it, which is unfortunate. If I were pursuing the subject as anything more than a one-off favor for a friend, I think there's a lot to look at in this regard. As I recall, the marketing of 4e, both official and through the designers visiting message boards like ENW touched off a lot of the arguing; many felt that their edition was being besmirched. Once you involve third party publishers (who carry an interesting ethos in our community), it gets even more complicated.

BTW, my friend Jenny is the one who lured me into this panel. She has an academic book on gaming coming out pretty soon: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Narrative-Tabletop-Role-playing-Games/dp/0786444517/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266934246&sr=1-5]Amazon.com: Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-playing Games (9780786444519): Jennifer Grouling Cover: Books[/ame]


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> Great stuff. I think a lot of what you all address here is some of what I was trying to get at in a rather round about way. This is one of the themes I'll definitely pursue.



While I don't doubt that personal identity is a factor, it fails to be the most parsimonious solution, in my opinion, and therefore its utility in explaining the phenomena widely is suspect.  It rests on the unproven and unprovable assumption that edition warriors invest their personal identity in the game to such an extent that changes to the game threaten their identity.

A simpler solution, and one that surely applies to many edition warriors, is what's been stated earlier: 1) concern that with an edition change, it will be materially more difficult to find a group of like-minded gamers with whom to play his game of choice, and 2) concern that support for the game will disappear.  These are _real_, as well as proximate and immediate concerns, whereas self-identity as a gamer of a certain edition is, by its nature, a speculative claim.

I'd be careful of attributing too much to identity crises; because then you appear to come off as dismissive and patronizing of those who engage in edition war behavior---as if they don't have any "real" issue other than their lack of a strong sense of who they are, so they have to substitute their gamer-tastes as their identity, etc.  While I'm sure it's true for many gamers, I think it's a poor explanation for edition wars generally.

Armchair psychology without a lot of pointed observation and follow-up with the actors involved isn't likely to be very convincing.


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 23, 2010)

Regarding the OSR:

I hope I'm not implying a directly causal relationship, here. What I am suggesting is that the edition wars, by being largely exercises in comparison/contrast, have brought older styles of play to light. It was through threads here, for example, that I came across Philotomy's explanations of how the expectations/sensibilities of newer games/versions often act as impediments to understanding the rationale of older styles (I hope I'm not butchering his stance too badly here). Similarly, it is through links provided in such threads that I've come across blogs such as Grognardia or Jeff's Gameblog.

While I would hesitate to assign direct causality, I think each contributes to the other.

Does this make sense?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 23, 2010)

diaglo said:


> i've got a few threads like this and on other sites over the last 11 years. talking about how cool OD&D(1974) is. most of them end up devolving into fights and then get closed.




No, that's talking about your _edition_.  I'm talking about _your_ game - that thing you did at the table with your friends, with the munchies and the soda/beer, and the laughing and the good times?  

You see, rule sets are not cool, in and of themselves.  The rules could put on expensive sunglasses, wear the "in" sneakers, drive around in a car with the funky spinning hubcaps, and date the hot actress _du jour_, and still not be cool.  Rules sit there like a lump thoroughly uncool.  It is only what we do using a given set of rules that may reach coolness.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 23, 2010)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> If I am an edition warrior, I am definitely a defender. Why? Mostly because I get tired of people spreading what I perceive as lies or misguided opinions about 4e.




I think this quote is really interesting from a meta-war standpoint. 

For instance, I think you could see the same position for someone that Jack99 perceived as a "striker" -- they would say they are just defending their favorite game. That, for example, 4e's assertion that 1st level HP should be big (just to pull a card from the deck) is an attack on their game's belief that 1st level characters should be fragile and nervous. They say "4e makes 1st level too easy," someone like Jack99 comes along, sees that as an attack, and starts "correcting the misguided opinion," posting all sorts of examples of difficult 4e 1st level encounters, effectively missing the point, and thus resulting in the first person getting MORE defensive, and so on, spiraling until the thread is klunked. 

Usually, every side in a conflict sees themselves as the aggrieved party. 

It's also very subjective. What might be a total gamebreaker for one group might be the best thing ever for a different group, so the first group might come to the boards and angrily rant about how Rule X destroys their fun, and when the second group sees it, they condescend and ascribe motives and try to otherwise account for how this person could be so removed from the reality that they know (Rule X makes the game more fun than ever!).

For me, it's more interesting to see the meat behind the criticism, so that we can get at what really makes a game fun for one group, and not fun for another. Even a hyperbolic, cliche criticism like "4e is a videogame!" or "1e is poorly designed!" has some actual cogent thought behind it somewhere, and I think it's important to understand _why_ someone thinks that, and what can be done about it. I think many self-appointed defenders are too quick to dismiss perceived criticism -- they jump at shadows and scream at the attacks that aren't even attacks.

I think the current "This mentality needs to die" thread is a good example of weirdness on all sides of the divide. It starts off directly hostile and blaming 4e, even with a "videogame" thrown in, but it quickly turns into a discussion of what happened, why, and how it might be avoided. Kind of the essence of a 4e attack that might be characterized as vaporous angry internet posting. You also have some "defenders" going off half-cocked at perceived threats that aren't really threats. And in there is also some interesting discussion about creative "say yes" DMing, what happens when you videotape someone's D&D session, the true nature of the edition divide, what allows for creative play, and a handful of other really interesting ideas. What could have been another pointless edition war (and what occasionally almost dropped into it, given what was posted by critics and defenders) produced some interesting discussion.

For me, I think the most important rule is to _assume the other person is being genuine_. They aren't a troll, they aren't an internet tough guy, they aren't here just to stir up Edition Wars, they don't hate ENWorld, they actually have a conversation they want to have, they are willing to talk about their ideas, they aren't a hater or a fanboi, they actually have reasons for their beliefs, and these are their actual beliefs, however rabidly mad they sound to me. 

If you give the person the benefit of the doubt, even if you disagree with them, you can have a pretty productive conversation. But the moment you assume you know what motivates the other person, you get beyond the discussion of the game, and get into a personal series of attacks. Whether you like 4e or not (and I count myself as fairly in-the-middle, enjoying 4e well enough while having some serious issues with it), if you are open enough to hear what people say and find out what they mean, even if they seem ludicrously insane on the surface, you can avoid the virulence of edition wars, while engaging in constructive discussion of what makes the game fun for different people, and how various rules support or inhibit that. 

Which, to me, is the interesting part. I personally don't care if you're a striker or a defender. Listening to and respecting the other posters is what makes the most interesting talks, IMO. And that's what I'm here for. Interesting talks about games.


----------



## Psion (Feb 23, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> D&D Edition wars aren't too frequent at RPGNet or TheRPGSite, but that's mainly because those aren't D&D-centric sites




I'd have to differ with that.

RPGnet's "D&D/D20 Fantasy forum" has a rabidly hostile anti-3.5/pathfinder contingent that will, given the chance, invade any thread about 3.5 and/or pathfinder as a chance to recite their screed while trying to stay within the lines of moderation. Just like here, the moderation has made this more passive/aggressive in nature, but it's there.

There are many, many D&D discussions at theRPGsite which also invariably get drug into an extended bickering by the second page by a few "edition skirmishers."


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo said:


> While I don't doubt that personal identity is a factor, it fails to be the most parsimonious solution, in my opinion, and therefore its utility in explaining the phenomena widely is suspect.  It rests on the unproven and unprovable assumption that edition warriors invest their personal identity in the game to such an extent that changes to the game threaten their identity.
> 
> A simpler solution, and one that surely applies to many edition warriors, is what's been stated earlier: 1) concern that with an edition change, it will be materially more difficult to find a group of like-minded gamers with whom to play his game of choice, and 2) concern that support for the game will disappear.  These are _real_, as well as proximate and immediate concerns, whereas self-identity as a gamer of a certain edition is, by its nature, a speculative claim.
> 
> ...




No arguements here. I'm not trying to pin anything on a singular factor; instead, I'm curious about possibilities. I think in any sort of social exchange, identity is a huge part (literacy scholars such as Shirley Bryce Heath and Margaret J. Finders talk about how strongly identity factors in literacy exchanges, for example). But no, I certainly don't want to limit it to that, nor assign motive. I merely want to discuss possibilities.

EDIT: I feel like I should add, when I talk about "pursuing" some of what people are saying, I'm not looking to sell it as "objectively the truth" or anything else. Rather, I'm interested in pursuing how the community understands/represents itself. I don't know if that helps clarify or not.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 23, 2010)

Psion said:


> I'd have to differ with that.
> 
> RPGnet's "D&D/D20 Fantasy forum" has a rabidly hostile anti-3.5/pathfinder contingent that will, given the chance, invade any thread about 3.5 and/or pathfinder as a chance to recite their screed while trying to stay within the lines of moderation. Just like here, the moderation has made this more passive/aggressive in nature, but it's there.
> 
> There are many, many D&D discussions at theRPGsite which also invariably get drug into an extended bickering by the second page by a few "edition skirmishers."




One man's ceiling is another man's floor and all that. I guess our perceptions just differ markedly.


----------



## Mark (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> BTW, my friend Jenny is the one who lured me into this panel. She has an academic book on gaming coming out pretty soon: Amazon.com: Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-playing Games (9780786444519): Jennifer Grouling Cover: Books





Looks like someone could get a preview of this book by checking out the thesis that is likely the basis for it -

http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-03262005-191219/unrestricted/etd.pdf


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 23, 2010)

Mark said:


> Looks like someone could get a preview of this book by checking out the thesis that is likely the basis for it -
> 
> http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-03262005-191219/unrestricted/etd.pdf




You are correct, sir! She's edited it quite a bit since then. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but what she's told me of it sounds pretty interesting (please note, it is for an audience of outsiders). Some of what she's told me I'm not sure I agree with, but that's life (and gaming, and academia...).

EDIT: She later came to recant calling D&D or rpgs genres. That, as I recall, was what I disagreed with the most. It might sound like a minor quibble, but I think the term carries a lot of baggage.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2010)

Can someone XP Kamikaze Midget for me?


----------



## Mark (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> You are correct, sir! She's edited it quite a bit since then. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but what she's told me of it sounds pretty interesting (please note, it is for an audience of outsiders). Some of what she's told me I'm not sure I agree with, but that's life (and gaming, and academia...).





I imagine she focuses the book primarily on narrative, as the name implies.  Of course, I'm sure the thesis is suitably geared toward "outsiders" since hoping that your thesis readers would happen to be gamers, too, might be risking a lot of work.  


(I might not get the chance to dive into it for a few months as time is tight but I look forward to reading it.)


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Can someone XP Kamikaze Midget for me?




I tried. 



> You have given out too much Experience Points in the last 24 hours, try again later.


----------



## Mark (Feb 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Can someone XP Kamikaze Midget for me?





Done.


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 23, 2010)

Mark said:


> I imagine she focuses the book primarily on narrative, as the name implies.  Of course, I'm sure the thesis is suitably geared toward "outsiders" since hoping that your thesis readers would happen to be gamers, too, might be risking a lot of work.
> 
> 
> (I might not get the chance to dive into it for a few months as time is tight but I look forward to reading it.)




I hope you get a chance to. I've only skimmed parts of it. I only mention the audience thing because I imagine someone looking it up and proclaiming on the site "UR doin' it rong," because she may have had to be somewhat reductive at certain points.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 23, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> For me, I think the most important rule is to _assume the other person is being genuine_. They aren't a troll, they aren't an internet tough guy.



As much as I generally agree about positive assumptions.... 
Hard to do with those who use there sigs as a forum for as direct as this site allows insulting characterization of other fans ... they hit my ignore list fast.

One of the social fallacies mentioned earlier applies...  some people really are obnoxious enough they should indeed be ostracized.


----------



## Rel (Feb 23, 2010)

Me?  What's my stake?

I'm just here to put down the rabid dogs and stack up the bodies.  Maybe someday the pile will be big enough to get the message across.  But I'm not fooling myself.

*pats the cold blue steel of the banhammer*


----------



## diaglo (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> Diaglo, can I ask what you mean about remediation and my bias? I'm not trying to be defensive here, I just think I need some clarification before I can address it. Thanks!




i'll try. i ain't very good with w3rds.  also not meaning this as an attack or defense. just what i read at the time i was directed to this thread.

when i read your first 2 posts of this thread i got the impression you were saying that edition wars only exist because of remediation. if you are saying that then i am trying to say i disagree.

if it is the case you would be cutting me out of the conversation. i feel biased by your assumption.

i engage in the "edition wars" as the guy trying to recruit others to my cause.
i have but one cause in this whole war. OD&D(1974). a game i want back in print. i have been at this push since 1979.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> No, that's talking about your _edition_.  I'm talking about _your_ game - that thing you did at the table with your friends, with the munchies and the soda/beer, and the laughing and the good times?
> 
> You see, rule sets are not cool, in and of themselves.  The rules could put on expensive sunglasses, wear the "in" sneakers, drive around in a car with the funky spinning hubcaps, and date the hot actress _du jour_, and still not be cool.  Rules sit there like a lump thoroughly uncool.  It is only what we do using a given set of rules that may reach coolness.




i guess you will just have to sit down at a table with us sometime.
next session is this Sunday at my house.


----------



## Mark (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> I hope you get a chance to. I've only skimmed parts of it. I only mention the audience thing because I imagine someone looking it up and proclaiming on the site "UR doin' it rong," because she may have had to be somewhat reductive at certain points.





I think that most of us who are steeped in the hobby for years can use regular doses of reductive analysis to keep us from losing sight of the core issues.  I game fairly regularly with friends and their youngsters who are not yet teenagers and it has a similar effect.  Understanding the basics helps to keep the complex from seeming complicated.


----------



## Anselyn (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I'd be careful of attributing too much to identity crises; because then you appear to come off as dismissive and patronizing of those who engage in edition war behavior---as if they don't have any "real" issue other than their lack of a strong sense of who they are, so they have to substitute their gamer-tastes as their identity, etc. While I'm sure it's true for many gamers, I think it's a poor explanation for edition wars generally.



While not wishing to be dismissive or patronising about anyone, my point would be that they _do_ have a strong sense of who they are. It's just it's bound up in their hobby.

The non-gaming equivalent might be football (soccer- e.g Man U etc) fans whose happiness, even mood at work, is deeply bound to their club's fortunes. Of course, these clubs continue to exist, playing the same game even through the ups and downs of the years.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 23, 2010)

I like the sports team identity analogy.


Which made me think:

Why EDITION wars instead of GAME wars?

You don't see "Vampire is SOOO better than D&D" threads continually boil out of control.


The edition wars are not really about which game version is better. If they were, we'd see wars about which GAME is better too. I think they're about the fact that one thing is sort of "wiped away" (when 4e came, 3e could have entirely dried up...and it certainly got much smaller) and the fact that the identity of the game is changed.


It's interesting to put these other comments to the test of "what if it were a different game rather than a different version"? i.e. Someone mentioned their group splitting into 4e and 3e. What would have happened if someone introduced, say, Call of Cthulhu to the group? Would it have been as likely to split?


There seems to be something a great deal more here than just different games, but it's hard for me to pinpoint it beyond itentity of something we care about being changed or wiped away.


----------



## Anselyn (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> Regarding the OSR:
> 
> I hope I'm not implying a directly causal relationship, here. What I am suggesting is that the edition wars, by being largely exercises in comparison/contrast, have brought older styles of play to light. It was through threads here, for example, that I came across Philotomy's explanations of how the expectations/sensibilities of newer games/versions often act as impediments to understanding the rationale of older styles (I hope I'm not butchering his stance too badly here). Similarly, it is through links provided in such threads that I've come across blogs such as Grognardia or Jeff's Gameblog.
> 
> ...



I can't find Philotomy's explanations of this - but Windjammer's link to the Mearl's commment is very interesting in terms of what players _do_ in the game - then and now.

In narrative terms, I think it's amazing that OD&D so quickly found a consensual pseudo-mediaval world that people "got" so they could play the game. My friends and I knew Tolkien, Arthurian romances, Robin Hood, Star Trek, Mission Impossible and some European history but we grasped the idea of the generic D&D setting without ever having read Lieber/Vance/Moorcock. I know it's been said that the roleplaying concept grew from the community of players depsite the OD&D rules not because of them. [1]

I can say that while I've happily run trial 4e games for my 8-year-old son, I do find the power level of starting characters not exactly to my taste. However, I realise that 32 years ago I grasped a game where my character started out like a hobbit in Lord of the Rings in which boys go out on an adventure which makes them men. My son, not only generally lives in a post-D&D world in terms of cultural influence, but specifically he likes Power Rangers, Lego Star Wars and The Sarah Jane adventures (We can share Dr Who). So - his default idea of "Heroes can do this - ...." is different to mine and _possibly_ better served by 4e.

A previous poster mentioned the possibilities of playing with the grandkids and (IIRC) how that may be changed by rules changing over the years. But, the rules may just reflect the latest idea of what being a hero is - and that 's a "cultural" (? - there's probably a better word) divide between the generations as much as anything else.

Tangentially, to this - I liked the original Gamma World and we had fun with it. I think its return is interesting. I also think that WoTC may have realised that the contemporary consensual idea of "this is what heroes do ..." is so little linked to a pseudo-medieval world fantasy world (think BioShock, Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty) that quite large jumps in the setting might be survived with the games ruleset that is - power A/power B/ Power C with some flavour text.[2] 

Actually, given current TV trends, some post-apocalytpic vampires with zombie friends need to be added to the Gamma World mix (both could be a mutation ...).

[1] This is not meant to be an insult to any fan of OD&D - and this reflects comments in the UK fanzine community in the mid-80s that I think were insightful. 
[2] IMHO that's the strength and weakness of 4e. I admire its design with some reservations about its feel - FWIW.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 23, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> The edition wars are not really about which game version is better. If they were, we'd see wars about which GAME is better too.




those exist here too.

Paladium, GURPS, Fudge, Hero, Savage Worlds...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yes, I understand the feeling.  This, however, is when we of the moderation staff highly recommend that you WALK AWAY.  There's really no sign that the person(s) in question is going to have their mind changed at this point, right?  So why bother?  Isn't continuing to engage only giving these parties more opportunities?




I don't think it's a matter of changing the mind of that particular person, just making sure that others see through the un-truths. I do agree that we defenders need to WALK AWAY when posting angry though. It does not behoove the defense of any game to act just as poorly as the person you believe has wronged your game of choice.

Edit: Also, I do understand that the striker/defender view is subjective. That's why I believe in trying to make it clear that my posts are my opinion and expound upon my point instead of reducing my point to something dismissive.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 23, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I
> Why EDITION wars instead of GAME wars?
> 
> You don't see "Vampire is SOOO better than D&D" threads continually boil out of control.




Well, back in the day when White Wolf was newer, you saw a heck of a lot of that sort of thing.  It was perhaps less visible because the online community of gamers was smaller back then.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 23, 2010)

At this point, I think that in order for one side to actually win the edition war, some help will be needed.  If only there was some way gather our forces...

Some means of coming together....

Some sort of....army builder.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 23, 2010)

I've seen tons of game wars.  I don't think they're very common here, and probably never really have been, because the community self-selects here for those who like D&D.

rpg.net used to be infamous for game wars back in the day.  There's even a meme that was unintentionally created over one of the more famous threads in the game wars; "my hat of d02 know no limit."


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 23, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> For me, I think the most important rule is to _assume the other person is being genuine_. They aren't a troll, they aren't an internet tough guy, they aren't here just to stir up Edition Wars, they don't hate ENWorld, they actually have a conversation they want to have, they are willing to talk about their ideas, they aren't a hater or a fanboi, they actually have reasons for their beliefs, and these are their actual beliefs, however rabidly mad they sound to me.
> 
> *If you give the person the benefit of the doubt, even if you disagree with them, you can have a pretty productive conversation.* But the moment you assume you know what motivates the other person, you get beyond the discussion of the game, and get into a personal series of attacks.



1. This is only true if you were correct to give them the benefit of the doubt.

2. Past behavior is indicative of future behavior.  How did the last time you gave them the benefit of the doubt turn out for you?

3. If what you're giving them the benefit of the doubt about is something like, "does this person genuinely believe the really nasty insult he tossed my way?" then giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding their sincerity doesn't help a thing.

4. There is value in not feeding trolls.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 23, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> There seems to be something a great deal more here than just different games, but it's hard for me to pinpoint it beyond itentity of something we care about being changed or wiped away.




When you think about it, this is about brand and/or identity changes.

One of the newer trends today is the fact that companies like to recycle brands more often nowadays.  In the past, brands used to have solid identities.  You only had a few Hershey bar (milk chocolate and one with almonds), for instance.  Lately, though, brand changing has become more common place.  You now have Hershey bars of various types.

The big thing is that, in entertainment and media, brand changing that completely changes identity can involve alienation of fans and sometimes the core is lost.  Take the case of MTV and VH1.  Both stations used to be devoted to music videos.  Even in the 90s when they moved away from exclusively being a music channels, they showed music related programming.  This changed early this decade and suddenly VH1 became what I call the K-Mart version of the E! network.  (And I'm not sure what MTV turned into).  Other stations have done similar things--Cartoon Network executives tried to say "why does a Cartoon have to be animated" when they added some live action programming.  However, in other cases, channels that changed their basic identity also changed their names--The Nashville Network became The National Network and then Spike TV.  

The key problem here is the identity of a brand.  That's key.  If you change something in a radical way, it can be very risky, at least to the loyal consumers and fans.  Most people don't care about things like Candy Bars, for instance, so it's not as off-putting to see "Cookies and Cream" Hershey Bars (and the original still exists)--although like Coca-Cola in the 80s there are exceptions.  But if you change a creative work with a strong brand, especially with entertainment, people can get upset.  "Radical Reboots" don't always work, we only see the success stories.  There are many disenfranchised fans of VH1, like myself, for instance.  In some cases, companies have accepted losses in an attempt to bring in new members of greater value, or they cynically want to change things based on ego of the owners, or they want to fix a perception problem.

With D&D, you have a game with a very strong identity, and a rather large and loyal audience.  Regardless of motivation of the owners of the D&D trademark for the changes from 3e to 4e, they unleased more radical changes than any previous edition to date.  So, we have a strong brand with a loyal audience that changed.

Part of the reason I think edition wars are so powerful this time is because a disenfranchised group feels threatened by the replacement group.  They are loyal to the old identity, feel what happened is a form of "identity theft" (from the perspective of the fans, not the owners), and don't want the change to succeed.  While I dislike the bad behavior and the personal attacks, I can understand this feeling.  If a very old and popular heroic character was rebooted to be some sort of psychotic miscanthrope (Harry Potter, Superman, Snoopy, Mickey Mouse), you'd likely see protests even if sales tripled.  Some people don't consider bands as legitimate if they lose their lead singer (or the entire lineup).  If McDonalds gave up the burgers and changed to a Scottish Haggis stand, you'd see people complaining.  Fans, Consumers, Customers--whatever you call them--have a certain expectation from long-lived businesses, brands, and products with a strong history and identity.

So, if you're asking what's at stake with the edition wars, it's the identity of D&D and its future.  And I think people on both side are trying to change opinions, because it's as important to them as a political party--does D&D go more liberal/progressive (more changes, killing of sacred cows), or does the next edition go more conservative (any changes going back to a prior version, less changes introduced, even a radical back to basics approach that is 80% AD&D 1st Edition, etc.).


----------



## jmucchiello (Feb 23, 2010)

I've only read page 1 but I think this is the crux of the issue:



SpiderMonkey said:


> it's easy to say "everybody loses" in these squabbles (and I'm certainly not inclined to disagree). I guess what I'm asking is "what specifically is intrinsic to D&D (or rpgs in general, if you like) that leads to this particular form of interaction.



This is the flaw in your thesis. "Edition Wars" are not unique to RPGs at all. If you go to a Van Halen fan page (moderated as well as ENWorld) you will still find thread after thread of "Edition Wars": Van Halen with David Lee Roth is the one true Van Halen. Van Halen with Sammy Hagar blows DLR out of the water. They first group even calls the second group Van Hagar derisively.

RPG Edition Wars are just like all other kinds of Flame War and they have existed probably as long as multi-recipient email existed. Otherwise it is as old as netnews. When I was in college in the 80s I observed and sadly participated in many flame wars over trivial matters exactly in the same manner as Edition Wars rage across all RPG forums. 

Flame Wars are not limited to the Internet. They are simply faster and globally diverse on the Internet. People standing on line to a Van Halen concert can engage in verbal "whose version of the band is best" shouting matches just as easily as gamers in a FLGS can "laugh at the retro-clone".

How does your paper/talk handle the idea that Edition Wars are nothing but a specific instance of flaming?


----------



## Anselyn (Feb 23, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> How does your paper/talk handle the idea that Edition Wars are nothing but a specific instance of flaming?




No smoke without fire. No flames without fuel.

To categorize it - possibly entirely correctly - as just a flame war doesn't explain why it's an sustainable flame war. That takes us back the the initial question in a different form rather than negating it.


----------



## jmucchiello (Feb 23, 2010)

Anselyn said:


> No smoke without fire. No flames without fuel.
> 
> To categorize it - possibly entirely correctly - as just a flame war doesn't explain why it's an sustainable flame war. That takes us back the the initial question in a different form rather than negating it.



By definition, Flame Wars are without end. If a flame war could reach a conclusion, it would merely be a heated discussion. Any topic on which people disagree can be a flame war. What makes you think RPGs are special in this regard?

Are you saying there are topics that do not lend themselves to flame wars? What are they? They aren't religion, politics, best/favorite sports teams, best/favorite actor/actress, etc. Heck, if you started a "blue" website, I'm sure flame wars about red being better than blue would break out.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 23, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> With D&D, you have a game with a very strong identity, and a rather large and loyal audience.  Regardless of motivation of the owners of the D&D trademark for the changes from 3e to 4e, they unleased more radical changes than any previous edition to date.  So, we have a strong brand with a loyal audience that changed.



My take is kinda the opposite. I'd say D&D has really strong brand _recognition_, but not a strong, singular brand _identity_. In my view, edition changes and the ensuing Edition Wars only highlight disagreements over the character of the game that had been going on among hobbyists playing the same edition/game. 

Which is kinda why I participate in Edition War threads. What they might lack in cordiality, they often more than make up for in insights into how other people play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2010)

Interesting take, Mallus.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 23, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> Heck, if you started a "blue" website, I'm sure flame wars about red being better than blue would break out.




"Better dead than red!" 



> By definition, Flame Wars are without end. If a flame war could reach a conclusion, it would merely be a heated discussion.




I am not sure that is true.  One argument may just be some flaming.  Several arguments over a period make a war.  The war does not have to be perpetual - eventually, it can burn out, and be thought of as a thing of the past.


----------



## Anselyn (Feb 23, 2010)

jmucchiello said:


> By definition, Flame Wars are without end. If a flame war could reach a conclusion, it would merely be a heated discussion. Any topic on which people disagree can be a flame war. What makes you think RPGs are special in this regard?




Actually, I'm saying that RPGs are the same as the other topics you mention. People argue about religion/politics because the subject really matters to them. They don't - we assume - argue for purely the sake of it unless the sort of trolling contrarian that has been discussed above.




> Are you saying there are topics that do not lend themselves to flame wars? What are they? They aren't religion, politics, best/favorite sports teams, best/favorite actor/actress, etc. Heck, if you started a "blue" website, I'm sure flame wars about red being better than blue would break out.




Well, I'm sure I could find a marginal opinion so inconsequential to most people that it wouldn't sustain a flame war[1]. I may be able to sustain a long argument with one other person,which may be defined as a flame war. However, we are mostly interested in real many-people-taking-sides flamewars if we want to discuss some more general communal sense of investment in the topic.

[1] e.g. It is clear to me that only platonic solids should be used as dice is RPGs. It is clearly totally wrongheaded and mathematically foolish to use any others.  I'm sure all right-thinking gamers agree. (etc., etc )


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 23, 2010)

diaglo said:


> i'll try. i ain't very good with w3rds.  also not meaning this as an attack or defense. just what i read at the time i was directed to this thread.
> 
> when i read your first 2 posts of this thread i got the impression you were saying that edition wars only exist because of remediation. if you are saying that then i am trying to say i disagree.
> 
> ...




Okay, I think some of the confusion is arising out of the term "remediation." I'm using the term as Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin use it. To paraphrase quite a bit, I am refering to a given rules set as a medium. According to them, a medium is "that which remediates. It is that which appropriates the techniques, forms, and social significance of other media and attempts to rival or refashion them in the name of the real" (65). Do I think subsequent editions make their predecessors obsolete? No, not at all. But what new media claims to do is to bring a more authentic experience of reality than its predecessor(s). An example that comes to mind (and that they use) is photographs as a remediation of oil painting. Now, the notion that photographs are somehow better than oil painting is ridiculous--each has its own merits. 

What is interesting however, is the effect that the introduction of a new medium has: Although each medium promises to reform its predecessors...the promise of reform inevitably leads us to become aware of the new medium as a medium" (20). I think that a lot of the edition wars spring from this realization--that the medium is a medium (as obvious as it may sound), and that this medium does not capture _my_ view of the real, or worse, carries some normative argument against it.

Does that make sense? I certainly don't want to make the claim that newer editions somehow "fixed" older editions. I got much OD&D love, mang.


----------



## Merkuri (Feb 23, 2010)

I think it has to do with something that's very well loved being changed.

Even if it's not intended that way, a lot of people subconsciously see changes as a way of saying, "You were doing it wrong before, here's the right way."  They might feel hurt or insulted.  Even if nobody comes out and says it this way they might also see the changes as somebody trying to make them give up something they loved.  

Changes to something always imply that something was wrong with the original, whether that was intended or not, and some people can't help but take it personally.

On the other hand, some people like new shiny things and jump at the chance to try out the changes.  These people might not have been as emotionally invested in the old way, or they were emotionally invested but recognized that nothing is perfect and there were flaws in the system.  Some will enjoy the changes so much that they can't fathom going back to the old way.

So you have one group of people that feels threatened and insulted by the new thing, and one group that thinks the other group is missing out or missing the point.  Naturally you're going to have conflict between these groups.  

The flame wars start when someone who is very emotionally attached to their version reads a comment as an insult against their version.  It may have actually been an insult or it could have been been perfectly innocent and just badly phrased, but what's important is that the emotinally invested person interprets it as something that needs to be defended against, and they respond with venom.

This type of thing is really not unique to D&D or RPGs.  Look at when Lucas released the new digitally remastered copies of the original Star Wars movies.  Some people loved the additions and little details.  Some hated it with a passion.  I think there are still people that argue over whether Han shot first or not.

Any change to something people are emotionally invested in will cause flame wars.


----------



## Herschel (Feb 23, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Personally, I think "edition warriors" just like to argue.





You're wrong. 

That'll be five pounds, please.

People want to be "right" about things they like. The intenet is a generally anonymous place to defend or attack whatever one wants so people tend to go further down the line of antagonism than they would face-to-face.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 23, 2010)

Anselyn said:


> Actually, I'm saying that RPGs are the same as the other topics you mention. People argue about religion/politics because the subject really matters to them. They don't - we assume - argue for purely the sake of it unless the sort of trolling contrarian that has been discussed above.




People in Los Angeles can endlessly argue about the Los Angeles Lakers vs. the Los Angeles Clippers.  It doesn't actually matter though.  We argue about it because the argument itself is fun.

Heck, people argue about the Black Sox scandal to this day - and none of them were alive when it happened.  People argue about all sorts of stuff, endlessly, that doesn't really matter to them.


----------



## DanFor (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> I'm mostly arguing from an ontological basis, that is, the rules determine and implicitly argue for ways of being in a game world. I'll also be talking about how the rules affect the "means of production" in terms of creative control of a shared narrative/imaginary universe.
> 
> I know these discussions don't get so heated based solely on these reasons, and that's why I'm asking you for your opinions.




Just prior to the announcement of 4E, the print versions of "Dragon" and "Dungeon" magazines were cancelled and replaced with digital versions. At the same time that 4e was announced, the fans were informed that the "Forgotten Realms" setting would be totally re-worked and that WotC would not be using the OGL with 4E. In my opinion, these developments angered many of the fans just as much as the announcement of the new edition. As far as the rules themselves, the compatibility issues and the apparent shift to a skirmish-focused (vs. roleplaying) rule set seem to be the major points of contention.



SpiderMonkey said:


> So...
> 
> ...for you, what's really at stake?




Speaking as an "edition warrior" (aka enraged nerd)--and as already mentioned--investment and identity are what's at stake for me. I have been playing D&D since the 80's. I still play D&D with my best friend from high school. I play D&D with my grown children and look forward to playing it with my grandchildren some day. When the company that owns the D&D brand makes numerous decisions that I strongly disagree with, and when those decisions alienate me from the brand that I have grown so attached to, my perception is that the decision-makers are ruining something that I care a lot about. Necessarily, the fans who support and defend the "bad" decisions are helping to bring about the downfall of "my" game. And so, battle lines are drawn and an editions war ensues. In my opinion.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 23, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> Changes to something always imply that something was wrong with the original, whether that was intended or not, and some people can't help but take it personally.




If my wife changes her hair color, it does not mean something was wrong with the prior color, it just means she felt like trying a different color.  And if I go into a restaurant I've been to before and order something different from what I ordered last time, that does not imply there was something wrong with my prior meal there.  

Change does not always imply something was wrong before.  It often means you just feel like it's time to try something different, despite being pleased with what came before.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 23, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Change does not always imply something was wrong before.  It often means you just feel like it's time to try something different, despite being pleased with what came before.




Not always, but not all changes imply the same things. Clearly, the change in editions in D&D means a lot more to a lot of people than changing hair color.

Edit: Though I will add, that for some people, graying hair is a traumatic experience (particularly when you're just in high school or college). For them, coloring their hair is a *big* deal.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> I'm using the term as Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin use it. To paraphrase quite a bit, I am refering to a given rules set as a medium. According to them, a medium is "that which remediates. It is that which appropriates the techniques, forms, and social significance of other media and attempts to rival or refashion them in the name of the real" (65).




Ugh.  I call obfuscative language abuse!  (Not on you, but on Bolter and Grusin) 

Base simplicity - a medium should be that which mediates, and a "_re_medium" should be that which _re_mediates.  

I don't think one can generally say that anything in D&D is done "in the name of the real", if only because we probably won't agree on what "the real" is (or if it even exists) in this context.



> But what new media claims to do is to bring a more authentic experience of reality than its predecessor(s).




That might work well for art - where an artwork might considered to be an expression of reality that the artist is attempting to communicate to the audience.  I am not sure you can make that claim for RPGs, in general.  I don't even know if it is a sound claim to make of art, in general.  New media don't necessarily claim to bring a "more authentic" experience of reality - merely a _different_ experience of reality.

Television is a medium (even a 'remedium').  But does it claim to be "more authentic" than stage plays?  Hardly.  It is more accessible and more convenient to my daily life.  I'd think authenticity is not part of the medium itself, but of the individual work within the medium.

So, overall, I'm not sure I like the definition you present at all.

(It also sounds like faulty application of outmoded ideas of evolution to artistic work, but that's a separate digression more suited for the media or OT forums than here).


----------



## Umbran (Feb 23, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Change does not always imply something was wrong before.  It often means you just feel like it's time to try something different, despite being pleased with what came before.




Agreed.  One may choose to change because something was wrong, but also for other reasons.  If I go out to see a new movie, does that mean there was something "wrong" with the last movie I saw?  If I pick up a new book, was there something "wrong" with the old author?


----------



## Merkuri (Feb 23, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> If my wife changes her hair color, it does not mean something was wrong with the prior color, it just means she felt like trying a different color.  And if I go into a restaurant I've been to before and order something different from what I ordered last time, that does not imply there was something wrong with my prior meal there.




So, let's say your wife changes her hair color and walks into work and a coworker might say, "You dyed your hair?  What was wrong with the old color?"  That would be a valid thing to ask.  The fact that your wife changed it _implies_ something was wrong with the old color.  

Note that "imply" doesn't equate to "true meaning".  Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with 3e, nor do I think Wizards thought that when they released 4e.  But the simple existence of 4e _implies_ (probably incorrectly) that 3e is somehow wrong.  It's certainly not a far step for someone to assume that's what WotC was thinking.



Umbran said:


> Agreed.  One may choose to change because something was wrong, but also for other reasons.  If I go out to see a new movie, does that mean there was something "wrong" with the last movie I saw?  If I pick up a new book, was there something "wrong" with the old author?




I'd also like to point out that the restauraunt order, movie choice, and book choice are all examples of picking something different, not necessarily changing something that already existed.

If you were making a meal at home, and the second time you made it you added more salt it implies that the original recipe didn't have enough salt (it was wrong, in your opinion).  If you were writing a movie script or a book and you changed a character's dialog it implies that you thought the original dialog was wrong.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2010)

One reason that the 3e to 4e edition wars raged so hotly may well be the (right or wrong) perception of how the change was characterized by WotC.

When 3e was coming, WotC did a large customer survey.  I recall well the Dragon Magazine articles that said "Here's what you said you wanted, and here's how we're responding."  This seemed to me to be inclusive and respectful.

When 4e was coming, the presentation seemed more like "This is what D&D is going to be like, whether you like it or not.  We hope you like it."  I know I certainly read it that way, although I admit (again) that this was an overreaction.

When parsing out the changes from 3e to 4e, it also became difficult because, whenever one tried to see the paradigm shift, there was a plethora of claims that the game had "always been that way".  OTOH, whenever you tried to make sense of the game in terms of previous editions, there was a plethora of claims that, essentially, one had to accept a paradigm shift to do so.  Which was it?

For me, the solution was to eventually decide that what D&D meant to me had nothing to do with the trademark name "Dungeons & Dragons" itself, and go my own way.  And now I happily steal....er, convert....adventure materials from all editions, regardless of source.  And MERP.  And Harn.  Etc.


RC


----------



## innerdude (Feb 23, 2010)

Hobo said:


> While I don't doubt that personal identity is a factor, it fails to be the most parsimonious solution, in my opinion, and therefore its utility in explaining the phenomena widely is suspect.  It rests on the unproven and unprovable assumption that edition warriors invest their personal identity in the game to such an extent that changes to the game threaten their identity.
> 
> A simpler solution, and one that surely applies to many edition warriors, is what's been stated earlier: 1) concern that with an edition change, it will be materially more difficult to find a group of like-minded gamers with whom to play his game of choice, and 2) concern that support for the game will disappear.  These are _real_, as well as proximate and immediate concerns, whereas self-identity as a gamer of a certain edition is, by its nature, a speculative claim.




This was absolutely the most immediate element for me with the switch. When 4e was released, I knew I would be moving to start graduate school in a matter of months, separating me from my long-time 3.x gaming group. 

I also knew, due to the location where I would be in school, that if there was going to be any kind of D&D gaming scene in my new town, that it would likely be focused on the newest edition, because it was "new," and it was the only "official" D&D (at the time, pre-Pathfinder) that was going to be supported. 

And guess what.....I was right. The only D&D groups of I've had invites to play in were 4th ed campaigns. I actually have ended up compromising by playing a Star Wars Saga Edition game, but I'll take a good fantasy roleplaying campaign over Star Wars any day. 

Of course, Hobo's assertion doesn't fully describe WHY I preferred D&D 3.x over 4e to begin with. For me, it wasn't _primarily_ about identity, as many have defined (although there was a definite element of "fandom," I'll admit). For me, it was the fact that the style of roleplaying I preferred, and that the long-time group I had played with inculcated, did not seem to be as inherently integral to the design goals of the 4th edition product. 

And of course, since my way of roleplaying is the only right way, everyone should bow before my demands, right?  

However, as I pointed out in a previous thread, I personally could have handled the 4th Edition transition much better if I felt that Wizards of the Coast wasn't being so disingenuous about its production, its design goals, and the product's ultimate place in their long-term business strategy. Thus, my stake in the edition war is really no longer the rules themselves. Shoot, go knock yourselves out playing any edition you want. I've got Pathfinder, and I will do my darndest to get people to play it if a group ever asked for my input, but if I had a group I trusted that wanted to play 4e, I probably would. 

However, 

To me, the stake now is in the _ethics_ and _business practices_ of the companies I wish to support in the future, because those practices ultimately affect my options for playing. My personal stake in the matter is that if we as fans show "blind loyalty" to a product--any product--that's foisted upon us as "the next great thing," and we as the willing masses simply buy it because it has the right logo printed on the cover, that ultimately the quality of gaming--universally, across the board--suffers. Because at that point, design decisions ARE NOT MADE WITH THE INTENT TO IMPROVE THE GAMING EXPERIENCE, they are made to capitalize on the highest return on investment. If we're really really lucky, a smart company will try to do both--but if one side gets sacrificed in the face of expediency, guess which one it's going to be?

Like it or not, D&D is the Microsoft of the RPG world. It sets the trends. And my worst fear is that 4th Edition is the first step into the "Microsoftization" of D&D--where expediency and quarterly profits are more important than really producing something GOOD. And if the "Microsoft" principle of D&D holds true, we are likely to get one good version of "Windows" (aka D&D) about every three releases. 

In the past, I don't think this was the case. I think most of us felt that every edition of D&D had a level of transparency. Yes, there were disagreements about which edition handled rules better, but I don't think most of us, even in the days of early 3.0, felt that the edition change was an attempt to simply get us to "buy stuff."  There were clear elements of design improvement that were pointed to as evolutionary.

But with 4th Edition, it felt to me that Wizards of the Coast, as evidenced by many of their corporate decisions around the same time as the 4e release, had fallen prey to the "corporate imperative" rather than the "customer imperative"--radical rules revision largely breaking backwards compatibility, the bungled marketing campaign ("Your badwrongfun must stop!"), yanking old PDFs from online vendors, the horrendous original GSL license, the largely unfulfilled promise of the DDI initiative. All of it had a distinctly "Windows Vista" feel to it--a corporation releasing a functional but half-baked product that many people didn't particularly feel needed to be released, but was foisted upon us anyway, because it was "better" than what we already had. 

Ultimately, my "stake," or investment in D&D is to maintain a broad, vibrant community of gamers, but to also ensure that opportunities to play the RPG of my choice continue at the highest rate possible. And as a result, I have a vital, protective interest in the Market Leader of my chosen hobby producing a product that meets that need.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> When 3e was coming, WotC did a large customer survey.  I recall well the Dragon Magazine articles that said "Here's what you said you wanted, and here's how we're responding."  This seemed to me to be inclusive and respectful.
> 
> When 4e was coming, the presentation seemed more like "This is what D&D is going to be like, whether you like it or not.  We hope you like it."  I know I certainly read it that way, although I admit (again) that this was an overreaction.




That was my recollection as well- I was a subscriber to Dragon at the time, and remember seeing the surveys they did.  It was impossible to miss.  But I have no recollection of similar queries for 4Ed- I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that I don't recall seeing any of it.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 23, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Not always, but not all changes imply the same things. Clearly, the change in editions in D&D means a lot more to a lot of people than changing hair color.
> 
> Edit: Though I will add, that for some people, graying hair is a traumatic experience (particularly when you're just in high school or college). For them, coloring their hair is a *big* deal.




I think for an awful lot of people, changing hair color is a lot more meaningful than what edition of a role playing game they prefer to play.  Their hair is something seen by everyone, every day.  Their role playing game is something they might do once a month or so.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 23, 2010)

innerdude said:


> My investment in D&D is to maintain a broad, vibrant community of gamers but to also ensure that the community will also have enough players that enjoy the style of gameplay I prefer, so that I can maximize my enjoyment of the product.



How exactly does participating in edition wars accomplish this?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 23, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> So, let's say your wife changes her hair color and walks into work and a coworker might say, "You dyed your hair?  What was wrong with the old color?"  That would be a valid thing to ask.  The fact that your wife changed it _implies_ something was wrong with the old color.




For your expansion on the hair dye example, it does not imply that.  The coworker would be making an inference, not picking up on an implication.  And yes, some women would take offense at the inference that there was something wrong involved with changing hair color.  It's a conclusion someone is drawing based on insufficient information to draw that conclusion.



> Note that "imply" doesn't equate to "true meaning".  Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with 3e, nor do I think Wizards thought that when they released 4e.  But the simple existence of 4e _implies_ (probably incorrectly) that 3e is somehow wrong.  It's certainly not a far step for someone to assume that's what WotC was thinking.




It really does not inherently imply that.  Again, change can happen without something being wrong with the prior choices.  You're just asserting that as fact again, without supporting your assertion.  Why does the simple existence of 4e imply that 3e is somehow wrong?



> I'd also like to point out that the restauraunt order, movie choice, and book choice are all examples of picking something different, not necessarily changing something that already existed.




D&D 4e can be seen as picking something different rather than just a change to an existing thing.  

A change to something that already existed would be 3e errata, not a new edition.  4e doesn't change 3e.  It doesn't do anything to 3e, or any prior editions for that matter.

A new edition is like ordering something different at a restaurant you've ordered from before.  You're still eating, you're still doing that eating at the same restaurant, maybe even the same table with the same wait staff at the same time of day with the same companions, but can still make different choices than you made last time you ordered something at that restaurant (a change).  You might still order an appetizer, drink, main course, coffee, and desert.  But you can change which appetizer, drink, main course, coffee, and desert you order this time around, or you can leave some of those off, or add something entirely new like a salad course.  That doesn't imply there was anything wrong with what you ordered last time.  It's just different.

Much like the game designers are still designing D&D rules, still doing it from the same company and with a basic recognizable brand and similar structure and some recognizable terms and concepts, from the same building and perhaps with even some of the same people and playtesters and miniatures and game aids and such, but choosing different things this time around to design the rules than they did last time around.  It does not imply there was something wrong with what they ordered from the rules table last time they designed D&D rules, just that it's different.



> If you were making a meal at home, and the second time you made it you added more salt it implies that the original recipe didn't have enough salt (it was wrong, in your opinion).




Or it could mean you want to see what it tastes like with more salt.  Maybe you just are in a salty mood that moment, and next time you make it maybe you are in a more peppery mood and you add pepper.  None of that implies something was necessarily wrong with how you made it the first time.  Not all change implies something was wrong before.



> If you were writing a movie script or a book and you changed a character's dialog it implies that you thought the original dialog was wrong.




Or you are just trying out the new dialog to see how it works, and see if it maybe inspires you to do something else.

I do not understand why you are coming at these issues with just one possible conclusion when there are many conclusions one can draw from the examples.  We both play a game about imagination.  Imagine the various possible scenarios one can come up with to try and fit this change into a "does not imply something was wrong before" mode of thinking and I bet you can see where I am coming from on this.  Try and come at the topic from the opposite perspective for a moment.  If there is more than one conclusion you can draw - doesn't that mean that in fact not all change must imply something was wrong before?


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Feb 23, 2010)

SpiderMonkey:

Please excuse me if I’m repeating stated views or misunderstanding your intent:  I didn’t read the whole thread. 

I fail to understand what the sociological (and philosophical) implications of role-playing and a planned obsolescing business model have to do with the study of Rhetoric.  So, I guess I’m wondering why you are talking about Hegelian shifts of art applied to Marketing theory while speaking at an English Graduate Panel discussion. 

Are you interested in New Genre Theory?  And even if you are, I fail to see how the ‘stake’ of genre community discussion could reveal anything beyond the mode of rhetoric used in that community.  Which I think is very interesting:  but has absolutely nothing to do with your assumptions--or even questions.

As a Sociological (or even Philosophical) discussion I think some of these questions have some merit:  especially regarding the parallels between art, sport, and games.  But, you seem to come across more as a fan with an agenda rather than an academic ready to study ‘taste culture’ or ‘frame of reference.’

I would suggest you extrapolate your theory based on observations rather than searching for a theory that can be saddled into the given situation.  Look at similar communities such as professional sports, literature, art criticism, and even popular music.  Each of these communities has a large amount of discussion regarding relevance and taste (even involving shared experiences) that concomitantly reflect the types of discussion you find on these very boards.  The ‘stake’ might not be (as a fan might think) the trueness of the experience so much as just belonging to a community.

So, if I have understood what you are trying to present, I would avoid correlations between community discussions with marketing, the trueness of experience, and the development of the game.  The crux of the situation is that any shared community involvement will evolve the understanding and working of any shared experience simply through the process of community. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 23, 2010)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 1. This is only true if you were correct to give them the benefit of the doubt.




When is it incorrect to assume that the other person is a rational, sympathetic human being? 

Well, maybe in business, in law, or in politics, but as far as two people talking to each other goes...



> 2. Past behavior is indicative of future behavior. How did the last time you gave them the benefit of the doubt turn out for you?




What's the worst that can happen in ENWorld? You loose some time. You're discussing something on ENWorld, you've probably got some time to loose. 



> 3. If what you're giving them the benefit of the doubt about is something like, "does this person genuinely believe the really nasty insult he tossed my way?" then giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding their sincerity doesn't help a thing.




People have reasons for the things they do. If you assume that other people are at least as rational as you, and treat them how you would like to be treated in a conversation, you can, at the very least, uncover those reasons (even if it was "I was in a bad mood and responded poorly," in the end).



> 4. There is value in not feeding trolls.




There's also value in getting to why the trolling works in the first place, and what _actual issues_ are touched off by the trolls. Lulz can only be had with a passionate reaction by others. Why do those others get passionate, and what are they telling us about what they want?

I don't think it's too hard to assume, on ENWorld at least (4chan would be a different story), that people generally are not trolls, even if they are highly critical of Edition X. 

Throwing down the word "TROLL!" at the drop of a hat treats the message board community as some sort of witch-hunt for who deserves the torches and the fire, and actually hurts functional conversation as much as "fanboi" and "hater" do (because those are all basically saying that conversation is pointless).

But ultimately, it boils down to this:

Nobody is an internet psychic.

Nobody knows what another poster is truly thinking.

In assuming that they're cogent, and getting to the meat of their post, you can get past the inflammatory rhetoric toward something functional ("what did you mean when you said 4e was like WoW? What specifically keyed you off to that? Why do you think that specific thing was like WoW? Was that accurate, or might there be a different way you can say 'I don't like this'?"). And if they're not, then you don't loose anything you're not losing by being on ENWorld in the first place anyway.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 23, 2010)

Kamikaze- Sometimes the reason a troll has is just sheer, simple, stupid, brutal malice.

slacktivist: False witnesses


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 23, 2010)

The slacktivist article deals with facts.

The Edition Wars are rarely, if ever, about facts. 

They are about feelings, emotions, senses, "fun," and other nebulous, subjective, interpretive, fluffy things. 

I can't say that an agoraphobic is _wrong_ to be afraid of going outside. They are afraid of it, and that is what matters. The useful thing is discovering why, and then using those root causes of phobias and the outdoors to reveal more about human beings and our complex brains.  

I can't say someone who hates 4e with the burning passion of a thousand suns is _wrong_ to hate 4e. They do, and that is what matters. The useful thing is discovering why, and then using those root causes of hate to reveal more about gamers and the games we play.

There's some more thoughts I have about the supposed malice of people in the slacktivist article, but those don't really pertain to this thread or D&D, so I'll let those lie. But, basically, how one feels about a given edition of D&D is a subjective thing, not an objective thing, and logical deduction rarely plays a major part in figuring it out.

Again, _you don't know what the other person is thinking_. Assuming malice can only lead to witch-hunts, and makes the general atmosphere cowardly and reactionary. 

And if malice is shown, that is why we have moderators and the Report This Post button.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2010)

Cadfan said:


> Kamikaze- Sometimes the reason a troll has is just sheer, simple, stupid, brutal malice.
> 
> slacktivist: False witnesses




Malice is personal. This is not what edition wars are primarily about, I think.

 If the target of my malice liked 3e, I would bash 3e. If, later on, the target of my malice changed opinion and did not like 3e, I would praise 3e. This is not what edition wars are about, I think.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Again, _you don't know what the other person is thinking_. Assuming malice can only lead to witch-hunts, and makes the general atmosphere cowardly and reactionary.





KM, 

If I ever doubt you again, please remind me of your participation in this thread.  I would give you XP if I could.

RC


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 24, 2010)

Edition wars aren't about facts?

They may be motivated by emotions, but I think they're quite frequently about facts.  Whether elder dragon minions exist in 4e is a factual question.  If someone repeatedly creates threads, or sidetracks threads, by attacking 4e's elder red dragon minions, they are making a factual assertion that is not only incorrect, but easily shown to be incorrect.  It might be plausible to assume that the first time they posted they did so in error, or because they were misinformed.  But after the fifth or sixth, I feel justified in making negative judgments of their character.  The most plausible explanation is that they are trying to make people mad by lying.

The alternative explanation, that they are dumber than rocks and incapable of recognizing that their factual assertion is completely wrong even after having chapter and verse cited to them to prove it, _is not actually the charitable position you are making it out to be.

_You can actually go quite further in the criticism when you begin to address people who make assertions they have no reason to believe are true, but which they hope will make others miserable.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 24, 2010)

Cadfan said:


> Edition wars aren't about facts?
> 
> They may be motivated by emotions, but I think they're quite frequently about facts.




No they are about emotions and facts or false facts are just sometimes used as ammunition.

Does anybody recognize the first fallacy as pertinent? To being excessively forgiving of Edition Warriors... I only have 3 on my ignore list.

Five Geek Social Fallacies


----------



## Merkuri (Feb 24, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> For your expansion on the hair dye example, it does not imply that.  The coworker would be making an inference, not picking up on an implication.  And yes, some women would take offense at the inference that there was something wrong involved with changing hair color.  It's a conclusion someone is drawing based on insufficient information to draw that conclusion.




Perhaps I'm using "imply" in the wrong sense.  Let me rephrase.

What I meant is that when one changes something it is easy and natural for someone to infer that the thing that was changed was wrong, or that the person doing the changing thought that the thing that was changed was wrong.

I am not saying this inference is right or logical.  It's a gut feeling.  It's a very human reaction.  When you see something change that you liked, your reaction is probably going to be, "Aw, what was wrong with the old way?"



Mistwell said:


> D&D 4e can be seen as picking something different rather than just a change to an existing thing.
> 
> A change to something that already existed would be 3e errata, not a new edition. 4e doesn't change 3e. It doesn't do anything to 3e, or any prior editions for that matter.




For you or me to switch to 4e is picking something different.  For WotC to stop marketing old D&D books and begin again with a whole new ruleset is making a change.  This is the change I'm referring to, not whether an individual gamer decides to make the switch or not.  This is the change that people are having a gut reaction to. 



Mistwell said:


> I do not understand why you are coming at these issues with just one possible conclusion when there are many conclusions one can draw from the examples.




I'm not saying that's the only conclusion someone can draw.  I'm saying it's a very natural conclusion that a person can come to, based on gut instinct and emotion.  

Some people might have that reaction and then say to themselves, "Well, they can't take away my books.  I'll just keep playing the way I've always played."  Other people might not bounce back as easily and choose (consciously or unconsciously) to take it as a personal affront from WotC and anyone who expresses a liking for 4e.  Those second group are probably the ones who contribute to flame wars.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 24, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> If my wife changes her hair color, it does not mean something was wrong with the prior color, it just means she felt like trying a different color. And if I go into a restaurant I've been to before and order something different from what I ordered last time, that does not imply there was something wrong with my prior meal there.
> 
> Change does not always imply something was wrong before. It often means you just feel like it's time to try something different, despite being pleased with what came before.




If the restaurant decides that what you had on your last visit will no longer be served what then?

A selection of choices for the sake of variety is a great thing. Being served what the management wants to serve isn't so hot.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 24, 2010)

IMO a big part of the problem was that sales were out of sync with the amount of play.  When 4E came along, 3E sales were in real decline.  From a business point of view it was absolutely time to go to a new edition.

But, sales were not down because play was sharply down.  It *was* down, as is the case for most any game of its age.  But play was still pretty solid, it was just that even the most devoted players were so buried in their D20 mountain of books that they just didn't need anything else.  It became a lot easier to be much more picky with what you bought.  And most of the cool topics of had already been published, so it was a double whammy of reasons not to buy.  

I don't think the WotC spin on 3E was nearly as bad as some people perceived.  But I also don't think it was as innocent as others insist.  WotC didn't intend to be abrasive.  But they failed to appreciate how much a significant portion of their fan base was still deeply invested (and not just financially) in the old game.  

So when they start talking about "proud nails", some people don't hear "Your wife's hair doesn't look greasy with that new color.", they hear: "I just called your wife's hair greasy.".   

A lot of people were ready to move on.  But a lot of people were not.  WotC significantly underestimated the size of the later group, and failed to consider their point of view regarding many 4E promotions.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Agreed.  One may choose to change because something was wrong, but also for other reasons.  If I go out to see a new movie, does that mean there was something "wrong" with the last movie I saw?  If I pick up a new book, was there something "wrong" with the old author?




i have no problem with the change of movies, hair color, food choice at restaurants...

as long as the original choices are still available by the ones making it.

with the movie if i can still pick it up at the dollar theater or on dvd i'm happy.
with the hair color if it turns back to the original fine.
with food choice. if it stays on the menu.

all these things mean that the change wasn't an implied bad thing.

my grief is dropping the movie totally. never making a dvd available.
or taking the food off the menu.

bring back my OD&D(1974) or d02 for the those fans or 1edADnD or even 2edADnD...

heck, i want new products for OD&D(1974) not just reprints. ask Ted Stark or Kevin Kulp or Scott Rouse or Charles Ryan or whomever else has ever read a post by me.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 24, 2010)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Whether elder dragon minions exist in 4e is a factual question. If someone repeatedly creates threads, or sidetracks threads, by attacking 4e's elder red dragon minions, they are making a factual assertion that is not only incorrect, but easily shown to be incorrect.




Is that something you see a lot of in edition discussions?

"4e has elder red dragon minions, therefore, it sucks?"

More often, what I see would be closer to "4e isn't really D&D, it's just a minis combat game masquerading as a roleplaying game!" That's a pretty inflammatory assertion. When disentangled from the inflammatory rhetoric, it is also a very subjective view. The only way you could say it's factually wrong is in "the logo is on it!"/"it says it's an RPG!" kind of way, which already assumes the person who posted the assertion is too blinded with nerdrage/dumb to look at the cover of the thing. 

I could just be haunting a weird corner of the interwebs, though. Possibly, the "4e has elder red dragon minions, it sucks now" is prevalent elsewhere. Even in that case, I'd be inclined to think the person was using sloppy hyperbole to make a point (something about character power? something about minions being dumb?) that is ultimately their subjective evaluation. Conversation might uncover that endpoint.



> The alternative explanation, that they are dumber than rocks and incapable of recognizing that their factual assertion is completely wrong even after having chapter and verse cited to them to prove it, is not actually the charitable position you are making it out to be.




Perhaps this is the key difference. I'm not trying to explain someone else's actions. I don't try and fathom why they do what they do. I'm not here to divine motives through the arcane medium of internet message board posts. I might as well read chicken entrails, and tell you what they are thinking. That is why the assumption of authenticity is just that -- an assumption. It might not be true, but if I act as if it is true, it leads to better ends, even in the situations where it is not (part of that happens to be that you get what you expect out of people -- if you believe someone has something to contribute, they might actually contribute, even if it was their intent to troll and if you believe someone is just a troll, they might turn into one, even if it wasn't their intent). 

All I know is what they say. Asking myself _"How could a rational person say something like this?"_ usually leads me to more productive, more generative thought for myself, and for those interested, then shutting it down out of troll-paranoia ever has. 



> You can actually go quite further in the criticism when you begin to address people who make assertions they have no reason to believe are true, but which they hope will make others miserable.




Well, that's just it, as far as my assumptions go, that doesn't happen very often at all when a group people honestly wants to communicate about things they are passionate about.

And even when it does, talking about it calmly and without invective can diffuse that misery that others might experience, and could lead to some actual insight as to why people get miserable over the assertion that 4e has elder red dragon minions in the first place. That assertion doesn't make me particularly miserable (I can even see where it could be kind of awesome -- how EPIC BADASS would that make your character seem?). Someone else being wrong doesn't upset me very much, either.

And, ultimately, it's for my own good. I'd much rather talk with a group of peers about something we share a passion for and err on the side of assuming people are decent, then leap at shadows and shout "J'accuse!" at some sloppy poster who likes to stir the pot. Constant vigilance for the disingenuous would frazzle me, because it is sodding difficult to divine motives _in person_, let alone though this artificial mode of communication. I would go mad with suspicion. It would be all _Kamikaze Crime And Punishment_ up in here. 

Thankfully, there is very little risk in assuming my fellow ENWorlders are not just out to spitefully make others suffer. Even if I'm wrong, I don't actually loose anything. It's just a bunch of dorks on the internet talking about pretending to be elves, at the end of the day.


----------



## Anselyn (Feb 24, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> People in Los Angeles can endlessly argue about the Los Angeles Lakers vs. the Los Angeles Clippers.  It doesn't actually matter though.  We argue about it because the argument itself is fun.
> 
> Heck, people argue about the Black Sox scandal to this day - and none of them were alive when it happened.  People argue about all sorts of stuff, endlessly, that doesn't really matter to them.




I would say this is really ritualised teasing rather than what I mean by an argument. However, I agree that debate, which is probably more relevant, is a synonym for argument according to online dictionaries. Does "quarrel" suggest the appropriate adrenaline level for the thing I was describing as an argument?  Perhaps this is a US/UK thing. My American partner confusingly talks about couples "fighting" when no blows have been exchanged ...


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Thankfully, there is very little risk in assuming my fellow ENWorlders are not just out to spitefully make others suffer. Even if I'm wrong, I don't actually loose anything. It's just a bunch of dorks on the internet talking about pretending to be elves, at the end of the day.



Well, there's also the other side of that coin, where of course nobody's out to make anyone _suffer_, because if someone's literally _suffering_ because of an edition war, holy cow, that's pathetic.

I suspect, (and in fact I know for a fact for some folks, because they've outright confessed as much) that stirring the pot a bit with some intentional hyperbole is seen as a relatively harmless amusement.

I can see how the mods would take exception with that point of view, though.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2010)

BryonD said:


> IMO a big part of the problem was that sales were out of sync with the amount of play.  When 4E came along, 3E sales were in real decline.  From a business point of view it was absolutely time to go to a new edition.
> 
> But, sales were not down because play was sharply down.  It *was* down, as is the case for most any game of its age.  But play was still pretty solid, it was just that even the most devoted players were so buried in their D20 mountain of books that they just didn't need anything else.  It became a lot easier to be much more picky with what you bought.  And most of the cool topics of had already been published, so it was a double whammy of reasons not to buy.
> 
> ...




Who are you and when did you get so reasonable.  

I'd posrep this if I could.


----------



## Paradox (Feb 24, 2010)

I don't think it can be put on one single thing, but a combination of items already listed. Part ego, part trolling, part lording over others with The Rules of their choice, part identity, part investment, part armchair game design and so on.

Plenty of folks felt burned at 3.5 after purchasing 3.0, so naturally, they would be against yet another edition change. But, taking part in Edition Wars isn't going to make WotC decide not to go ahead with a newer edition. (I sometimes wonder if rather than bothering with 3.5, WotC would have been better off just going for 4e instead. Yes, there still would be edition wars, but they might not be as heated.) 

Some Edition Wars come from simple misunderstandings as well. There's a thread on the WotC boards where someone says he's out of a job and now has time to play, should he resurrect his 3e game or go for 4e? So far, nobody's taking it the wrong way and starting an edition war thank goodness, but many if not most of them are saying try 4e without really grasping the main issue. I responded that his return to D&D and which edition would depend on what he meant by resurrecting his game. (If he had sold all his 3e books, he's going to have to start over anyway, might as well go for 4e. If he still has his 3e books, he should stay with that.) The part that he was out of a job seems to have gone past everyone and it looks like they all assumed he was asking which edition is better.

I have no stake in which version he plays since we're never going to be in the same game anyway. If he had asked, "I'm in a game with Paradox, which edition should I pick up?", the obvious answer would be "Find out which edition he's running...."

Another thing is system mastery. People invested a lot of time learning another edition, and now, the rules have changed. When 3e first came out, I found myself trying to play 2e withing 3e's framework, which was annoying when realizing the rules were different. I suspect the same can be applied to the change to 4e. You KNEW what the rules were inside out, and now that's not the case. Rules lawyers that have every tiny hidden advantage for their characters suddenly didn't have that.

At the heart of it, all RPGs are the same, but the game mechanics and situational resloutions are handled different. "I kick in the door and attack" is a quote that can be applied to any and ever RPG.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> So, let's say your wife changes her hair color and walks into work and a coworker might say, "You dyed your hair?  What was wrong with the old color?"  That would be a valid thing to ask.  The fact that your wife changed it _implies_ something was wrong with the old color.




Did the wife imply, or did the coworker infer? 

To imply is to suggest, but not state explicitly.  To infer is to derive by reasoning.  I don't think the wife is necessarily suggesting anything - the action here is on the coworker's part.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Who are you and when did you get so reasonable.
> 
> I'd posrep this if I could.




I just fainted.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> A selection of choices for the sake of variety is a great thing. Being served what the management wants to serve isn't so hot.




What, now a restaurant now has to never take a dish off the menu, ever?  Does that sound _reasonable_ to you?





diaglo said:


> i have no problem with the change of movies, hair color, food choice at restaurants...
> 
> as long as the original choices are still available by the ones making it.




As above, think about the implication of that.  Once a business offers something, they can never take it off the market again?

I hate to tell you folks, but books, movies, music, and media in general - they all occasionally go out of print.  When sales dip below a certain level, the one who owns the rights has to decide if it is worth keeping the product on the market.

That sales have dropped does not imply that the product was bad - it merely says that the sales are down.  Maybe it is because the product was bad.  maybe it is because the market has changed.  Maybe it was because the product was good, and saturated the market.  Who knows.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Being served what the management wants to serve isn't so hot.




You must go to funny restaurants none of the ones around here let me order anything but what they decide to put on the menu (and they do indeed change them periodically... not to mention changing managers and recipes).


----------



## BryonD (Feb 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Who are you and when did you get so reasonable.
> 
> I'd posrep this if I could.



Same opinion I've had all along.  Maybe it just came through better this time.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2010)

BryonD said:


> IMO a big part of the problem was that sales were out of sync with the amount of play.




I think you have a good point there.



> I don't think the WotC spin on 3E was nearly as bad as some people perceived.  But I also don't think it was as innocent as others insist.  WotC didn't intend to be abrasive.  But they failed to appreciate how much a significant portion of their fan base was still deeply invested (and not just financially) in the old game.




In the business world, there's a thing called "change management".  It's what a company does when making changes - it manages them, because people often don't like them.  It makes efforts to control customer expectations and views about the change.

Now, I am not in a position to tell whether WotC change management was really successful in this transition.  Change management is never really 100% effective - you can't please them all, so to speak.  No matter what you do, there will be some folks who *hate* what you've done with your product.  I am not in a position to know if the number who hated this transition is greater than what they expected, or felt was acceptable to their business model.

It is not unreasonable (as a practical matter, is is often necessary) for a company to simply write off some number of their customers with a given major change.  As I said, you _cannot_ please everyone.  People who are going to be beyond a certain level of vehemence in their dislike... well, the company may just need to be satisfied with losing them.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It is not unreasonable (as a practical matter, is is often necessary) for a company to simply write off some number of their customers with a given major change.  As I said, you _cannot_ please everyone.  People who are going to be beyond a certain level of vehemence in their dislike... well, the company may just need to be satisfied with losing them.



I agree with you.  And Mearls himself said that world builders probably wouldn't be as happy with 4E. 
Of course the whole "WotC fired it's customers" thing is just a certain spin on this point.  It is a more political spin.  And just as a lot of 3E fans were upset by some of WotC's statements while others see them as no big deal, a lot of 3E fans saw this phrase as simple direct summary, while 4E fans screamed heresy.  

It is all point of view.

I do think WotC pleased a lot less people than they could have pleased.  And I also suspect they are pleasing less than they planned.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 24, 2010)

> In the business world, there's a thing called "change management". It's what a company does when making changes - it manages them, because people often don't like them. It makes efforts to control customer expectations and views about the change.




Change is inevitable.

_This specific change, at that moment in time_ may have not have been.

I know a new edition is a financial shot in the arm, but the treadmill might not be the ideal way of milking the most dollars out of the most potential customers.

And the _particular changes made_ could have been quite different. 

Perhaps if they, I dunno, preserved D&D game meta-lore better, it could've been even better. 

That's part of those deeper issues that edition discussions help elucidate. What kind of business model might be envisioned that doesn't rely on mass-selling the three core books every 10 years? What kind of changes might they have made instead, and what kinds of changes might they make in the next edition?

Part of what's at stake in the Edition Wars is the _next_ edition.


----------



## merelycompetent (Feb 24, 2010)

I'm late to the thread, but here goes...

What's at stake for me:

A hobby that I enjoy, that is incidentally backed by several corporations.

In my opinion, the Edition War started because all of those involved really enjoy this hobby. Why else would we spend this much money, time, and energy on it? (Note that I am explicitly excluding trolls and people just looking for a good argument, but including those interested in reasoned debate.)

Each set of "official" or 3pp rules and supplements released has an impact on how we play the game. Will this make it more or less fun? Will this make it easier or harder to play? For many, will this change encourage or discourage new people from joining our group?

These new additions/clarifications, even up to new editions, have a sometimes conflicting set of questions from the companies that produce them: Will this sell well or poorly? Will this expand the number of gamers (increase the market) or reduce it? Will this be popular or unpopular? Is there enough of a market for this product to make it worth producing/distributing?

This is what's at stake for me. Each new edition - going all the way back to OD&D - has introduced elements that make it more fun, easier to play, and encouraged new people to join in. By the same token, they've also introduced things that are less fun, make it harder to play, and discourage new people from joining in. In general, the number of (and amount of fun generated by) the positive things has outweighed that of the negative things -- for me; until 4E.

4E mechanics are a significant change - so significant, that even the designers specified that existing 3/3.5E campaigns can't be ported over. If you want to use the new rules, leave everything that you've built before behind. You can't carry many of the fun things from previous editions into this current one. That's changing a lot of fun things about the game, suddenly, harshly, and economically.

As an example of the fallout from this, consider the above questions again (deliberately NOT trying to start an Edition War - consider these statements of my perspective and experience):
* Did that make it more fun or less fun? For many of the people I game with, that made it significantly less fun. For others, the opposite is true.

* Did that make it easier or harder to play? 4E streamlines many problems from 3/3.5... and introduces whole new timesink roadblocks. The purchasing plan to get errata and "core rules" updates also makes it harder, in my opinion. 4E definitely lightens the DM's workload, and that has an exponential effect on the ease or difficulty of play.

* Will this change encourage or discourage new people from joining our group? My experience (admittedly limited) is that it discouraged older gamers (and older new gamers) from joining in with any group. It seems to have encouraged some new, younger gamers. But not much in my neck of the woods.

Previous edition releases have done all these things and more, but nowhere near to this degree. 4E was designed to break with every previous edition. This is a first in the game's edition changes. (And subject to very informed counter-arguments by peers gathered here. But the OP asked what's at stake for me.)

The net effect of this is frustration for me, being painted with an overly broad, insulting brush repeatedly; and a much reduced participation with other gamers of any persuasion. Reasoned discussions about the merits of the rules, for any edition, are now a pointless exercise for me - even on ENWorld. This has had many far reaching and, I think, many unintended consequences.

I want to play with other gamers, new gamers, old gamers, and even my regular crowd. The introduction of 4E has made that needlessly ten times harder. I want to talk with other gamers about rules, interpretations, scenarios, DMing, and similar game-related matters... but the current rules create a barrier to common language and understanding.

New gamers have all sorts of cool ideas and interpretations! That's harder to get to, now, with all the vitriol and rules barriers. Older gamers have tried stuff out over a longer period of time, and have all sorts of neat experience! That's harder to get to, now, for the same reasons.

Basically, gamers are split more fundamentally and deeper than any time I've seen before - going back to pre-T$R days. That division will get wider, as long as economic decisions (from those companies' sometimes conflicting questions mentioned above) are pursued.

And to try and meet Umbran's double-dog dare:

My game is super-cool because the half-black dragon/dwarf monk ripped the head off a hill giant and used it to club an ogre into putty... ON ONE ATTACK!!!

My game is also super-cool because the human bard won the entire adventure by ensorceling the mountain giant barbarian leader, AND SUCCEEDED!!! It was really super-cool because the other players (and their characters) were cheering him on!

---

That's my brief perspective on what's at stake for me. There is more, much more, but I'm too tired and it's too late at night... and I haven't had near enough beer for this.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 24, 2010)

Paradox said:


> "I kick in the door and attack" is a quote that can be applied to any and ever RPG.




Although in Cthulhu you'll get eaten.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> What, now a restaurant now has to never take a dish off the menu, ever?  Does that sound _reasonable_ to you?
> 
> 
> /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Feb 24, 2010)

I think your confusing 'branding' with 'product.'


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> "Better dead than red!"



Please give yourself a couple of days vacation for this highly charged political comment...


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 24, 2010)

*re*

When you've been playing something a long, long time...over 25 years for myself...you obviously enjoyed that game. Then when the company decides to move in an entirely different direction with the game you have been playig for 25 years, it feels like you are being driven out when the rules change enough that you don't like the game.

Up to the point where 4E was released, I had liked every edition of D&D that had been released. I liked playing the most current game and having tons of support from whatever company owned D&D. I liked that they kept the original tropes of the game while advancing the ruleset to provide a greater number of options for players and DMs. 

Now 4E was the most radical change to D&D ever. It tossed out just about everything in previous rulesets and built an entirely new ruleset. Once again I'm either in or I'm out. 

And D&D is not just an RPG. You spend 3 hours to days with a group of people over the course of many months working as a team and building characters. Over the years you develop alot of friendships around the gaming table. When the game changes, it's not just you that has to makea decision. It's usually the group you play with. I've been playing with my group for 20 years. And all of them are good friends and we still enjoy a good D&D game even though we're all in our late 30s and early 40s.

So what did I have to lose?

1. A game I've enjoyed for 25 plus years.

2. A breakdown of the group that I've been playing with for 20 years as arguments for and against the new rules create acrimony.

3. No support from the company any longer as they abandon the old ruleset for the new. No new modules, no new splatbooks, no new magazines or articles.

4. All your old books you know intimately becomse useless. The thousand dollars you spent on books is now worthless for the most part. 

5. When a ruleset changes this much, all your old characters become worthless. No way to transfer them over and get the same feel as the old characters because the changes are so radical. That guy you spent years getting to level 20 plus  is now just a scrap of worthless paper if you switch unless you can stomach him being a shadow of his former self.

6. The game moving from about literary/simulationist to about balance focused/gamist. D&D previously focused on a literary model to some degree with touches of simulationist philosophy thrown in. 4E moved away from fantasy tropes to focus on balance and gamist philosophy. Most of my love of fantasy came from books before games, so I prefer that a fantasy game be built like a fantasy novel. 4E did not do that while previous editions had included certain fantasy tropes like the ancient wizard being very powerful. Fighters being straightforward fighters good with weapons. Not the case with 4E.


So I felt I had alot to lose in this edition wars. I am  alot more relaxed now that _Paizo_ has released a game more in line with my preferences. I could not stomach 4E. I read some 4E material not too long ago, and it irritated me even though I'm not playing it. I read the bard and his ranged abilities are using Charisma to hit even though they are described as rays or bolts. I felt relieved because I am able to play a game where a spell such as _scorching ray_ uses dexterity to hit. To me that makes sense. It's important that a game mostly make sense when I play it.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 24, 2010)

Any of you ever played a Fantasy Roleplaying Game like RuneQuest...
seems like it would be a similar game right? came out only slightly after D&D
Well it had magic and monsters and people fighting them and discovering treasures.... but here is a list of things it didnt have.

Classes
experience points 
levels 
an every expanding number of hps to buffer the heroic. (save or die for most intents and purposes every attack was close to a save or die)
single basic attributes benefiting a single action or skill.
20 sided polyhedron 
Alignments (replaced by religions with tenets your character tried to follow).
gnomes ...no it had daffy and donald as yes sentient duckoids... arent gnomes pointy hatted garden statues. 
Aside from the gnomes... most of the above things have incredibly real defining impact on the feel of game play.

Think about zero niche protection or role specialization.... generalists only
Think about zero support for heroic behavior/bravery unless you count dying as the ultimate in heroism, dont care how competant your character is.... 

Somebody dropped mustard on your hamburger dudes they didnt give you a salad.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 24, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> 4. All your old books you know intimately becomse useless. The thousand dollars you spent on books is now worthless for the most part.




I could call out a few comments here, but I just do not see this one in particular.

How does 4E make your books of whatever edition useless? Did they spontaneously combust? Are they rancid now that the use-by date has passed? 

Now if your group decided to go the new way and you did not, then I can see how the books are not as useful as they once were, but that is not really WOTC's fault. It is a group-level thing. 

There really is a lot of hyperbole in this thread thus far. A whole lot.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 24, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> I felt relieved because I am able to play a game where a spell such as _scorching ray_ uses dexterity to hit. To me that makes sense. It's important that a game mostly make sense when I play it.




This purely imaginary attack form wrapped in the miraculous is controlled by something mundane like "hand eye coordination" instead of spirit and imagination and creativity and divinely gifted talent (you know the real definition of "charism" its "divine gift") , hence the association with both creativity and guidance by the divine.(alah Paladins). People followed where the charismatic lead because the charismatic are lead by the divine. 

Shrug I think I prefer the mysticism to your "he throws the spell" with his hands.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 24, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> So...
> 
> ...for you, what's really at stake?



In many ways not a whole heckuva lot.

I first learned to play blue box and 1e _AD&D_, but never played 2e _AD&D_; at the time the latter was released, about all I played was _Traveller_, _Boot Hill_, and _Marvel Super Heroes_, as I've always preferred non-fantasy rpgs. Around 1989, I stopped playing rpgs altogether

3e _D&D_ brought me back into gaming after a thirteen-year hiatus. In time I grew frustrated with the game and as I was never much of a fantasy fan to begin with, I transitioned to d20 _Modern_.

Soon after I renewed my interest in (original, 'classic') _Traveller_ and the floodgates of my own personal 'old school renaissance' opened: _Boot Hill_, _Top Secret_, _Flashing Blades_, and others. Through Dragonsfoot I participated in two one-shots, one playing _OD&D_, one 1e _AD&D_, but the whole of 4e is passing me by; I've never so much as thumbed through any of the 4e books. The closest I've come to regularly playing any edition of _D&D_ again is scribbling a few conceptual notes for a 1e megadungeon I'm not likely to ever make game-ready.

So the Edition Wars, whether we're talking OSR versus newer editions - btw, my recollection of the OSR is that an increasing number of veteran gamers like myself grew frustrated with 3e and began seeking out older editions to play, swelling the ranks of the gamers who never switched, and OSRIC resulted from the desire by both these cadres to legally publish new materials for the older editions - or 2e versus 3e or 3e versus 4e would seem to have very little direct impact on me and my rpg interests.

As a result my personal involvement in the Edition Wars of the various forums is largely peripheral, mostly confined to correct various misapprehensions. I have no issue whatsoever with people liking and playing what they like, but I find that some people have very poor memories or understanding of older editions, so sometimes I'll post corrections to assertions which are just clearly and demonstrably incorrect. Call it my interest in preserving the historical record, which would be my first (and most direct) stake.

The other is much less direct: the changing tastes in gaming. This is much broader, more cultural than rules-related. It's been my experience that the sucessive generations of _D&D_ reflect the state of speculative fiction, and I would argue that since the success of 1e _AD&D_ there has been a feedback process, of varying strength, between gaming and spec fic. As the eight hundred pound gorilla of tabletop gaming, _D&D_ exerts a disproportionate influence over what players expect from a roleplaying game. I have a vague sense that this may influence my player pool: it's easiest to find players for the most current iteration of the game, with older editions next, followed by contemporary games in other genres, and finally 'classic' games in non-fantasy genres.

Now go back and look at _my _tastes in games, and compare them to the largest pool of current gamers. That's my other stake in the succession of editions of "The Worlds' Most Popular Roleplaying Game."


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 24, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> One reason that the 3e to 4e edition wars raged so hotly may well be the (right or wrong) perception of how the change was characterized by WotC.
> 
> When 3e was coming, WotC did a large customer survey.  I recall well the Dragon Magazine articles that said "Here's what you said you wanted, and here's how we're responding."  This seemed to me to be inclusive and respectful.
> 
> When 4e was coming, the presentation seemed more like "This is what D&D is going to be like, whether you like it or not.  We hope you like it."  I know I certainly read it that way, although I admit (again) that this was an overreaction.




1. The situation surely wasn't helped by WotC designers coming out with highly misleading statements on their part which invited overreactions such as yours. Dave Noonan's "The clouds are moving and you can't do anything about it. 4E is coming and you can't do anything about it" comes to mind. He later clarified that he _didn't _mean to convey that the edition's arrival couldn't care less for the feelings of those awaiting its arrival. Which is exactly how this statement came across initially, and why a clarification was in order.

2. Your perception of the 3.0 arrival is right, of course. Historically, this is exactly how the 2E arrival was pitched - "we did a survey and YOU asked for this new edition". See the 2E preview booklet which got recently linkified here on Enworld. Glance it through, it's really informative, as is this advert for 2E.

So why did this change for 4E? *For my money, it was the negative reaction to 3.5.* If you look at the *sidebars *in the 3.5 books near the beginning of these, entitled "Why a Revision?", WotC really tried to hammer home the point (not just once but thrice _per sidebar_) that it was the customers who asked for a costly reprint of the core books. In short, they wanted to pull a 2.0/3.0 launch on their customers. Which backfired badly for them. Yes, everyone wanted a useful trimmed errata PDF. No one wanted to shell out $90 to have that. The disingenious suggestion, in print, that WotC only _complied_ to customers' desires here just added insult to injury.

Hence, when 4E was to arrive, no one at WotC was deluded that they had developed this edition because customers asked for it - or, that it would be wise to iterate the 3.5 error of trying to communicate that sentiment when it was blatantly false.

If anything, WotC knew they had to convince customers that 3E was an obsolete product, in design and commercially, which was the opposite of a wideshared sentiment in their customer base. WotC didn't delude themselves for one moment that 4E's arrival was initiated by the fans. As Mearls once put it, during the days immediately prior to 4E's release the mood at the WotC office was so TENSE because they feared _everyone _might hate it. Everyone. How's that for rhetorical emphasis?

I really think WotC had no realistic alternative to pitch 4E as anything other than "Here's what we've concentrated our efforts on. We hope you like it. It may not be for everyone, but it may be for you."


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 24, 2010)

Reading through all of this very interesting thread, it occurs to me there's one way in which it could be made so much better:

We should all be sitting in a pub somewhere - a pub with copious amounts and varieties of beer available - each with no real reason to be elsewhere anytime soon, and having this discussion in person.

And pretty soon, after some obligatory yelling and edition defending and finger pointing and have-another-beer-ing, I suspect people would vaguely gravitate toward 5 different tables - one for each edition (0-1-2-3-4) - whereupon at each of these tables a game in that edition would spontaneously break out.  And they'd all be fun!

Even better if all 5 tables were playing the same adventure, tweaked for edition.

Lan-"hey, I can dream, can't I?"-efan


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 24, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I could call out a few comments here, but I just do not see this one in particular.
> 
> How does 4E make your books of whatever edition useless? Did they spontaneously combust? Are they rancid now that the use-by date has passed?




While I see this as basically correct, there is a grain of truth to this.

The big difference between 4e and the 1-3e is that most maintained a level of backwards compatibility.  2e, at least the core (I'm not talking about Players Option stuff) was pretty much a streamlining of the 1e ruleset.  I would say the ruleset is about 95% compatible with 1e.

While 3e introduced changes, they still kept what I would call a recognizable baseline.  Rules such as saving throws were changed, more definitions were introduced, and etc, and there are new innovations like feats, skills, and rules for things like poison.  But your core expectations are intact.  There is still a wizard that has fireball as a third level spell, most of the spells are the same as they were in 3e, Gnomes are what we expected in the game system, the cosmology of the outer planes is similar to what started in 1e, and while magic items were streamlined, you still had your familiar Staffs, wands, rods, rings, etc, and they worked as similar as possible to 1/2e rules.  (Maybe a few staffs or wands became rods).  I would say you have maybe a 75%-80% compatibility if you wanted to adapt old supplements.

Whatever the motivations of the 4e team, we don't have what I call a very similar or compatible game system.  It really fails the "familiar" test.  Now everybody has powers, you only have at most half a dozen powers, abilities that have nothing to do with combat have been moved to rituals, the combat system is very tactical, magic items have changed, and the first release didn't preserve even all the iconic classes and races.  Many things like monster lore and planar cosmology have changed as well.  I'd say in terms of compatibility with older games of the line we are talking maybe 50% or less.

Simply put, if I played AD&D in the 80s, then was away for 10 years and wanted to start a new game, I can see a gamer more easily recognizing and enjoying the 3e game system.  I can't see it with the 4e system.  At minimum, even if they like the game, there's a big learning curve that's going to be involved, much larger than the 1/2 to 3e curve.

So yes, I see the point that the 4e books do invalidate older supplements.  While this might have happened with 2e to 3e as well, it's probably a LOT easier to convert older modules from 1/2 to 3 than from 1/2/3 to 4.  My 15th level Mage or 12th level paladin can go from 2e to 3e and still be very familiar.  A 1e module can be converted to 3e and while it may be a little work it's still going to be familiar.  When I played ToEE on the PC, it felt as close as you could get to the old 1e adventure with the new ruleset.  

If you've invested a lot of time into 3e, especially considering the huge third party market, I can see 4e being a turnoff.



> In the business world, there's a thing called "change management". It's what a company does when making changes - it manages them, because people often don't like them. It makes efforts to control customer expectations and views about the change.




Interestingly enough, I saw this mentioned in the 40 years of GenCon book, when they talk about 3e.  Change management was undertaken by WoTC as well.  I think the key differences were the following.  First of all, WoTC as run by Peter and Ryan seemed to want to keep the D&D identity strong while also making the game a little more progressive--and they were actively seeking both old fans and new, especially fans who became disillusioned with the game.  They reached out to creative types long ignored by the company.  And the marketplace was a little different--D&D had just missed the bullet and TSR might have disintergrated, taking the game with it.  I'm not really sure there was as much pent-up demand for a new edition of D&D this time around.

And I remember the playtesting and excitement building being a little more open and less secret.  I was a playtester, and while I was under an NDA I was able to discuss some things without making WoTC paranoid--heck, this whole site started as a 3e news blog.  But they seemed different this time around.  If I remember correctly, a while back Andy Collins had asked playtesters who had criticisms to not speak to the public about them.  It was also harder to get any news about mechanics.  

I think only time will tell if the change management of WoTC with 4e was good or bad.  Maybe after years have passed, this will either be a case study for success or failure.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> What, now a restaurant now has to never take a dish off the menu, ever? Does that sound _reasonable_ to you?




if the chinese restaurant changed and suddenly became italian i wouldn't expect to find my favorite egg roll there anymore. but if it is still claiming to be chinese. they had better provide the dim sum i have come to enjoy if they want my business.







> As above, think about the implication of that. Once a business offers something, they can never take it off the market again?
> 
> I hate to tell you folks, but books, movies, music, and media in general - they all occasionally go out of print. When sales dip below a certain level, the one who owns the rights has to decide if it is worth keeping the product on the market.
> 
> That sales have dropped does not imply that the product was bad - it merely says that the sales are down. Maybe it is because the product was bad. maybe it is because the market has changed. Maybe it was because the product was good, and saturated the market. Who knows.




they are the only one holding the license to sell the product. if they sold the license to another company or let another company make the product i would be fine with that too.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 24, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> You must go to funny restaurants none of the ones around here let me order anything but what they decide to put on the menu (and they do indeed change them periodically... not to mention changing managers and recipes).




you need to get to know the chef, owner, and waitstaff better.

the restaurants i frequent often have dishes not on the menu for their regular customers.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> What, now a restaurant now has to never take a dish off the menu, ever? Does that sound _reasonable_ to you?




They certainly can and it sounds perfectly reasonable. 

Can changing the dish completely but leaving it on the menu under the old name while preventing the old dish from being prepared by another restaurant also be seen as being just as reasonable?

To some there is no apparent difference between the two.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2010)

DavyJones said:
			
		

> if the chinese restaurant changed and suddenly became italian i wouldn't expect to find my favorite egg roll there anymore. but if it is still claiming to be chinese. they had better provide the dim sum i have come to enjoy *if they want my business.*((Bold mine))




Ok, fair enough.  So, if they change the menu and you don't like it, do you feel personally attacked?  Do you feel that they are singling you out specifically to deny you what you want?  Or, do you just shrug your shoulders, grumble a bit, and go to a different restaurant?

I think a number of people took the changes very, very personally.  Whether it was the marketing (I see Cloud Watching has been misquoted yet again, what' this now?  Three years later?), or a couple of lines in some book, or whatever, people took the changes, not to mean that they were simply doing something that the person didn't like, but that the changes were somehow an attack on their way of enjoying the hobby.

It wasn't just that the game changed, it was that the game change TO SPITE ME! seemed a response I saw a number of times.

But, back to the OP.  What is at stake?  Well, I dunno, really.  A lot of it for me is just rehash of criticisms of 3e, rebranded and sporting a funny moustache.  I don't see 4e is as this huge, unbridgeable gap between editions.  I really don't.  I see it as the bastard lovechild of 3e mechanics and Basic/Expert D&D.  But, then, for me, the "shared world" thing was never very important.  Ejecting most of that stuff does not bother me in the least.  ((Although, I can see why it would annoy people.))

Thinking about it, I think I'd go with Cadfan for the most part.  I engage in the Edition War type threads because I see claims that I think are factually innaccurate.  Until last month, I didn't even play 4e, so, I really had no horse in the race.  But, seeing people repeat, frequently, things I believed to be pretty innaccurate just makes me want to respond.  

I guess it's 99% this:


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> They certainly can and it sounds perfectly reasonable.
> 
> Can changing the dish completely but leaving it on the menu under the old name while preventing the old dish from being prepared by another restaurant also be seen as being just as reasonable?
> 
> To some there is no apparent difference between the two.




EW, you might want to adjust a bit, you're showing your presumptions.  

Did the dish change completely?  It did for you, and I totally respect and get that.  But, it didn't for everyone.  There's a fair number of people for whom 4e is not a "totally new dish".  It's a new dish, it's got different whatevers, but, it's still D&D.

Your point is only valid if you could objectively show that 4e D&D is not really D&D.  You can certainly prove it to yourself, but, there is no objective standard here.  

For some, it's the same dish, just prepared differently, in the same way that Basic/Expert D&D, and 2e D&D with Skills and Powers, and 3e D&D using Tome of Battle and Unearthed Arcana are all still D&D.  For some people, of course.  

So, if you come from that perspective, then, yes, it is perfectly valid to have the item on the menu under the old name.

Not everyone shares your definition of D&D.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 24, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I could call out a few comments here, but I just do not see this one in particular.
> 
> How does 4E make your books of whatever edition useless? Did they spontaneously combust? Are they rancid now that the use-by date has passed?




Why are you questioning someone's reason? It comes down I like to be able to buy new books from the company that produces it. I cannot do that if they are no longer producing a game I like to play. I like new product.

It comes down to I like new product and nothing more. Do you have a problem understanding that?

What part of played every edition up to now did you not read? It had nothing to do with "need". No game has anything to do with "need". It has to do with want. I've played this game for 25 years and I like to purchase my books from the main company.

But the game moved away from anything I like for the first time. And I wont' get updated books. It's a little disappointing because I looked forward to updated books. Now I look forward to _Paizo_'s updated books.




> Now if your group decided to go the new way and you did not, then I can see how the books are not as useful as they once were, but that is not really WOTC's fault. It is a group-level thing.




Do you understand this thread is based on personal opinion, not on blaming WotC?

What if I had not liked 3E? I would have been in the same boat 10 years ago?

This has nothing to do with "blaming WotC". I'm sure there were players that hated 3E and never touched it. I'm sure there were players that didn't like 2E. It just so happens that I chose to leave at 4E.

This is all personal. Which is what I'm assuming this thread is about. 



> There really is a lot of hyperbole in this thread thus far. A whole lot.




Alot of hyperbole? For something based on personal feeling? I don't think that is possible.

The game made a radical change. If you don't like it, you're driven out of the game. No new product for you.

If you do, you happily continue along as  D&D player.

It's how it works. Not like that is arguable, it's a simple statement of truth.

WotC said "Here's the game we're giving you. We're not giving you any new product or fixes for any older ediitions including 3E. Join us or get the hell out. Your choice".

When you've been playing D&D as long as I have, you don't much care for that choice when you dislike the game they're giving you and it looks nothing like past versions of D&D. 

Wake up to what this thread is about. It's not about blaming WotC. It's about expressing what you felt your stake in the game was on a personal level. It becomes a lot higher the longer you play it. 

If you are interested in questioning my statement about 4E not being built on a literary model, take it to another thread or pms. It will side track the thread.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> EW, you might want to adjust a bit, you're showing your presumptions.
> 
> Did the dish change completely?  It did for you, and I totally respect and get that.  But, it didn't for everyone.  There's a fair number of people for whom 4e is not a "totally new dish".  It's a new dish, it's got different whatevers, but, it's still D&D.
> 
> Your point is only valid if you could objectively show that 4e D&D is not really D&D.  You can certainly prove it to yourself, but, there is no objective standard here.




Impossible to prove. D&D is owned by a company and it decides what D&D will be, not any of the players. The company has sole control over the name. 



> For some, it's the same dish, just prepared differently, in the same way that Basic/Expert D&D, and 2e D&D with Skills and Powers, and 3e D&D using Tome of Battle and Unearthed Arcana are all still D&D.  For some people, of course.
> 
> So, if you come from that perspective, then, yes, it is perfectly valid to have the item on the menu under the old name.
> 
> Not everyone shares your definition of D&D.




True enough. I'm assuming most went with 4E or WotC would not be continuing to put out product at the rate they are. So WotC could care less what the anti-4E splinter faction thinks.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> EW, you might want to adjust a bit, you're showing your presumptions.
> 
> Did the dish change completely? It did for you, and I totally respect and get that. But, it didn't for everyone. There's a fair number of people for whom 4e is not a "totally new dish". It's a new dish, it's got different whatevers, but, it's still D&D.
> 
> ...




Well at least we have answered the age old question: What's in a name?

Apparently everything.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It wasn't just that the game changed, it was that the game change TO SPITE ME! seemed a response I saw a number of times.




you didn't see that response from me.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> Impossible to prove. D&D is owned by a company and it decides what D&D will be, not any of the players. The company has sole control over the name.
> 
> 
> 
> True enough. I'm assuming most went with 4E or WotC would not be continuing to put out product at the rate they are. So WotC could care less what the anti-4E splinter faction thinks.




I agree, it's impossible to prove.  Which makes it somewhat problematic to state it as a fact.   Now, again, with the lack of nuance on the Internet, it's not a difficult thing to imagine that people don't filter in an "IMO" at the beginning of every statement.  



ExploderWizard said:


> Well at least we have answered the age old question: What's in a name?
> 
> Apparently everything.




For some.  Then again, if I told you that you were not playing a "real" game of D&D, would you simply ignore it?  Probably, that's the best answer, but, imagine that every single day that you come on the forums, someone tells you that you are not playing D&D.  That the game that you are playing isn't really D&D, despite what it says on the cover.

That was the first couple of years of 3e at PlanetAD&D.  

Now, fast forward a few years and imagine that you get told, every time you turn around, that you are not playing D&D _again_ because the game you prefer isn't really D&D.

I think it's pretty natural that people might get a tad testy after a while.  



DaveyJones said:


> you didn't see that response from me.




Sorry, I in no way meant to imply that I did.  I was just using your quote as a springboard, not as a way to direct the post at you.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 24, 2010)

Great.... just great... I still won't play 4e.... but now I want Chinese take-out


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> So what did I have to lose?



Most of what you claim is a bit spurious... but I see what you mean.


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> 1. A game I've enjoyed for 25 plus years.



I haven't enjoyed D&D that long; in fact, I specifically quit enjoying it (because it wasn't that enjoyable to me) until 3e came out.  That said, I've enjoyed 3e/3.5 for ten years now, and I'm still doing so.  The release of 4e hasn't made that any more difficult for me.


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> 2. A breakdown of the group that I've been playing with for 20 years as arguments for and against the new rules create acrimony.



Is that hypothetical, or real?  Either way, wow, that's some bad group dynamics for a bunch of guys who are supposed to be friends.  If there was a good split in my group between 4e and 3.5, we'd probably switch between the two of them every six months or so.


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> 3. No support from the company any longer as they abandon the old ruleset for the new. No new modules, no new splatbooks, no new magazines or articles.



That's a valid point, but at the same time, I'm just curious; how much of the available support for 3e/3.5 have you used already?  I'm hardly a completionist in my 3e/3.5 collection, but I've got stuff I can use for twenty more years easily without running out.

And, of course, technically it's still supported via the OGL, and arguably through Pathfinder.


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> 4. All your old books you know intimately becomse useless. The thousand dollars you spent on books is now worthless for the most part.



At the end of the day, that's why I wasn't really interested in switching.  I don't dislike 4e.  I don't really know enough about it to dislike it, to be honest with you.  I don't want to buy all over again all the stuff that I already have, though.  I was quite happy with my 3e/3.5 purchases, and I don't feel like I"m anywhere close to "amortizing" or "depreciating" all that purchase yet from an accounting perspective.

That said, your old books are only useless if you never use them again.  So, that's not really accurate what you say, there.  I'm not an edition warrior just because I didn't change to 4e.  I'm, like I said earlier, a bemused spectator.  But if you don't want to change over, just don't change over.  Why the warring?

That's the question that's really being asked here; what you answered was merely why you don't want to switch over.


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> 5. When a ruleset changes this much, all your old characters become worthless. No way to transfer them over and get the same feel as the old characters because the changes are so radical. That guy you spent years getting to level 20 plus  is now just a scrap of worthless paper if you switch unless you can stomach him being a shadow of his former self.



All the more reason to not switch until you're done with the game you're in.  Not a reason to edition war.


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> 6. The game moving from about literary/simulationist to about balance focused/gamist. D&D previously focused on a literary model to some degree with touches of simulationist philosophy thrown in. 4E moved away from fantasy tropes to focus on balance and gamist philosophy. Most of my love of fantasy came from books before games, so I prefer that a fantasy game be built like a fantasy novel. 4E did not do that while previous editions had included certain fantasy tropes like the ancient wizard being very powerful. Fighters being straightforward fighters good with weapons. Not the case with 4E.



Again, reasons to not like 4e.  Reasonable ones, even.  Not reasons to engage in edition wars.


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> So I felt I had alot to lose in this edition wars.



It looks to me like the only thing you had to lose was continued support and possibly group support if you're group was likely to embrace 4e.  Most of the rest of what you claim, you wouldn't ever have actually lost.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 24, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Somebody dropped mustard on your hamburger dudes they didnt give you a salad.




See, here's that dismissiveness stuff that I mentioned. Someone mentions how they feel about changes, maybe uses an analogy, and someone else redefines it for them into something insignificant. 

It would be nice if people did take each other at face value a bit more. 

Plus, I know people for whom dropping the wrong condiment on a burger would render it instantly inedible even if it were still a perfectly cooked, juicy hamburger otherwise.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 24, 2010)

billd91 said:


> See, here's that dismissiveness stuff that I mentioned. Someone mentions how they feel about changes, maybe uses an analogy, and someone else redefines it for them into something insignificant.
> 
> It would be nice if people did take each other at face value a bit more.
> 
> Plus, I know people for whom dropping the wrong condiment on a burger would render it instantly inedible even if it were still a perfectly cooked, juicy hamburger otherwise.




well no one is tossing his salad in prison. plus he can't even play 4e there if i read a recent thread correctly.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2010)

BryonD said:


> It is all point of view.




Actually, no, it isn't. That's part of the point.

I don't know how many people here have ever "fired a customer".  I have had the dubious pleasure (working in a veterinary hospital, long story).  Firing a customer is an active process.  Failing to provide what the customer needs and/or wants so that they leave of their own accord is a passive process.  They are fundamentally different kinds of decisions as far as the business is concerned.

I don't contest what people _feel_ happened, but feelings of the customer often do not reflect the decision process that actually happened in the business.  This is a fundamental truth of customer service.



> I do think WotC pleased a lot less people than they could have pleased.  And I also suspect they are pleasing less than they planned.




You are welcome to your opinion.  I don't think I (or anyone outside WotC) has the business information on hand to know for sure.


----------



## ScottS (Feb 24, 2010)

I haven't substantially contributed to the flame wars since release, but my posts have shaded somewhat towards the critical...  Here are my main two justifications for negative posts about 4e:

1. I don't have it out for WOTC, Hasbro, the developers, etc., but I wouldn't mind it terribly if the market punished them for putting out what I consider to be bad product.  Discussing why/how the product is bad with fellow customers is one small way of contributing to that outcome.

2. Since forums like these are in some sense a support system for RPGers, I also feel I'm helping other gamers by pointing out the obvious drawbacks of the current edition.  You have to be able to identify what's bad about a rules system before you can work on appropriate fixes/workarounds (and I do also try to provide advice, pass on tips etc. about how our group has dealt with rules-related issues).


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Change is inevitable.
> 
> _This specific change, at that moment in time_ may have not have been.




True.  But, as I've already said, no matter what change they made, someone was going to be upset.  



> I know a new edition is a financial shot in the arm, but the treadmill might not be the ideal way of milking the most dollars out of the most potential customers.




Possibly not.  But to my knowledge, nobody on these forums has ever publicly approached the question of business models with any rigor whatsoever.  We may spend hours and hours doing mathematical analysis to determine a build's average damage output, but we don't do the same for how the people who print the game are supposed to pay their mortgages.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Actually, no, it isn't. That's part of the point.



If you are saying that in the end the company's point of view doesn't really matter to the economics and it all comes down to the customer, then I agree with you.  I was not trying to speak to economic result.  I was speaking to differences in interpretation.  And WotC and 4E fans can be boggled that others took exception to certain statements and yet neither side is being dishonest about their own perception.  It is all point of view.



> You are welcome to your opinion.  I don't think I (or anyone outside WotC) has the business information on hand to know for sure.



I said "think" and "suspect".  

But I'll also go further and say that, still my opinion here, if this level of splitting the fan base and ill will amongst former fans was party of WotC's plan all along, then WotC's plan was stupid.  I'd rather think they miscalculated than were intentionally divisive.  But, as you correctly point out, only they have the information to know for sure.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 24, 2010)

Umbran said:


> ...We may spend hours and hours doing mathematical analysis to determine a build's average damage output, but we don't do the same for how the people who print the game are supposed to pay their mortgages.




Thus Ao's third commandment: _"RPG developers do not live by XP alone." - Tablets of Fate, stanza III_


----------



## innerdude (Feb 24, 2010)

Ourph said:


> How exactly does participating in edition wars accomplish this?




If you have a particular play style, and a rule set more closely approximates the play style you prefer, then as a gamer who wants to maximize their enjoyment of RPGs--by having the broadest available products, by having the widest range of potential game groups--then we ABSOLUTELY have a stake in the edition war, because _we want a product that meets that desire_. 

A. We want other players to see that a particular rule set is fundamentally altering much of the play style we enjoy, so they can be aware that "their way" isn't "the only way" (and of course, we understand that "our way" isn't the "only way" either, we just want "our way" to be just as valid as "any other way"). 

B. We want the companies that produce the products to know that we will NOT purchase product we dislike, and would hope that future design and production decisions would follow closer to what we want (and if those decisions aren't made, we're not going to buy their products).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 24, 2010)

innerdude said:


> A. We want other players to see that a particular rule set is fundamentally altering much of the play style we enjoy, so they can be aware that "their way" isn't "the only way" (and of course, we understand that "our way" isn't the "only way" either, we just want "our way" to be just as valid as "any other way").




I wish I could take this at face value and I'm not going to accuse you particularly.....BUT, many of this type of discussion leads down a road where fans of whatever edition try to share how one can achieve their style of play using the edition they are saying can't accomodate them. Said people them get defensive and deny that anything can ever make said edition able to accomodate their style.

I'm extremely curious to see the results of Dark Sun and Gamma World. These two setting veer far from the style of standard 4E D&D. I've always thought the game could be taken into different styles quite easily* and here's the testing ground for whether WotC can pull it off. 

*I even have the seed rolling around in my head for an Indiana Jones one-shot using the 4E framework.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 24, 2010)

innerdude said:


> If you have a particular play style, and a rule set more closely approximates the play style you prefer, then as a gamer who wants to maximize their enjoyment of RPGs--by having the broadest available products, by having the widest range of potential game groups--then we ABSOLUTELY have a stake in the edition war, because _we want a product that meets that desire_.



If your goal is to prevent your potential player group from shrinking, why would it be productive to argue about editions on the internet with people who may not even live in the same country as you, let alone the same state or town? Even ignoring geographical limitations, have you ever found that regaling someone about all the faults you perceive in a game they are playing and enjoying has convinced that person to give it up their preferred game and play yours instead?



> A. We want other players to see that a particular rule set is fundamentally altering much of the play style we enjoy, so they can be aware that "their way" isn't "the only way" (and of course, we understand that "our way" isn't the "only way" either, we just want "our way" to be just as valid as "any other way").



The claim that edition warriors only want to be perceived as "just as valid" is, IMO, completely spurious. My experience with edition warriors is that they exalt their own play preferences while mocking and denigrating the portions of a game that cater to other play preferences.

Even if that were not true, why would you assume that, because someone enjoys another RPG they believe the way they play is the "only way". Do you enter into edition wars with people who play Marvel Super Heroes, RIFTS, Tunnels & Trolls or Runequest too? It seems to me that those systems support styles of play that are at least as divergent from 3e as the 4e system is, so singling out 4e or any other version of D&D as a target upon which to declare your "validity" makes very little sense. If declaring a preference for a single edition of D&D is tantamount to declaring all other styles of play invalid, then isn't someone who declares a preference for GURPS doing the same thing, but turned up to 11?

In my experience, edition wars don't start when person 1 declares a preference and person 2 then comes along and merely asks that their different preference be recognized as equally valid. Edition wars start when person 1 declares a preference and person 2 then comes along and declares that person 1's preference is illegitimate, juvenile and makes the game not D&D/not an RPG/a videogame/a munchkin's paradise/too easy for real manly gamers/too focused on combat for real roleplayers/etc. In other words, the exact opposite of declaring that all style preferences are equally valid.



> B. We want the companies that produce the products to know that we will NOT purchase product we dislike, and would hope that future design and production decisions would follow closer to what we want (and if those decisions aren't made, we're not going to buy their products).



Do you really think it's necessary to inform a company that their customers won't purchase products they dislike? I think that's pretty much the first thing they teach you in business school. And if you do feel it's necessary to inform a gaming company of that piece of wisdom, is getting into arguments with fans of other editions about the minutiae of your personal dissatisfaction with the new ruleset really the best way to go about transmitting that information? I'm thinking it's not.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 24, 2010)

billd91 said:


> See, here's that dismissiveness stuff that I mentioned. Someone mentions how they feel about changes, maybe uses an analogy, and someone else redefines it for them into something insignificant.
> 
> It would be nice if people did take each other at face value a bit more.




Every time the word hyperbole was used in this thread is pointing out exaggerations in various ways....When somebody is playing analogy games you play with them - >Yes my son gets erked about onions (he picks them off and moves on) 
When somebody says "my books are useless" - you ask why they think that? My old print of Werewolf the Apocalypse isnt useless (we will be starting up a game of it soon) etc etc.

In general I was pointing out that D&D is far more like itself (especially to people experienced with other games ... ones you might not even expect to be very different) than some people seem to realize... so ofcourse the colorful language is the important part.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 24, 2010)

Re: New editions making books for old editions useless. This is BS. Look at my .sig. I've recently run a PBEM game of Basic D&D (the Holmes edit). I hope to run another one in the near future. Even more recently, I ran a short OD&D campaign using _Chainmail and Outdoor Survival_. If _those_ books aren't useless, neither are anybody's 3x books.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 24, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It wasn't just that the game changed, it was that the game change TO SPITE ME! seemed a response I saw a number of times.




I think you may have misinterpreted.

Speaking for myself, my view was never that they changed the game to *spite *me, they changed the game to something I didn't like - and on top of that - changed it for a reason that I didn't agree with.  

In essence, they changed parts of the game I liked without asking me if I wanted the change.  

Now do they have to ask *me* personally?  Of course not.  But they lost my business - and apparently the business of a lot of other people that felt the same way.

I didn't feel spited, I felt ignored.  After purchasing far too many "official" D&D products over the years (and the entire 3.x library of products), to not be buying "official" D&D anymore is just, well, weird.  TSR/WotC had catered to my tastes for 30 years.  Now...not so much.

Of course, those that loved the changes feel/felt the opposite way, so I guess it has worked for WotC.  *shrug*


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Most of what you claim is a bit spurious... but I see what you mean.
> 
> I haven't enjoyed D&D that long; in fact, I specifically quit enjoying it (because it wasn't that enjoyable to me) until 3e came out.  That said, I've enjoyed 3e/3.5 for ten years now, and I'm still doing so.  The release of 4e hasn't made that any more difficult for me.
> 
> ...




Aren't we being a little too literal? This what you feel like you lost, not something you can prove you lost.

That's what I felt like I lost. It did cause some acrimony in my group until we settled on _Pathfinder_. We tried 4E for about 4 to 6 months. 4 out of 5 us came to despise it. One guy liked it, but he had to tough out going to _Pathfinder_. He stayed. So we got it worked out.

No one has anything to gain by edition wars if you truth.

The edition wars is all based on feeling. Alot of folks have been playing this game a long, long time across all the different editions. I don't know how big the percentage is, but WotC bitch slapped a good many of us in the face with 4E. Ripped the rug out and said "This is D&D now. Love it or leave it."

25 years I've been a loyal customer going with every new edition, spending hundreds (possible thousands) of dollars on gaming merchandise to have WotC change the game to such a huge degree I no longer want to move to their new edition and have them basically tell me "They don't care". 

That doesn't exactly feel good. It makes you pretty pissed off. It's all based on feeling, not logic. It's impossible to prove one game better than another or a truer form of D&D. All it does is wake you up to the fact that D&D is corporate owned and your only recourse is to stop buying product from that company if you don't like what they're doing. That's truth.

But the edition wars isn't based on truth. It's based on feeling. It's not rational, but it's passionate. It's not all based on ego or being right. It's also based on tradition, a tradition I've been following for 25 years. And WotC tossed it all out the window this time. The current game doesn't look a damn thing like the previous games. It doesn't play like the previous games. It's not comparable to any edition. It is a complete and radical change with a different overriding philosophy driving it. 

Did anyone really expect this type of radical change to happen without some acrimony? I certainly hope WotC game designers were not that naive.

And as with every radical change that a company attempts, there is another company waiting in the wings to capitalize. This time it is _Paizo_. I hope they prosper so I can have new material for a game I enjoy.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 24, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> Re: New editions making books for old editions useless. This is BS. Look at my .sig. I've recently run a PBEM game of Basic D&D (the Holmes edit). I hope to run another one in the near future. Even more recently, I ran a short OD&D campaign using _Chainmail and Outdoor Survival_. If _those_ books aren't useless, neither are anybody's 3x books.




I still use and enjoy most of my "useless" game books. 

The issue for some groups isn't that the books are useless. Quite the opposite, the books are very useful but having new players obtain them gets harder and harder. 

If I wanted to form a tabletop OD&D group and the players were interested in getting thier own legal copies of _Men & Magic_ then they couldn't  just drop by the local gamestore or bookstore and pick one up. 
At one tme they could just buy it online and get it printed. Now the options are either hunt down a copy in a flea market or online auction or get a bootleg copy. 

This problem has less to do with the merits of one edition over another than it does with corporate business practices. 

In a fantasy world where all older editions could be ordered as pdf & print on demand and new material could be produced and sold likewise there would perhaps be much less fuel for the edition wars.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> The issue for some groups isn't that the books are useless. Quite the opposite, the books are very useful but having new players obtain them gets harder and harder.




I totally get that (it took me the better part of two years to get my BD&D/OD&D games together). It doesn't make saying that one's old game books are "useless" any less hyperbolic.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 24, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> In a fantasy world where all older editions could be ordered as pdf & print on demand and new material could be produced and sold likewise there would perhaps be much less fuel for the edition wars.



That hardly seems likely since the 1e/2e vs. 3e edition wars raged for 8 years while older edition .pdfs were available very, very cheaply from WotC and the 3e vs. 4e edition wars raged unchecked for at least a year while .pdfs of all the 3e titles were still available and most retail stores still had unsold 3.5e product in stock. Not to mention that the 1e vs. 2e edition wars still rage to this day, despite the fact that BOTH editions have been equally out of print for decades (but it's still dead easy to find core books for sale at very reasonable prices if you want them).

The edition wars are about people who are having a bad day looking for any reason to call someone else a poo-poo head on the internet. "Issues" like book availability are just excuses for bad behavior IMO.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 24, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> In general I was pointing out that D&D is far more like itself (especially to people experienced with other games ... ones you might not even expect to be very different) than some people seem to realize... so ofcourse the colorful language is the important part.




Then *tell them* that you disagree and can't see that the changes are quite so significant. Don't redefine it for them and dismiss it. The former is getting involved in the discussion without being disrepectful, the latter is not.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 24, 2010)

Ourph said:


> That hardly seems likely since the 1e/2e vs. 3e edition wars raged for 8 years while older edition .pdfs were available very, very cheaply from WotC and the 3e vs. 4e edition wars raged unchecked for at least a year while .pdfs of all the 3e titles were still available and most retail stores still had unsold 3.5e product in stock. Not to mention that the 1e vs. 2e edition wars still rage to this day, despite the fact that BOTH editions have been equally out of print for decades (but it's still dead easy to find core books for sale at very reasonable prices if you want them).
> 
> The edition wars are about people who are having a bad day looking for any reason to call someone else a poo-poo head on the internet. "Issues" like book availability are just excuses for bad behavior IMO.




Very valid observations...................poo poo head.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> Aren't we being a little too literal? This what you feel like you lost, not something you can prove you lost.



If I'm being too literal, you're being too melodramatic.  If you claim you lost a laundry list of things, and even a casual glance shows that you didn't really lose them, that creates a big disconnect.

To say the least.


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> No one has anything to gain by edition wars if you truth.



  That's a sigworthy comment.


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> The edition wars is all based on feeling. Alot of folks have been playing this game a long, long time across all the different editions. I don't know how big the percentage is, but WotC bitch slapped a good many of us in the face with 4E. Ripped the rug out and said "This is D&D now. Love it or leave it."



Again with the melodramatic language.  I could say the same thing about when Microsoft quit supporting the original Xbox or Windows 98.  I could say the same thing about when Ford updated the look of the F-150, or migrated to the retro Mustang designs.  But I don't, because, well, it's just kinda silly to say stuff like that just because a company released a new edition of a product, and you liked the old one just fine.


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> That doesn't exactly feel good. It makes you pretty pissed off. It's all based on feeling, not logic. It's impossible to prove one game better than another or a truer form of D&D. All it does is wake you up to the fact that D&D is corporate owned and your only recourse is to stop buying product from that company if you don't like what they're doing. That's truth.



Of course it's truth.  In fact, it's blindingly obvious truth that most people didn't need to have stated.  Why that would make anyone pissed off, or make them angry is the whole point of this thread, because frankly, why would it?  That kind of stuff happens every day all over the place.  Why do some D&D customers expect otherwise in the first place?


			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> Did anyone really expect this type of radical change to happen without some acrimony? I certainly hope WotC game designers were not that naive.



It would be naive, yes.  I agree.  That's a far cry from justifying edition wars, though.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 24, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Then *tell them* that you disagree and can't see that the changes are quite so significant. Don't redefine it for them and dismiss it. The former is getting involved in the discussion without being disrepectful, the latter is not.




As I said the analogy was an extension of that used as part of an ongoing sequence from a prior poster, the one who called a game a salad not a hamburger didn't think it was disrespectful ... as I said that is conversational language use...  I first described how dramatically different even one relatively similar game was, then pulled in the ongoing analogy.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 24, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> As I said the analogy was an extension of that used as part of an ongoing sequence from a prior poster, the one who called a game a salad not a hamburger didn't think it was disrespectful ... as I said that is conversational language use...  I first described how dramatically different even one relatively similar game was, then pulled in the ongoing analogy.




I was that poster.  And it was not meant to be disrespectful.  I stand by my claim that 4e is not remotely recognizable as D&D.  That's the problem I have with it.  It's not based on the quality of the game.  Reverse the terms if you like, 4e can be the hamburger, and previous editions the salad.  Much as I don't want salad when I order a hamburger, neither do I want a burger went I order a salad.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 24, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Is that something you see a lot of in edition discussions?
> 
> "4e has elder red dragon minions, therefore, it sucks?"



I selected that example specifically because there was a several month period during the run-up to the release of 4e, and then a short period afterwards, in which this argument was very popular.  Several reasonable, interesting threads were turned into lengthy, useless swamps of bitterness by the same group of disingenuous trolls over precisely this issue.  It began with their dishonesty simply involving boldly stating as factual matters which they had no reason to believe to be true, but then moved to their continuing to make factually incorrect statements after they had been conclusively proven not to be true.

There were several other similar issues, but that one sticks out in my mind because it involved behavior that was objectively lying.  There were others that were less clear cut, but which, over time and with recollection of previous behavior by a particular forum participant, were conclusive evidence of dishonest.

Oh, and its worth noting that there's a massive, massive gap between saying that you refuse to conclude that others are trolling because that leads to less interesting conversation, and edition wars are genuinely not characterized by trolling.  The first is either holding out hope in the human spirit, or else choosing to make-believe something as true because you like the results such a belief may yield.  The latter is just false.  Trolls exist even if your optimism or hopes for interesting conversation suggests to you that you should treat anyone you meet as if they are not a troll, no matter how hard they try to prove you wrong.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 24, 2010)

With some weirdness...my 3e books are both _more_ valuable *and* _less_ valuable.

I like 3e. I have a ton of books. When 4e came out, I bought many more books because prices tanked. Now, I have EVEN more books. At this point, prices for most are low, but there are some that are hard to get, and so cost much more (including the 3.5 phb).

So in that sense, 4e was GREAT for my collecting of old books...making them more valuable to me (I bought up what I could).  Note I'm talking personal value in "do I want to own these" not dollar value.



and  on the other hand...



4e's changes, not only to rules but also to canon (the planes, forgotten realms, the underdark/feywild) mean that my old books no longer have forward compatability.

If I want to adventure in the planes I have two choices:
1. use all my old stuff and (if I want "new" material, but stuff from second edition. 
or
2. Toss my old stuff out the window and go with their new material.


It is in that sense...the sense that if I want to play 4e, I can't use my 3e materials. However, if I want to play 3e, I can STILL (and do for Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Planescape) use 2e materials.


In this sense...all "new" material has been cut short OR I can get new material BUT that my old books are now "worthless".


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 24, 2010)

Hobo said:


> If I'm being too literal, you're being too melodramatic.  If you claim you lost a laundry list of things, and even a casual glance shows that you didn't really lose them, that creates a big disconnect.
> 
> To say the least.
> 
> ...




Maybe you're just a more laid back person than I am. I was pretty pissed and unhappy that D&D made such radical changes. I still to this day do not like Andy Collins because I consider him the primary driver of these changes on top of being the guy that screwed up polymorph, hold spells, death spells, darkness, and wrote a half-complete set of epic rules that needed alot more testing and polishing.

And as I said, I like my new books and new material to look forward to. If not for _Paizo_, I would still be unhappy. At this point I don't much engage in edition wars. I get my game fix from _Paizo_. And now I'm looking forward to their _Advanced Player's Guide_ versus hating all things 4E.

But I tossed in my feelings on the matter and some of what I felt like when 4E first released since the OP asked.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 24, 2010)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I stand by my claim that 4e is not remotely recognizable as D&D.  That's the problem I have with it.  It's not based on the quality of the game.




Build91 has a point that maybe he didnt express or maybe he just brought up a point in my head with his comment... analogies sometimes just obsfucate ;-). I made a small laundry list of things comparing to Runequest. They are in most cases foir me established fundamentals of sameness that went all the way back from OD&D til now.

I played AD&D over 20 years ago and really no D&D in between then and 4e and I am used to games like Runequest / Stormbringer  or Fuzion or Fantasy HERO or Fate or an improvisationally done diceless roleplay for that matter I am used to a "different" game being different and consider the Arcanum or Palladium to have been D&D with the numbers filed off.

D&D has fundamentals like niche protection (usually called being class based but that is not necessarily true and the explicitly defined roles in 4e are the same  ... rumor has it some of this was being lost in 3e inspite of the classes easy multiclassing and high level easy utility magics can step on it). It is something well few games really have. If I dont want classes or the niche protection they can provide 
... there are lots of different games that do that.

For instance if I dont have a level I cant look at the character and get an over all sense of advancement.. I get no sense of burst achievement and anticipation as I build up to it via those experience points. In some versions of D&D level really didnt give much if any clue as to how powerful the character is or what they might be capable of battling.(But I think it was meant to).
If I dont want a sense of how potent the character is or a build up and burst of improvement to my characters.. or ease of putting together an opposition to battle them.
... there are lots of different games that do that.

And so on.

But I think when folk are in edition war mode they dont want to talk about the similarities or how those are core and are indeed very uprooted when you walk away from the banner of D&D.

4e is the edition my son and nieces will remember as the first or second real D&D they played...

At some level I am finding myself less interested in discussing how different the editions are than how similar they are. Perhaps the Grognards for 4E group need a manifesto.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 24, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> Aren't we being a little too literal? This what you feel like you lost, not something you can prove you lost.
> 
> That's what I felt like I lost. It did cause some acrimony in my group until we settled on _Pathfinder_. We tried 4E for about 4 to 6 months. 4 out of 5 us came to despise it. One guy liked it, but he had to tough out going to _Pathfinder_. He stayed. So we got it worked out.
> 
> ...





> But the edition wars isn't based on truth. It's based on feeling. It's  not rational, but it's passionate.




If it is about emotion... Some people seem to be able to keep their emotions in check. Use them, when they can help, control them when they don't.

My sisters are kinda notorious for getting into a bad mood about something and then getting angry about any type of "infraction" or perceived slight. Despite them being now 24 years old, they haven't managed to control that. I don't know why. When I am emotional about something, I recognize it usually and try to stay on top of them.

So, the question someone that is emotional or passionate about an issue would be: Does it help my cause to act on it? Does it help someone else? Or do I cause more hurt and anger? Do I create merely conflict, or can I achieve an actual conflict resolution? 

A "real" Edition War always happens when there is just conflict, but no attempt or chance for resolution. 

I know I have been in some discussions where it (for EN World standards at least) I felt heads were bashed in and all. But some of them actually achieved a type of resolution - getting to understand some aspect of the other side. I think I've learned some valuable lessons on game design or campaign design (for example, sandboxes) in the process. I am not convinced I couldn't have learned these lessons either, with less than the countless pages. It sure would have gotten better if people had been more focused on resolution than on just causing a conflict. (Or rather, if the people that weren't interested in a resolution would just have gone away.) 

A resolution in the context of edition wars doesn't have to mean that one side suddenly changes his opinion on an edition or likes and dislikes. But it can be about understanding  - and even accepting - some aspects of a game. Learning to understand what it is people like, why they like it. 

Roleplaying games might be one of the things where it is really possible to get such an understanding. You will have a hard time making me understand why you might like, say, Olives. We don't have the vocabulary to accurately express the taste we experience. But I think we very well have the vocabulary to express how we feel about our games. And if we don't have it yet, we at least have a fair chance of expand the vocabulary to get there.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 24, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> It is in that sense...the sense that if I want to play 4e, I can't use my 3e materials. However, if I want to play 3e, I can STILL (and do for Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Planescape) use 2e materials.
> 
> 
> In this sense...all "new" material has been cut short OR I can get new material BUT that my old books are now "worthless".




4e material is no less backward compatible than 3e material is with 2e. 2e didn't contain a true skill system, feats, or tons of other things that were central to the 3e rules. You either had to make that stuff up from whole cloth when using 2e material with 3e rules or ignore it entirely. The same thing holds true when using 3e material with 4e rules.

4e does _not_ make 3e books "worthless." 3e books can still be used to play 3e games (Crazy, I know, who would want to use those books in the manner they were intended to be used?!?) or as idea mines for 4e (which is also the only way 2e books can be used with 3e, unless one is willing to re-write whole swaths of mechanical information).*

*Barring some miraculous new turn of events that I am unaware of. I still have the official AD&D to D&D 3.0 conversion guide published by WotC. It consists largely of advice indicating that X rules no longer exist or have been replaced by new rules Y.]


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 24, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> 4e material is no less backward compatible than 3e material is with 2e. 2e didn't contain a true skill system, feats, or tons of other things that were central to the 3e rules. You either had to make that stuff up from whole cloth when using 2e material with 3e rules or ignore it entirely. The same thing holds true when using 3e material with 4e rules.




I'm going to have to disagree with that.  While 3e had a lot of additional rules and some changes, a lot of the core concepts were the same.  You could easilly take a 15th Level Fighter, a 12th Level Wizard, etc, and get a very similar character.  Your magic items, spells, etc, are pretty much the same.  There was what I would call 70% or 80% compatibility.  Sure, some things were harder to take--percentile strength, for instance, and a lot of the optional kits disappeared, but there were good replacements.  It was rather easy to make changes to existing D&D campaign settings, for instance.

4e is a whole other beast.  Your familiar magic items, spells, etc, have disappeared.  I would say you are dealing with less that 50% compatibility.  Many core concepts have changed.  Its a lot harder to convert existing products.  In fact, many core concepts have changed--this game is a lot more focused on tactical and gives a short shift to things like rituals or abilities that aren't dealing with close combat.

Whether or not people like the reboot or if the new game is fun does not change the fact that compatibility or translation from any prior version to 4e would take a ton of work.  A lot more than the 3e rollout did to 2e.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 24, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> 4e material is no less backward compatible than 3e material is with 2e. 2e didn't contain a true skill system, feats, or tons of other things that were central to the 3e rules. You either had to make that stuff up from whole cloth when using 2e material with 3e rules or ignore it entirely. The same thing holds true when using 3e material with 4e rules.




_Eh..._

It's true that 3e had a lot of stuff that 2e didn't, but the reverse is not true.  Backwards compatibility isn't rated on what you _add_, it's what you take away.

A 2e wizard moving into 3e saw changes, but they were all additions.  "Your class, plus this."  The same with a 2e fighter.  Yes, there were huge changes between 2e and 3e, but - at least so far as I was concerned - you could pretty damn easily convert between the two.

4e just said "Yeah, don't even bother converting.  Not gonna work."


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 24, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> _Eh..._
> 
> It's true that 3e had a lot of stuff that 2e didn't, but the reverse is not true.  Backwards compatibility isn't rated on what you _add_, it's what you take away.




3E took away 1E/2E multiclassing. It took away 2E kits. It took away exceptional Strength. It took away specialty priests. It took away enough that my players felt they would rather start anew than try to convert.



ProfessorCirno said:


> A 2e wizard moving into 3e saw changes, but they were all additions.  "Your class, plus this."  The same with a 2e fighter.  Yes, there were huge changes between 2e and 3e, but - at least so far as I was concerned - you could pretty damn easily convert between the two.




Even your simple examples had stuff taken away.



ProfessorCirno said:


> 4e just said "Yeah, don't even bother converting.  Not gonna work."




It depends on what you wanted out of the conversion. If you wanted your concept to stay true you could convert much more easily. If you wanted to convert minutiae then you were in the same boat as my 2E->3E players.

There were even articles on how to convert some mechanical concepts to 4E that did not exist. Like the Monk conversion involving modifying the Ranger.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 24, 2010)

Exactly Professor Cirno.

I'll agree it would be probably be harder to convert 3e stuff back to 2e...for the same reason. Material was added.

But, yeah, there were conversion guides from 2e to 3e. Wotc staff themselves have said in posts that it just isn't worth making a 3e to 4e conversion guide because it would be too different.

They said that...and then they tried, IF I recall correctly. And the forums seemed (for once) to be fairly unanimous that they stop trying. I'm only partly remembering this (it was in the form of Dragon articles circa release -maybe just before or just after).



Separately, when they changed the edition, they changed canon. I liked being able to use my 2e stuff (like those great planecape boxes...I love planescape). 

But for 4e the planes were revamped and changed so utterly that I simply can't use those other things along with what they release going forward. SURE, I can use the fluff from 2e and 3e with 4e rules, but there will not be new fluff that fits with the old.


Along with rebooting the rules, they rebooted the minutia... the stories...the very world we play in. That is another separate issue to mere "conversion".


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 24, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> _Eh..._
> 
> 
> 4e just said "Yeah, don't even bother converting.  Not gonna work."




Funny part is one of favorite characters named Garthan.. go figure.Originally created in AD&D...  I have converted in to dozens of game systems and found various provided differing ways of expressing that character some allowed differing aspects of the character to come to life... but really 4e does a very interesting job and makes him pretty fun to play. He kind of rocked in the Stormbringer campaign too but he was doing dimension travel and the context was sufficiently different. (Different abilities - which were indeed part of the original character concept but suppresed were awakened because he was isolated from his power source). 

There is a bit of a learning curve for converting characters and now that they have hybrids and many more classes (and feats too) it is much easier now than when it was initially released... to create very satisfying characters. I wasn't around trying to do this when it first launched it might indeed have been frustrating.


----------



## Henry (Feb 24, 2010)

Aberzanzorax said:


> But, yeah, there were conversion guides from 2e to 3e. Wotc staff themselves have said in posts that it just isn't worth making a 3e to 4e conversion guide because it would be too different.




I remember those 2e-3e conversion guides, and there's a reason they said it wasn't worth doing again; anyone convert their multi-class characters using those rules? You wound up with a character who had anywhere from 2 to 7 levels over his compatriots once conversion was done, and stat bonuses that were definitely not equivalent to what they had before. My level 6 cleric, rolled under unearthed arcana's rather munchy stat system, had a 17 STR. Combined with the BAB progression, he was easily 15 to 20% more likely to hit in combat -- against monsters that were about the same AC, percentage-wise. My level 9/11/11 F/M-U/Thief wound up a level 17 character! Kick-butt!

In every case, our group didn't convert, we just started brand-new 3E campaigns. For my own fun, I converted several of my favorite 1E and 2E characters by solely eyeballing the stats, and doing what "felt right." My level 6 cleric had a 13 STR; my multi-classer was more like level 13, to be more "fair," because his buddies would have been about that level. In the end, I personally just didn't see much use in that conversion book; for me, it was a waste of time, and thankfully it was free to me.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 25, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> 3E took away 1E/2E multiclassing.



There were rules for multiclassing at first level, and after first level, your multiclass options -- no matter your race -- were expanded exponentially. You could have your elven fighter/wizard, even right out of the gate.



> It took away 2E kits.




Kits were an optional subsystem, and there were rules for prestige classes and feats that replicated the effects of most 2e kits. Though this was an imperfect overlap.



> It took away exceptional Strength.




It got rid of 18/% Strength. Instead, you just had a 20 Strength. Same effect (bonuses to attack and damage), different notation.



> It took away specialty priests.




Domains.



> It took away enough that my players felt they would rather start anew than try to convert.




Probably true for most groups. Which is why I don't fault 4e at all for saying "Just start over." It's the best advice.

However, 3e made a conscious effort to retain the elements of 2e and simply shepherd them into a more elegant system.

4e made no real effort to retain any of the elements of any previous edition (unless the concept had "traction," which is essentially a marketing term). 

That gave it a particular freedom, but it did mean that people who had a particular favorite or interesting character concept might not be supported anymore. 

Which is probably the more problematic thing. "We don't care that much about making sure you can play a gnome illusionist" hits a bit harder than "We want you to keep playing your gnome illusionist, and have better options."


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 25, 2010)

Anyhow. . . the assertion was that 4e makes 3x books "obsolete" or "worthless," neither of which is true. As has been stated, you can still use your 3x books to play D&D 3x or as fluff sourcebooks for 4e. Plenty of people do both.


----------



## ggroy (Feb 25, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> Anyhow. . . the assertion was that 4e makes 3x books "obsolete" or "worthless," neither of which is true. As has been stated, you can still use your 3x books to play D&D 3x or as fluff sourcebooks for 4e. Plenty of people do both.




Some of the last few 3.5E books released in 2007 after the announcement of 4E (at Gencon 2007), were officially converted over to 4E stats by WotC.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 25, 2010)

> Anyhow. . . the assertion was that 4e makes 3x books "obsolete" or "worthless," neither of which is true. As has been stated, you can still use your 3x books to play D&D 3x or as fluff sourcebooks for 4e. Plenty of people do both.




True, within certain limits.

I can use my 3e _Oathbound_ book no problem. Just like using a 2e book, it's mostly flavor anyway. The few mechanical elements have fairly smooth translations (prestige classes become paragon paths, prestige races perhaps become feats). 

Using my 3e _Tome of Horrors_ is more problematic. Unlike the 2e MM's, the 3e monster books had a lot of stats and abilities in them. I can translate them, but it takes work, and I'll probably loose some of the detail that the ToH originally put in.

My 3e _Savage Species_ book is fairly worthless.

My 3e _Tome of Magic_ book also isn't going to be doing anyone any good in 4e.

My 3e _Complete Divine_ book doesn't work so well, either. Though that does have a 4e update of sorts in _Divine Power_, the books don't really cover the same territory.

My DM resources will be easier to use than player resources, in general. Still, even some of those are a little broken. My 3e _Draconomicon_ isn't very useful, though I'm getting two books I can buy to update it. 

It's also a little harder using my 2e books in 4e. For example, Angels and Archons and Devas and Aasimar are so different, any of my 2e Planescape books that reference conflicts with celestial beings is going to require major DM investment in making these things make sense again. 

But certainly 4e doesn't invalidate 3e's and 2e's entire library. I do see it as tougher to integrate with older stuff, though, largely because of how drastically meanings changed in 4e.

In 2e to 3e, a gnome was a gnome was a gnome. Halflings had a bit of a facelift (though they still had "Hobbit" roots, it was assumed adventuring halflings weren't hobbits), but elves were the same, and angels were the same, and demons were the same, and dragons were the same, etc., etc. 

3e to 4e, we now have a new concept of what _a dragon_ is. That doesn't invalidate everything 2e and 3e ever wrote about dragons, but it certainly makes it more difficult to integrate.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> I played AD&D over 20 years ago and really no D&D in between then and 4e and I am used to games like Runequest / Stormbringer  or Fuzion or Fantasy HERO or Fate or an improvisationally done diceless roleplay for that matter I am used to a "different" game being different and consider the Arcanum or Palladium to have been D&D with the numbers filed off.



I think the distinction you are missing is right here.  And, to be clear, I'm with you; 4E *IS* D&D as far as I am concerned.  But, that said, I 100% understand how some people don't at all see it as "D&D".

I've zero loyalty to the name D&D.  I've said that before.  
I played 1E because it was THE one and only fantasy roleplaying game I knew of.  I played 2E because it was the new shiny version of the one and only fantasy roleplaying game I new of.  I dropped 2E like a bad habit once I discovered better fantasy roleplaying games.  I switched to 3E because I found it to be a very good fantasy roleplaying game.  I didn't switch to 4E because I'm aware of much better fantasy roleplaying games.

To me, I'm interested in great fantasy roleplaying games and "D&D" is meaningless detail.
To you, fantasy roleplaying games and "D&D" are defacto synonyms, like making a Xerox on a Ricoh copier.  (Not putting words in your mouth, just expressing what the above quote says to me.  No offense.)
Honestly, I will readily use the term "D&D" when referencing other games if I'm talking to non-gamers.  It isn't a stretch.
But, to a lot of gamers, it is a very important difference.  
In D&D a succubus is a devil, magic missiles always hit, the great wheel defines the cosmos, Vancian magic is king, the blood war spans planes, etc...
4E is fantasy roleplaying, but it is not "D&D with these key elements".


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 25, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> True, within certain limits.




Yes. And if you look _very_ closely, I actually spell out those limits precisely in my post. Let me illustrate. . . 



> My 3e _Savage Species_ book is fairly worthless.




Nope. It can be used to play 3e. 



> My 3e _Tome of Magic_ book also isn't going to be doing anyone any good in 4e.




True but, again, it can be used to play 3e. Not worthless. 



> My 3e _Complete Divine_ book doesn't work so well, either.




I bet you can't guess what game this book can still be used with!  _Not worthless_. 

Perhaps you see a patten developing here. Again, the assertion was that 4e makes 3e books worthless  — a gross generalization at best and a completely untrue statement at worse, when you consider (again) that _all_ 3x books can still be used to play 3x games _or_ as fluff resources for 4e.


----------



## ggroy (Feb 25, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> Perhaps you see a patten developing here. Again, the assertion was that 4e makes 3e books worthless  — a gross generalization at best and a completely untrue statement at worse, when you consider (again) that _all_ 3x books can still be used to play 3x games _or_ as fluff resources for 4e.




The few times I've used some player specific crunch heavy 3E/3.5E splatbooks for 4E, was to make some NPCs with some powers and abilities which haven't been already made for 4E.  Some 3E/3.5E crunch I've used for higher level super-minions in my 4E games.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 25, 2010)

ggroy said:


> The few times I've used some player specific crunch heavy 3E/3.5E splatbooks for 4E, was to make some NPCs with some powers and abilities which haven't been already made for 4E.  Some 3E/3.5E crunch I've used for higher level super-minions in my 4E games.




Oooo! I didn't even think of _that_ (which is weird, because I use 3x books with Basic D&D in the same way). Good call.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 25, 2010)

> Perhaps you see a patten developing here. Again, the assertion was that 4e makes 3e books worthless — a gross generalization at best and a completely untrue statement at worse, when you consider (again) that all 3x books can still be used to play 3x games or as fluff resources for 4e.




Ah, I thought we were comparing 3e's ability to include information from earlier editions vs. 4e's ability to include information from earlier editions ("backwards compatibility").

I guess I thought that because of this:


			
				Aberzanzorax said:
			
		

> It is in that sense...the sense that if I want to play 4e, I can't use my 3e materials. However, if I want to play 3e, I can STILL (and do for Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Planescape) use 2e materials.




If we're talking about one edition's ability to use its own books, I'd have to say that's probably self-evident. Pointing that out in edition discussions probably misses the point.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 25, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Ah, I thought we were comparing 3e's ability to include information from earlier editions vs. 4e's ability to include information from earlier editions ("backwards compatibility").




Well, we got side-tracked a bit earlier. The post of mine that you responded to was me trying to pull it back on topic. Aberzanzorax and a few other posters had previously invoked the broad generalization that 4e made 3e books obsolete or worthless. Aberzanzorax alone went on to explain a bit better (though I don't agree with him) and that got us onto comparing 2e/3e/4e. 

Whilst trying to bring the discussion back on track, I was addressing the earlier broad generalizations about 4e making 3e books useless (hence the "Anyhow..." at the beginning of my quoted post). And, as pointed out, those broad generalizations simply don't hold true. You can still use 3e books in _some_ capacity or another, either to run 3e games, as ideas mines for 4e, or (as ggroy pointed out) actual rule texts for 4e. 

So, the point is, yes, 3e books will not be _100% compatible_ with a completely different game, one that that they were not designed to work with — but they don't suddenly become completely useless, obsolete, or worthless, either.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 25, 2010)

This thread is too long to follow completely, so please do pardon me if somebody already made this point...

But I have to doubt very much any assertion that dismisses the edition wars as nothing more than ego, argumentative tendencies, or human "nature" (whatever that is).  Edition warriors are _fans_ of their favorite game.  They are _D&D fans_.  And fans strive to keep their beloved properties *alive*.  

Stepping up to defend one's favorite edition is startlingly similar to defending one's favorite TV show, especially one bearing the scent of imminent cancellation.  The difference, of course, is that TV shows are competing for limited resource space: only so many TV shows can be on the air at any one time.  Different permutations of RPGs, on the other hand, could theoretically perpetuate to infinity.  But, of course, there can only be one true D&D in print at any one time.  (Well, okay, I guess there could be D&D and AD&D at the same time, but it's not like that'll never happen again.  Fingers crossed for "D&D Essentials," though.)  So, in a way, the editions of D&D are all competing for that singular "time slot": the current and true edition of the most popular (and first-ever) role-playing game.

Very few canceled TV shows have ever risen from the dead.  Some get their movie or miniseries follow-up (Farscape, Firefly, Futurama); some get continued as comic books (Angel, Buffy, Farscape again); I think only "Family Guy" has ever really come back from beyond the grave and had real success.  Most shows just die, no matter how much the fans love them, and so they can only continue in the form of daydreams and fanfiction.

The edition wars are basically fans fighting tooth and nail to keep their edition from being "canceled," to win an extra "season" or two.  It's futile, of course, because the suits are going to "air" the "show" that will make them the most money, i.e. the new one.  (Have I exhausted this metaphor yet?)  And so you get pointless edition wars, which don't accomplish anything... and retro-clones, which can be thought of as the fanfic of RPG rules.  Unauthorized, but at least it's constructive and aimed at making fans happy by filling a void.

"It's all D&D, therefore it's all good" just isn't true.  The editions are different, they play differently, they don't deliver the same gameplay experience.  You can't equate original Trek with Voyager or Enterprise or even the new movie... and as long as there are people who feel nostalgia for the original, or Next Gen, or whatever (and, for that matter, people who discover the old stuff long after its heyday and come to love it anyway), there will be nerds and fanboys on the 'net arguing about it.

THAC0 vs BAB.  Kirk vs Picard.  Fireball is a 3rd level MU spell vs Fireball is a 5th level wizard power.  Starbuck is a dude vs Starbuck is a chick who dies and comes back as an angel-ghost.  It's all of a kind.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 25, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> ...for you, what's really at stake?




I'm going to take this a slightly different route than most people seem to be (and I apologize if someone already made this point, but I only read the first half a dozen pages or so of this thread...).

At the heart of the edition wars lies the future of the gaming industry.  The success of 4e determines the path of the D+D brand, and steers the future of the entire hobby has we know it.

It is an undeniable fact that D+D (and, by extension, WotC) is the biggest name in (tabletop) RPGs.  Ask someone who has never played D+D if they've heard of Pathfinder or OSRIC.  They haven't.  Some may have heard of Vampire or Warhammer, but it's pretty much guaranteed that everyone who has played those games has at least experienced D+D at some point in time.  The bottom line is that D+D is the de facto standard brand when it comes to paper-and-dice RPGs.

It is a slightly more deniable fact that RPGs are not as big as they used to be.  The market is smaller than it used to be.  Gamers are lost to computer games, CCGs, or just plain don't play paper-and-dice games as much as they used to.  The numbers behind this fact are hard to find, but it has been discussed in other threads here and I generally believe it to be true.

Another unfortunate fact is that D+D now has a smaller market share than it once did.  When D+D was the only game in town, it supported (barely) a ridiculous number of expansion packs and settings.  It now has to compete with Paizo, White Wolf, Warhammer, and countless other games that nibble away at it's market share.

After losing all of this ground to other media and other manufacturers, D+D is doing it's best to get by.  And D+D gets by by selling books.  And it doesn't sell books if you're not buying the current edition.  

So what happens when more people are playing out-of-print versions of D+D than the current edition?  WotC stops being the biggest player in the RPG world.  What happens to the market when the flagship product isn't the flagship anymore?  I honestly don't know.  Maybe Vancian magic makes a comeback.  Maybe miniatures take over.  But you'll stop worshiping Vecna, won't fight any more beholders, and won't run into Elminster anymore.  The world won't end, but it changes a lot.  The hobby as we know it doesn't die, but it changes form.  And, oddly enough, that's what most people who resist new editions dislike the most.

The closest analogy I can think of is the history of the arcade.  If you went into an arcade in the 70s and early 80s, you would see a mixture of electronic and mechanical games (i.e. pinball).  Flash ahead to the late 80s and 90s, and you would see that the arcade cabinet has become pretty standardized in terms of controllers and overall design.  Arcades were a common location for new games to be released before they went to consoles (sometimes not being released until the next generation of console due to hardware limitations).  Fast forward to today, and you will find almost no standard cabinet games left.  Every game has a customer controller (a gun, a guitar, a dance pad, a steering wheel, a seat, etc).  To stop their losses to the home video game market, arcades have evolved into the games you can't play at home.

The arcade is still a fun place to go.  But there's a lot less of them these days.  And if the only things you want to play are pinball and Robotron, you're in for a search to find what you want.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 25, 2010)

Deset Gled said:


> At the heart of the edition wars lies the future of the gaming industry.



Edition wars have exactly nothing to do with the future of the gaming industry. Edition wars are about people making arguments in bad faith in an attempt to score points against the other side. Nothing productive or insightful ever came from telling other people why they are wrong to like the games they like, which is what all edition wars ultimately boil down to.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 25, 2010)

Deset Gled said:


> At the heart of the edition wars lies the future of the gaming industry.  The success of 4e determines the path of the D+D brand, and steers the future of the entire hobby has we know it.




I don't think the edition wars have any material impact on the success or failure of 4e.

And, I think there was already a WOTC survey that showed that a majority of players were still playing their very-home-brewed 1e version of the game, even during the 2e and 3e era.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 25, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I don't think the edition wars have any material impact on the success or failure of 4e.
> 
> And, I think there was already a WOTC survey that showed that a majority of players were still playing their very-home-brewed 1e version of the game, even during the 2e and 3e era.




Link? Or any support for this claim whatsoever?

Majority? I really do not think so.

Some, perhaps; a small minority, surely; but a majority?


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 25, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I think the distinction you are missing is right here.  And, to be clear, I'm with you; 4E *IS* D&D as far as I am concerned.  But, that said, I 100% understand how some people don't at all see it as "D&D".
> 
> I've zero loyalty to the name D&D.  I've said that before.
> I played 1E because it was THE one and only fantasy roleplaying game I knew of.  I played 2E because it was the new shiny version of the one and only fantasy roleplaying game I new of.



must have had blinders on.

*Admin here. Next time, we could do without the insult. ~ PCat*



BryonD said:


> I dropped 2E like a bad habit once I discovered better fantasy roleplaying games.



I didnt quite get to play 2e, I had already decided it was too much work to get its fantasy and the style of its magic to fit the fantasy role playing I liked. I thought I didnt like hit points because they were too unrealistic back then too (I since changed my mind -- fantasy characters need to have a buffer of heroic luck)



BryonD said:


> I switched to 3E because I found it to be a very good fantasy roleplaying game.




I considered and played one session which featured some unfortunate players and DM so it didnt attract me much further.



BryonD said:


> To me, I'm interested in great fantasy roleplaying games and "D&D" is meaningless detail.



<snipped some things that did sound snide> 


BryonD said:


> But, to a lot of gamers, it is a very important difference.".




If you are referring to the setting yup... I am starting to get that. Lets see if I can explain why that seems odd...  It wierded me out when I first saw gods to select from listed in the players handbook of a recent edition .... 
The AD&D I played had a vague sort of non-setting with no place names and no gods except a vague assumption of the medieval one God, maybe. Most folk I knew kind of assumed you were meant to create your own world fill in your own names for places build your own artifacts etc... and couldn't have cared less if the default game world ever mentioned a Vecna.

I played one or two games using the Blue Book D&D and a similar small number using RQ then did a number of free form games where we used rolling high is good as the only mechanic. 

So when "other" games came out which could have been called D&D with a couple house rules tacked on it almost seemed reasonable for TSR to sue... or try and patent the unpatentable. The mechanics were less different between AD&D it seemed than they were from 1e to 2e of D&D.  

I played some AD&D During early college, mostly because that was what the group were playing ... it wasn't impressive in a number of ways the DM was incredibly railroading etc, but it had some fundamantal elements to it. I dabbled in a game of Fantasy Hero but was kind of busy

After college I ended up playing Stormbringer and the gritty feel felt very S&S genre appropriate. around this time I think I remember people howling because they took the word devil out of the monster manual, some/most of it was howls of laughter. I remember thinking it made D&D sound like a lame white washed cave-in.... but in your game world I thought... you could call them devils or "the fallen" if you like and another bunch of monsters call those daemons but it didnt seem significant to me. - who used the default cosmos anyway?

Eventually even more distinct games that had hot swappable genres and adjustable mechanics and differences in dm and player responsibilities and ways of wedding character advancement with story  came out,  Somebody said they only ever played D&D (d20) and when they didnt like 4e they actually looked around... and saw there was a wide wide world out there. 

Succubus? Why does it need to be your monster manual that decides that kind of thing?  
A succubus to me is something like this 
Succubus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One interpretation had them seducing a man in the form of a woman then becoming an incubus (male) to seduce/rape a woman and implant a demon seed which destroys her on birth... and becomes a demon in its own right. Another had them spontaneously occur at the scene of a rape. 

I only recently discovered that I had nostalgia for the names of wizards mentioned in AD&D.  I like the 4e setting (and probably would have liked the 3e one too perhaps I should buy a bunch of 3e setting books.)Just curious Is there really some reason why somebody couldnt use the old FR setting with 4e mechanics?

 I am still doing my DMing in my own game world but my son is using Forgotten Realms and my swordmage is itching to see more play.

I guess I jumped over the initial not quite finished initial release of 4e too and so I encountered a much 
healthier beast.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 25, 2010)

Hang on a second here KM.

How is it fair to say that your 3e splatbooks can't be used in 4e, but brush off the fact that your 2e splats were very difficult to bring into 3e by simply saying that they were "optional"?  I mean, all those 3e splats were optional too.

And I defy anyone to update my 3rd/3rd elven ranger (with beastmaster kit)/bard (with Meistersinger kit) from 2nd to 3rd.  It's a whole barrel full of work and really, really not worth it.

Or claiming that domains=specialty priests.  I mean, come on, that's a bit of a stretch. 

I really wonder, as a percentage, how many D&D gamers continued their 2e games into 3e vs how many just abandoned their 2e games for a new campaign.  It would be very interesting to know the numbers.  I have a gut feeling FWIW, that most people who switched to 3e, ejected their 2e campaigns and started fresh.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I really wonder, as a percentage, how many D&D gamers continued their 2e games into 3e vs how many just abandoned their 2e games for a new campaign.  It would be very interesting to know the numbers.  I have a gut feeling FWIW, that most people who switched to 3e, ejected their 2e campaigns and started fresh.




I can only speak anecdotally, but I don't personally know a single group who converted their 2e campaigns to 3e. Most of them simply dropped their 2e campaigns like a hot rock and immediately began anew in 3e. Two (that I can think) took the time to finish out their 2e campaigns and then started new 3e campaigns.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 25, 2010)

JD - my experience was similar, but, I wonder how much that just colors my gut feeling.  I imagine if everyone around me kept right on trucking with their 2e (or earlier) campaigns and just converted, I'd probably feel differently.

One other thing that always gets ignored in the whole compatibility discussion is Rules Compedium D&D to 3e.  I mean, there's a whole system of D&D that survived two editions of AD&D that shares pretty much nothing with AD&D - the cosmology, flavour, mechanics, whatnot are pretty far divorced from AD&D.  There's some overlap, to be sure, but, there's a rather large swath that isn't.

Yet, no one ever seems to claim that RC D&D isn't D&D.  

And 3e certainly wasn't compatible with RC D&D, nor were there any conversion documents (that I'm aware of anyway) produced for it.  

Why does it never come up in the edition war discussions?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 25, 2010)

Hussar said:


> One other thing that always gets ignored in the whole compatibility discussion is Rules Compedium D&D to 3e.  I mean, there's a whole system of D&D that survived two editions of AD&D that shares pretty much nothing with AD&D - the cosmology, flavour, mechanics, whatnot are pretty far divorced from AD&D.  There's some overlap, to be sure, but, there's a rather large swath that isn't.
> 
> Yet, no one ever seems to claim that RC D&D isn't D&D.
> 
> ...



What was its player base like?  If very few people played it, that might explain why its fans are never heard from.

I don't personally know anyone who played it - all the groups I knew of back in the 1e (and 2e) era were either running 1e, Victoria Rules, or (later) 2e...or had bailed on the game completely and were doing something else.

Lanefan


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 25, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> I can only speak anecdotally, but I don't personally know a single group who converted their 2e campaigns to 3e. Most of them simply dropped their 2e campaigns like a hot rock and immediately began anew in 3e. Two (that I can think) took the time to finish out their 2e campaigns and then started new 3e campaigns.




I did.

3e kinda blew it up after the Wizard/Fighter got 4th level spells.  (And he was only getting the 2 free spells per level!)  Though I do appreciate the fact that he could take that level of Fighter and grab Weapon Finesse to become awesome with a rapier.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 25, 2010)

I'm another one whose campaigns got updated...and didn't.  To explain...

I am one of 3 DMs in a campaign dating back to the mid-1980s that had been updated from 1st to 2nd and then into 3rd and 3.5.  Not everything converted smoothly, but the PCs were still quite identifiably the same in a very real sense.  That campaign is still active.

At the time, I was active in another 2Ed campaign that got updated, and a third that did not.

Of those, the one that got updated eventually got disbanded due to RW issues a few months after the conversion.

In addition, there was a guy who was working on a 2Ed campaign at the time 3Ed was released, but he converted the whole thing over before one die was rolled.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 25, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> What was its player base like?  If very few people played it, that might explain why its fans are never heard from.
> 
> I don't personally know anyone who played it - all the groups I knew of back in the 1e (and 2e) era were either running 1e, Victoria Rules, or (later) 2e...or had bailed on the game completely and were doing something else.
> 
> Lanefan




Honestly, I have no idea.  I knew a few groups in the 80's and 90's, but, yeah, they were pretty few and far between.  But, there must have been someone playing or they wouldn't have kept making supplements and having support in Dragon.  I've been on and off reading that Let's Read Dragon thread and they just hit a letter to the editor in 1990 complaining about the lack of support in the magazine for Basic/Expert (or whatever you call it).  So, there must have been some playing.

How many?  Absolutely no idea.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 25, 2010)

Well, to provide a bit more of perspective on my earlier post...


We re-ran an entire campaign (of attacking the main temples of the gods of Fury - including their specialty priests). These were players who enjoyed the last campaign and ran it again with different characters. The campaign was considered by all in the group to be the same (have the same feel, have the same NPC characters in every meaningful way) but better (more rules options, more fleshed out pcs).

Also, my good friends who I gamed with in college re-ran the 2nd edition Night Below product with the SAME characters of our whole group (pple played multiple characters)...but all updated for 3e. They told me they had great fun and did it from start to finish (which is a hefty and impressive task, IMO).


As the DM of the former, I'll say that it was a fairly easy task to convert...and I did have to deal with 5 temples of specialty priests. I point to 3 things:
1. Domains
2. Prestige classes
3. God specific spells

Because, in the end, these were the elements that made up specialty priests in 2e.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 25, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Edition wars have exactly nothing to do with the future of the gaming industry. Edition wars are about people making arguments in bad faith in an attempt to score points against the other side. Nothing productive or insightful ever came from telling other people why they are wrong to like the games they like, which is what all edition wars ultimately boil down to.




Have you ever heard of a thing called "transference"?  I believe that transference is at the heart of reader bias.  We read something, and we process it as though we had written the same words.  We know what would cause us to write those words, and then transfer those motives onto other people.

Perhaps whatever part you have played has been about "making arguments in bad faith in an attempt to score points against the other side".  That doesn't make it so for anyone else.

@ the OP:  I can foresee two possible responses now:

(1)  "I am talking about the other side; I was a defender":  I would suggest reading the opinion of anyone who says "My side is right; the other side is simply acting in bad faith" with a grain of salt that could top Olympus.

(2)  "I wasn't a participant":   In which case, how do you become an authority on the motives of those who were?

Either way, posts like that I am responding to should be considered highly suspect.  Look at the posts that assume most people have a real motive, other than sheer malice, and I think you will get closer to the truth.  Even if a person's motives are misguided (and I fully admit that mine have been in the past, and certainly will be again, despite best efforts) they can also be rational.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Feb 25, 2010)

Jack Daniel said:


> The edition wars are basically fans fighting tooth and nail to keep their edition from being "canceled," to win an extra "season" or two.



The difference is that, to cite a current example, if Caprica gets canceled, my friends and I can't make our own episodes. But my friends and I _can_ make our own D&D. In fact, we're _always_ doing that.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 25, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> What was its player base like?  If very few people played it, that might explain why its fans are never heard from.
> 
> I don't personally know anyone who played it - all the groups I knew of back in the 1e (and 2e) era were either running 1e, Victoria Rules, or (later) 2e...or had bailed on the game completely and were doing something else.
> 
> Lanefan




Wasnt D&D at it's lowest point during 2E? 
I know I stopped playing / running after the preliferation of kits and Players Options came out and started playing a whole bunch of other games instead (Mekton, Cyberpunk, Marvel Super Heroes, DC Heroes, Rolemaster and Champions mostly). I only started up a 2nd edition game just before 3rd edition came out to get back into the feel of things.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 25, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Have you ever heard of a thing called "transference"? I believe that transference is at the heart of reader bias. We read something, and we process it as though we had written the same words. We know what would cause us to write those words, and then transfer those motives onto other people.




FWIW: I think you mean Projection, not Transference.

Projection is "I have an emotion that I'm not comfortable admitting, so I'll attribute it to others."

Transference is "I act in a way toward my therapist that I would act toward a parent."

Just a little Psyche vocab tangent there.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> must have had blinders on.



Somewhat true, I was a hell of a lot younger.  But, at the very start of 2E, it was not so much blinders as options.  As I said, the moment I found other things I jumped.



> If you are referring to the setting yup... I am starting to get that.



Setting is part but not all.  I'm not going to spend a bunch of time arguing point for poitn because that is irrelevant.  You can explain why having a magic missle not automatically hit makes no difference to you.  But we are not talking about an objective truth that can be argued to a correct answer.  We are talking about subjective value to other people.  

Someone can think that 4E is an awesome game and still think "it isn't D&D" because magic missles hitting is a defining truth of what makes D&D be D&D.  

Just because you call any fantasy game "D&D" does not obligate other to do the same and does not make their defintions invalid.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 25, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> I can only speak anecdotally, but I don't personally know a single group who converted their 2e campaigns to 3e. Most of them simply dropped their 2e campaigns like a hot rock and immediately began anew in 3e. Two (that I can think) took the time to finish out their 2e campaigns and then started new 3e campaigns.



Anecdotally speaking, both Sagiro and I did. Worked beautifully (after the cleric/fighter/magicuser conversion glitch).


----------



## Umbran (Feb 25, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Have you ever heard of a thing called "transference"?  I believe that transference is at the heart of reader bias.




And I think you're wrong about that.

Not that there aren't cases of transference (okay, corrected - projection).  Not that sometimes a bias is not created through such.  But I suspect more often, transference is a way to justify pre-existing bias, rather than the root of the bias.

Humans laud themselves for being rational thinkers, and being able to look at evidence, and come to conclusions based upon that evidence.  Unfortunately, more often than we want to admit, we are not so much rational thinkers as _rationalizing_ thinkers - we have some pre-existing notion or preference, and then emphasize or de-emphasize data to support that notion or preference.

This becomes exceedingly true in fields where, if we are honest, actual solid evidence is hard to come by.  By and large, the Edition Wars are fought with anecdotal evidence, at best.  When we lack anything we can agree upon as facts, we have to use something else to shore up our opinions.

Projection then becomes a powerful tool in supporting our biases.  If I am angry, fail to admit it, and assign the anger to you instead* it looks like you (and thus your opinions) should be dismissed.  



*or, perhaps more frequently - if I look at the words and say, _IF_ I had written that, this is what my state would have to have been, therefore you are in that state.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 25, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I don't think the edition wars have any material impact on the success or failure of 4e.




I will agree that the impact of the edition wars is minimal; the number of people that change what edition of D+D they play because they were convinced to change by an internet discussion is relatively small.  However, the edition wars are a highly visible _symptom _of market splitting.  Hence my claim that the root of the edition wars is tied to future market trends.



> And, I think there was already a WOTC survey that showed that a majority of players were still playing their very-home-brewed 1e version of the game, even during the 2e and 3e era.




Can you post a link to back that up?  I find it a little hard to believe.  Not because of the statistics (it's certainly possible), but because I have no idea how WotC would find those players to survey them.


----------



## Azgulor (Feb 25, 2010)

Apologies if covered elsewhere already but I didn't have time to wade through all of the pages right now.  Here goes:



SpiderMonkey said:


> So...
> 
> ...for you, what's really at stake?
> 
> (The next post is a copy of the abstract.)




For now...nothing since the Edition Wars are over. Yes, I'm being serious.

Yeah, there's the occasional border flare-up now and again and there are certainly  hard-liners & fanatics in each camp, but at this stage everyone's picked a side.  The d20 Empire of WotC and it's colonies, sister-states, and allies has fractured into separate, distinct entities.

The bad parts?  The individual entities have to go it alone like never before.  Like a civil war, hostilities exist where they didn't previously, and there were casualties along the way. (3rd party publishers, fans who abonded d20 games altogether, etc.)  As mentioned above, border skirmishes are still fairly common but the companies themselves have moved on.

The nice part?  The customers won.  3e lives on in games like Pathfinder, Trailblazer, and FantasyCraft.  4e fans have 4e.  They lost a TON of 3rd-party support but the most vocal 4e fans often express disinterest or outright disdain for non-WotC product so they shouldn't be too upset (taken as a whole).  Others have branched out into games they hadn't considered previously, etc.

Yeah, it's a huge milestone in RPG history and another Edition War may come again someday but the first one is over.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 25, 2010)

New thoughts rolling through my head....

What's really at stake in the Edition Wars? First, a definition of Edition Wars. War = Conflict. So, a conflict between two (or more) people over their editions of choice. As human beings we have a basic need of reassurance. We need to reflect on the fact that our choices were the right choices for us. This can range from a very subconscious level of self-assurance to an outward conscious level for others to reassure us. We reassure ourselves on these boards by sharing our choices with others. A counterpoint to one's choices can lead to healthy board discussion or can sometimes be perceived as an attack on one's choices and lead to unhealthy flame wars.

So, what's really at stake in the Edition Wars? It's not proving that some other guy on the internet is wrong. It's reassuring yourself that your choices are right....for you.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 25, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Just because you call any fantasy game "D&D" does not obligate other to do the same and does not make their defintions invalid.




You keep pretending I said that. Yet the very first example I gave on thread.. RQ is very much a fantasy roleplaying game of magic myth and men fighting monsters... it was point by point mechanically distinctive in ways that create really basic differences in play.  I call it a a fantasy roleplaying game distinct from D&D... that wasnt just the numbers filed off.

And I think the more other games (fantasy roleplaying ones or ones that can be used for fantasy roleplaying) that people have been exposed to ... the less they are going to find the version differences significant (and apparently heart wrenching). Of course that too could be because you do get less bound up by the "one true frpg" once you are exposed to others... less heart strings to pull.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 25, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Someone can think that 4E is an awesome game and still think "it isn't D&D" because magic missles hitting is a defining truth of what makes D&D be D&D.




By the way.
They can have that in 4e now or soon after the new players handbook - there is a daily that maps directly to it. Just like gnomes are now a standard player race and barbarians a standard class. The 4e bashers handbook gets smaller all the time.

Shrug. If I had been entrenched in third edition I probably wouldn't have found 4e interesting because it wasnt done enough. My son and neice and others dont have that kind of requirements.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Shrug. If I had been entrenched in third edition I probably wouldn't have found 4e interesting because it wasnt done enough. My son and neice and others dont have that kind of requirements.



That was actually a significant barrier to entry for me and my group.  We'd long been a bit tired of saying, "I'll play a dwarf fighter!  I'll play an elven mage!" etc.  We _really liked_ the more estoric and oddball options, and it was fun to do stuff that was off the beaten path.  Going from a very filled out, robust, 3.5 edition with a lot of options to the bare-bones core only 4e would have been an extremely impoverished experience for us that didn't offer us at all what we were interested in anymore.

Of course, I don't think that's true _anymore_... but hey.  I had other barriers to entry that still stand, most significantly being the fact that I'm not dissatisfied enough with 3.5 to really even consider looking for something new and spending all that money to rebuy all the stuff I need to play all over again.  The combination of intertia plus cheapskate keeps me away regardless of any attributes that 4e may or may not have.  I just don't have any need for it, even if it really is the best thing since sliced bread.

Which, for my tastes and what I want in the game, I suspect it's not anyway.  If I look at adopting _any_ new system at all in the next five years, it'll probably be Savage Worlds.


----------



## questing gm (Feb 25, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> Hi, all.
> 
> ...for you, what's really at stake?




The time spent in those wars before realizing that it was all for nothing.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 25, 2010)

Hobo said:


> That was actually a significant barrier to entry for me and my group.  We'd long been a bit tired of saying, "I'll play a dwarf fighter!  I'll play an elven mage!" etc.  We _really liked_ the more estoric and oddball options, and it was fun to do stuff that was off the beaten path.  Going from a very filled out, robust, 3.5 edition with a lot of options to the bare-bones core only 4e would have been an extremely impoverished experience for us that didn't offer us at all what we were interested in anymore.
> 
> Of course, I don't think that's true _anymore_... but hey.  I had other barriers to entry that still stand, most significantly being the fact that I'm not dissatisfied enough with 3.5 to really even consider looking for something new and spending all that money to rebuy all the stuff I need to play all over again.




The spending barrier can be pretty slim if you are really minimalist the amount you get from just a one month subscription to DDi is staggering. Need all the mechanics for all the classes and all the monsters from every book released so far and a bunch of adventures there it is... one spot and 12 dollars... and share it between 5 people.  Reading the players handbook and the DMG and DMG2 for the DM, I think for me is a requirement.... but not necessarily owning them. I am a collector and a completist and I like hardbound books will cool artwork so... guess what I am more inclined to shell out the cash.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 25, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> I'm assuming most went with 4E or WotC would not be continuing to put out product at the rate they are. So WotC could care less what the anti-4E splinter faction thinks.




Would someone like to write a paper about how fast a discussion _about_ the Edition War actually becomes a front in the war?  Sheesh.

This discussion has devolved exactly how all Edition War threads do--add a little dose of one-true-wayism, and let the sniping begin.

In other words, how about we don't label anyone as an anti-anything splinter faction, and just decide that its OK for people to prefer one edition or another?

Every time it happens, its like watching a car accident happening in slow motion.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 25, 2010)

I'm a 4e fan - and I consider it not to be AD&D, so I have a lot of sympathy with the 4e non-fans who don't consider it to be AD&D either.  This I consider a good thing.  1e and 2e had so many arbitrary and unconnected rules they felt like chewing on tinfoil.  And 3e was a rationalisation of 1 and 2 to the point I found it playable but not that great a game.  4 on the other hand is an excellent scend-based cinematic emulator that at least models some types of fantasy literature fairly well (unlike AD&D which seems to do just AD&D; even Jack Vance didn't have Vancian magic in the same way).

But I only tend to join in in response to either false assertions or statements that make me go "bwuh?" and want to understand where the hell they are coming from.  And then I enjoy arguing (and _someone on the internet is Wrong)  _But it's not serious from me.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> The spending barrier can be pretty slim if you are really minimalist the amount you get from just a one month subscription to DDi is staggering. Need all the mechanics for all the classes and all the monsters from every book released so far and a bunch of adventures there it is... one spot and 12 dollars... and share it between 5 people.  Reading the players handbook and the DMG and DMG2 for the DM, I think for me is a requirement.... but not necessarily owning them. I am a collector and a completist and I like hardbound books will cool artwork so... guess what I am more inclined to shell out the cash.



Yeah, but in economic terms, it's also not worth very much to me, so it doesn't matter how little it truly costs if I don't have any interest in it.  Also, DDI is an inconvenient format for me.  I don't want my game materials on the computer, really.  I already struggle enough with all the products I have on pdf as it is.

Anyway, this whole thing is really neither here nor there, the only point I was hoping to make, as an offline aside at that, was that I'm not a "hatah", I just am ambivalent and disinterested in 4e for reasons that are completely external and unrelated to any qualities that 4e may or may not have as a game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 25, 2010)

Umbran said:


> And I think you're wrong about that.




You are, of course, free to think so.



> Not that there aren't cases of transference (okay, corrected - projection).  Not that sometimes a bias is not created through such.  But I suspect more often, transference is a way to justify pre-existing bias, rather than the root of the bias.




I am not suggesting that all cases of reader bias are caused by tranference (also okay, corrected - projection).  What I am suggesting is that, charitably speaking, _*many such cases*_ are caused by the inherent difficulties in communication, where a reader naturally interprets whatever is written as though he or she had written it.

Everything you wrote about rationalizing fits into "as though he or she had written it".  If I have "some pre-existing notion or preference", I am naturally going to read through the filter of that notion or preference, "and then emphasize or de-emphasize" what I am reading to relate it to that notion or preference, either in support of it or to read it as an attack against it.

*Post edited by Admin. You don't discuss previous moderation in threads, period. You know this. If you have a problem, discuss it with the moderators (including myself, if you like) via PM. ~ Pcat*


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2010)

Removed by Admin. See my note above. ~ PCat


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 25, 2010)

Umbran said:


> We may spend hours and hours doing mathematical analysis to determine a build's average damage output, but we don't do the same for how the people who print the game are supposed to pay their mortgages.




Well, I certainly could care less about the former, and I would guess that most everyone else could care less about the latter.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 25, 2010)

Removed by Admin. See my note above. ~ PCat


----------



## Ourph (Feb 25, 2010)

Annnnd... removed by Admin, as it referred to the posts I just removed. 

Back on topic, por favor.  ~ PCat


----------



## SpiderMonkey (Feb 25, 2010)

I'm just gonna jump in here for a moment to thank the mods for not locking the thread outright. Muchos gracias.


----------



## ST (Feb 25, 2010)

This sounds off-topic but I promise it's relevant. I was browsing the Mass Effect forums and noticed they have their own edition war, and it breaks down much like this one. The first game had random loot that you'd sell to save up credits for fancy weapons; the second one has a research subsystem and a simple screen to choose your equipment before a mission. 

They both accomplish the same end goal, but there are plenty of people unhappy that they can no longer manually manage their inventory and stock up on gear to sell. "Dumbed-down" is the kind of complaint you might hear. 

I think it ultimately comes down to how people view their own preferences; a little perspective can be helpful. I don't honestly think tons of people loved ME1 for its inventory screen (which had been done much better in almost any other CRPG), but it was familiar, and they liked the game, so it must have been one of the reasons they liked it. And they felt uncomfortable with what replaced it. But nobody got into ME1 for that inventory management -- it was the story and characters, and that part is still just as solid in the sequel. 

But who's going to fight about shared preferences when it's much more "fun" to argue about differing ones? 

Although the thing that throws me off here, is, yeah, you can't play ME2 with the first game's inventory system, but you CAN mix editions at the table. But then it comes to getting a group of gamers to talk openly and honestly about what they like and dislike about various systems, and that's not very easy to do for various reasons.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 25, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> Well, I certainly could care less about the former, and I would guess that most everyone else could care less about the latter.




As a compassionate human being I definitely care to see people able to continue being gainfully employed and "pay their mortgages." As a vested member of the economy I definitely care to see people able to continue being gainfully employed and "pay their mortgages." And from the multitude of well-wishers involved in the "WotC layoff" threads I surmise that your assertion in incorrect in regards to "most everyone else."

Edit: I also find it distasteful when people here wish for the failure of a game system. Not only will the fans of said game lose due to the failure, people will probably lose their jobs. Would you want someone to wish that upon you in hopes that you get fired?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 25, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Link? Or any support for this claim whatsoever?
> 
> Majority? I really do not think so.
> 
> Some, perhaps; a small minority, surely; but a majority?




I believe it was in this, or in later WOTC-employee comments and analysis on that survey.  It may have been them crunching some numbers based on data outside that survey when compared to that survey, I don't recall exactly.  I know WOTC was estimating total current players at 3 Million in 2004, and it probably had to do with a comparison of that number to estimated 3e players at the time.  Hopefully someone else will remember.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 25, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Edit: I also find it distasteful when people here wish for the failure of a game system. Not only will the fans of said game lose due to the failure, people will probably lose their jobs. Would you want someone to wish that upon you in hopes that you get fired?




It depends. I would hope that if a corporation had come out with FATAL it would fail miserably. I routinely hope that certain ad agencies or marketing departments of major fast food chains would get cleaned out for stupid commercials (the singing mounted fish one for McDonalds comes to mind, particularly since I encounter it most as a *radio* ad thus negating the visual cues important to get the ad's attempt at humor).

All that aside, I would hope that a corporation would acknowledge and learn from its mistakes and make any necessary changes that would be involved. If a game really is sub-par in quality or market performance, I'd want to see actions taken to protect higher quality product lines or ensure the company thrives in the long term.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 25, 2010)

Hobo said:


> That was actually a significant barrier to entry for me and my group.  We'd long been a bit tired of saying, "I'll play a dwarf fighter!  I'll play an elven mage!" etc.  We _really liked_ the more estoric and oddball options, and it was fun to do stuff that was off the beaten path.  Going from a very filled out, robust, 3.5 edition with a lot of options to the bare-bones core only 4e would have been an extremely impoverished experience for us that didn't offer us at all what we were interested in anymore.



We were playing more and more oddball characters in our 3E campaign, too, after a few years of playing.

When we tried Patfhinder, I noticed that I could actually play one one of the "standard" characters again. Because it was different now. It was a breath of fresh air.

And it was the same with 4E. The classes had the same titles, the same story. But they were implemented in a new way, and it was all new and exciting to try out. And with the time our experience grew with the system, the system itself grew, too. So now there are again a lot of characters I might want to try, getting more "oddball" as I move up the Player Handbooks (or DDI articles, as I am particularly fond of the Assassin and really want to try that...)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 25, 2010)

billd91 said:


> All that aside, I would hope that a corporation would acknowledge and learn from its mistakes and make any necessary changes that would be involved. If a game really is sub-par in quality or market performance, I'd want to see actions taken to protect higher quality product lines or ensure the company thrives in the long term.




Agreed. But your outlook is a sane one, whereas actively hoping for people to fail is just rude.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 25, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And I defy anyone to update my 3rd/3rd elven ranger (with beastmaster kit)/bard (with Meistersinger kit) from 2nd to 3rd. It's a whole barrel full of work and really, really not worth it.




I'm not really trying to say that it's an exact translation. Yes, certain things will be lost in the 2e-3e transition. But more stands to be lost in a 2e-4e transition, largely because of 4e's efforts at re-definition. Which, again, gives 4e a heck of a lot of freedom, but constrains people who liked what they were already doing more so than the 2e-3e transition did.

I can translate your elven beastmaster/meistersinger with more faithfulness from 2e to 3e using only the "core books" than I can from 2e to 4e using only the first generation of "core books." It's not gonna be exact, but it's a continuum. A comparison. 

[sblock=how I'd do it]
Ranger/Druid/Bard. Possibly even drop one of those classes in favor of a homebrew feat replacing the relevant abilities, OR using the 3e's DMG guidelines for mixing and matching class traits to make you your very own class. Neither activity done with any more effort than just saying "spend a feat," or "pick this ability from this class, and this ability from this class."
[/sblock]


----------



## ScottS (Feb 25, 2010)

billd91 said:


> It depends. I would hope that if a corporation had come out with FATAL it would fail miserably. I routinely hope that certain ad agencies or marketing departments of major fast food chains would get cleaned out for stupid commercials (...).
> All that aside, I would hope that a corporation would acknowledge and learn from its mistakes and make any necessary changes that would be involved. If a game really is sub-par in quality or market performance, I'd want to see actions taken to protect higher quality product lines or ensure the company thrives in the long term.




The more direct point here is that this is the entertainment industry we're talking about, and for that very reason, we don't owe anyone at WOTC/Hasbro a paycheck. They're choosing to work in a field that involves milking disposable income from people, via "fad-farming" or otherwise creating non-essential goods that tickle people's fancies enough that they start irrationally throwing money around. If these guys made cancer drugs or bread or whatever, it would be a different story, but as it stands, I don't like their entertainment product, so I'm not overly concerned about them keeping their present jobs. If worst came to worst, I would wish them the best of luck in finding gainful employment elsewhere (outside of RPGs).


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 26, 2010)

ScottS said:


> The more direct point here is that this is the entertainment industry we're talking about, and for that very reason, we don't owe anyone at WOTC/Hasbro a paycheck. They're choosing to work in a field that involves milking disposable income from people, via "fad-farming" or otherwise creating non-essential goods that tickle people's fancies enough that they start irrationally throwing money around. If these guys made cancer drugs or bread or whatever, it would be a different story, but as it stands, I don't like their entertainment product, so I'm not overly concerned about them keeping their present jobs. If worst came to worst, I would wish them the best of luck in finding gainful employment elsewhere (outside of RPGs).



*Your tone comes across as rude. You may not like a product, but that doesn't mean that people who do are irrationally purchasing it.*

Moderator caution for rudeness aside, I do disagree with you. WotC (and D&D) has a huge halo effect that helps support the entire hobby. They have by far the most brand awareness, they make inroads into distribution channels that would otherwise ignore us, their volume helps support specialty retailers, and they do more than anyone else for getting new players into the hobby. I'd argue that if you remove WotC and D&D from the industry, we'd splinter and shrink until it became very difficult to find new players. 

That doesn't mean you should blindly buy what they're selling -- far from it. But it's good to be aware that a healthy WotC, for whatever reason, helps ensure a healthy player base.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 26, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm not really trying to say that it's an exact translation. Yes, certain things will be lost in the 2e-3e transition. But more stands to be lost in a 2e-4e transition, largely because of 4e's efforts at re-definition. Which, again, gives 4e a heck of a lot of freedom, but constrains people who liked what they were already doing more so than the 2e-3e transition did.
> 
> I can translate your elven beastmaster/meistersinger with more faithfulness from 2e to 3e using only the "core books" than I can from 2e to 4e using only the first generation of "core books." It's not gonna be exact, but it's a continuum. A comparison.




At this point in time restricting yourself to the first generation books of 4e qualifies as an artificial limit are you pretending it was still a couple years ago because it supports a point? 
A 4e bard/beastmaster ranger hybrid shrug. I am not familiar with kits and 2e. The 2e character couldn't have been built without a lot of supplemental material in its source version I bet... so taking that character now to 4e ought to be quite reasonable.  

[sblock=do not claim prohibitive expense]
Your group spending 12 dollars on a one month sub to DDi gives all access to all generations of player focused materia and a tool that makes creating tracking and leveling a character damn easy and also gives you tons of archival Dragon and Dungeon pdfs as well as dm focused monster making tools etc.
[/sblock]


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2010)

KM - oh, totally agree actually.  Trying to do that ranger/bard in 4e would be a PITA.  But, claims that it would be "easy" or "simple" to do in 3e aren't exactly accurate either.  

Could it be done in 3e, or at least a reasonable facsimile, quite probably.  It would likely take several levels, and probably work better as a PrC in all honesty, but, it could be done.  In 3.5 it would be much more difficult because its very difficult to have multiple pets.

And, really, since it was a pet based PC, it would be even that much more difficult in 4e because it's REALLY hard to have pet based characters in 4e.  I think it would be possible, but, a giganticly huge PITA.

My quibble is with the idea that 3e is backwards compatible with 2e.  Having rewritten more than a few 1e and 2e modules and seen the rewrites done by others, it's a lot of work because the scaling is completely different.  Backwards compatibility doesn't only mean on the player side of the screen.  Encounter numbers in 1e and 2e modules would crush PC groups in 3e because the monsters got SO much stronger.  So, you have to tweak just about every single encounter to make them work.

I guess my beef is with the idea of how backward compatible 3e really is.  IMO, it isn't very compatible - the assumptions are just too different.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> My quibble is with the idea that 3e is backwards compatible with 2e.  Having rewritten more than a few 1e and 2e modules and seen the rewrites done by others, it's a lot of work because the scaling is completely different.  Backwards compatibility doesn't only mean on the player side of the screen.  Encounter numbers in 1e and 2e modules would crush PC groups in 3e because the monsters got SO much stronger.  So, you have to tweak just about every single encounter to make them work.
> 
> I guess my beef is with the idea of how backward compatible 3e really is.  IMO, it isn't very compatible - the assumptions are just too different.




To which I must counter: at least they gave us a conversion guide, at least base classes that had been in the game since 1Ed were not excised, at least base races that had been in the PHB since 1Ed were not booted out, etc.

By comparison, 4Ed didn't even _try._

3Ed gave us enough backwards compatibility that a campaign that had been active since the mid 1980s was still viable without major revision.

I could tell with a single readthrough of the PHB that it wasn't even possible to make that campaign work within 4Ed.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2010)

IMO, it comes down to dueling anecdotes.  I look at the idea of base races and classes, look at the fact that the 2e PHB excised a number of classes (assassin, monk), completely rewrote a number of classes (illusionist, druid, cleric) and ejected the half orc and this didn't cause huge problems for compatibility, but somehow 4e is just TOO HARD to make compatible.

3e rewrote the ENTIRE encounter paradigm.  Completely.  Completely rewrote the reward system.  The spell system was a massive change from 1e.  New classes were included - the sorcerer, the barbarian - and yet that was considered compatible.

Sure, they gave you a guide to convert.  But, again, I wonder how many people ACTUALLY used it.  Yes, yes, I know you did.  But, I wonder, as a percentage, how many people converted.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it was a very small percentage.  The massive numbers of 3e campaigns that proliferated on the net that had no ties to earlier editions speaks to this.  Plus, the rather large growth of the number of gamers in the 3e era who never played earlier editions.  

Although, to be honest, this is just dueling anecdotes and gut feelings.  We don't have any proof either way.  Me, I don't care because I didn't update my earlier campaigns, you, you do because you did.  And, really, that's all the conclusion we can come to.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2010)

Garthanos said:
			
		

> At this point in time restricting yourself to the first generation books of 4e qualifies as an artificial limit are you pretending it was still a couple years ago because it supports a point?




Because if I opened it up to ALL of 4e and ALL of 3e, 3e would STILL be easier by dint of _pure quantity of options_.

By restricting it to the same general pagecount, I'm trying not to give 3e the 8-year, thousands of third-party-products advantage that it otherwise would have.

It's also faithful to the actual question posed to most groups when 4e did come out, where it was "Well, if you want a ranger with an animal companion, or a bard...um...wait. Trust us." It more faithfully recreates the actual environment that decision was made in. Furthermore, while 4e today has more options than it did when it first came out, a lot of those options are still re-defined. My 2e tiefling and a 4e tiefling are not really the same archetype, even if they share a race name.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I guess my beef is with the idea of how backward compatible 3e really is. IMO, it isn't very compatible - the assumptions are just too different.




I think you're right, but I was comparing two things on a continuum. -4 is still greater than -8. 

And I think the very fact that 3e made an effort could be part of why the Edition Wars this time around are seen as more virulent. One of 3e's design mantras, IIRC, was "We want you to play the same game you've always played, but better." This filtered into making sure that they gave us rules for the stuff that D&D has had in it, like D&D has always had in it. A gnome was a gnome was a gnome, and that was the point -- they just wanted to deliver you a _better way to play the gnome you already love to play_, without so much casting judgement on why you loved to play it.

Now, this wan't a totally universally applied mantra -- they changed halflings, and there was a bit of an uproar, even though they allowed for "hobbit-halflings" to exist as well. 

4e's fetish for sacred beef meant that 4e was a lot less concerned with letting you continue to play the game as you always had. They want you to play the game they made, which may or may not resemble the game you have always played, but hopefully does in all the ways that matter. Of course, in a lot of instances, it didn't resemble the game people had played. 

Now, 4e gained a lot of freedom with the sacred cow slaughter. And 3e inherited a lot of problems from being faithful to older editions (I think a lot of 3e's high-level problems, forex, are holdovers from editions where _nobody ever played at high levels_, ultimately). Neither approach is, IMO, necessarily better or worse than the other.

But if you are looking to translate 2e into a more recent D&D edition, 3e is probably, in general, a better choice than 4e. 

If you don't care and are just looking to go into some dungeons and kill some dragons...then, my own personal jury is still out deliberating that, but I'm sure some of the Edition Warriors can come down on one side or the other.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> IMO, it comes down to dueling anecdotes.  I look at the idea of base races and classes, look at the fact that the 2e PHB excised a number of classes (assassin, monk), completely rewrote a number of classes (illusionist, druid, cleric) and ejected the half orc and this didn't cause huge problems for compatibility, but somehow 4e is just TOO HARD to make compatible.




1Ed and 2Ed were so mechanically compatible overall that you could ignore the excision of the monk and assassin and half-orc and run them in their 1Ed form without a hiccup in a 2Ed game...which is what _we_ did.

You can't really say that about the conversion to 4Ed.



> 3e rewrote the ENTIRE encounter paradigm.  Completely.  Completely rewrote the reward system.  The spell system was a massive change from 1e.  New classes were included - the sorcerer, the barbarian - and yet that was considered compatible.




The barbarian showed up in the original Unearthed Arcana in 1Ed.



> But, I wonder, as a percentage, how many people converted.
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion that it was a very small percentage.




Probably unknowable.  IME, there were a lot of people looking for those things about a year after 3Ed's release.  I made copies for some people I knew.

But the point stands- at least 3Ed gave us the option.

[_KanyeWest_]Wizards of the Coast didn't care about legacy gamers![/_Kanye West_]



> The massive numbers of 3e campaigns that proliferated on the net that had no ties to earlier editions speaks to this.




How, exactly?  Most campaigns have no net presence at all, I'd bet, regardless of edition.



> Plus, the rather large growth of the number of gamers in the 3e era who never played earlier editions.




Again, we have no way of knowing- in some cases, our group brought new players into established campaigns.



> Although, to be honest, this is just dueling anecdotes and gut feelings.



QFT.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To which I must counter: at least they gave us a conversion guide, at least base classes that had been in the game since 1Ed were not excised, at least base races that had been in the PHB since 1Ed were not booted out, etc.
> 
> By comparison, 4Ed didn't even _try._
> 
> ...




4e did try to offer conversions from 3e.
4e did offer all the base classes that had been in the game since 1e, anfd all the base races that had been in the PHB since 1e.  They just didn't do all those things in the PHB.

It absolutely is possible to make a 3e campaign work with 4e.  Many people have done it.  You can even make a conversion ideas thread here, and I think you will find many helpful conversion ideas.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 26, 2010)

Jack Daniel said:


> "It's all D&D, therefore it's all good" just isn't true.  The editions are different, they play differently, they don't deliver the same gameplay experience.



Agreed.



Neonchameleon said:


> I'm a 4e fan - and I consider it not to be AD&D, so I have a lot of sympathy with the 4e non-fans who don't consider it to be AD&D either.  This I consider a good thing.



Likewise.

For me, participation in edition war threads is mostly about someone being wrong on the internet. For me, the "wrongness" is mostly in what I regard as overly narrow conceptions of what can count as viable and enjoyable roleplaying.

It is also about broadening the conception of who has a stake or an entitlement in respect of D&D. I stopped playing AD&D as soon as I became aware (once I went to university) of the existence of other games that seemed to me more mechanically coherent. I played a little bit of 2nd ed AD&D over the mid-to-late 90s, but always in spite of the mechanics rather than because of them. After 20 years, 4e has brought me back to being a regular D&D player (and hence regular purchaser of D&D materials).



JohnRTroy said:


> 4e is a whole other beast.  Your familiar magic items, spells, etc, have disappeared.  I would say you are dealing with less that 50% compatibility.  Many core concepts have changed.  Its a lot harder to convert existing products.  In fact, many core concepts have changed--this game is a lot more focused on tactical and gives a short shift to things like rituals or abilities that aren't dealing with close combat.



I don't agree with this, at least from a GM point of view. Although PCs may be hard to convert, pre-3E modules are (IMO) quite easy to convert. Use the maps as-is, and put in 4e versions of the monsters/npcs. 4e seems to me to be fairly mechanically forgiving in this respect, in that it is hard to accidentally produce a TPK encounter, and even a rather easy encounter can still be mechanically quite interesting to play out.

Admittedly, my criteria for ease of conversion may be skewed, as for many years I GMed a Rolemaster game relying heavily on converted D&D material - that was a case where I would say that mechanical conversion was frequently challenging.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> 4e did try to offer conversions from 3e.




Where?  When?  I was a Dragon subscriber and never saw one bit of that.  I saw suggestions that we retire old campaigns and start anew.

There were new versions of classes and races with the new mechanics, but there was no guide for converting your 3.X era game to 4Ed like there was for the 2Ed=>3Ed changeover.



> 4e did offer all the base classes that had been in the game since 1e, anfd all the base races that had been in the PHB since 1e.  They just didn't do all those things in the PHB.




Which made those of us who were interested in converting _right now_ ticked off.

The hype was fresh.  The game was new.  We were set to convert our PCs to the new system and run some adventures...

and we couldn't.  Not until some future point uncertain when they decide its time to reintroduce what they excised?

By the time those elements were brought back into the game, 4Ed had been relegated to dust-catcher status.  (Ship had sailed, train had left the station, etc.)  The game we wanted to play wasn't the game that was released.

(See the mock Kanye West statement above.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 26, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> 4e did try to offer conversions from 3e.
> 4e did offer all the base classes that had been in the game since 1e, anfd all the base races that had been in the PHB since 1e.  *They just didn't do all those things in the PHB.*
> 
> It absolutely is possible to make a 3e campaign work with 4e.  Many people have done it.  You can even make a conversion ideas thread here, and I think you will find many helpful conversion ideas.




Then they didn't - past tense - offer those things.

They offer them _now_, yes.

But when 4e came out, no.  They didn't offer conversions and all the base classes and races.

But I suspect approximately zero people in existance was ready to wait for another year to get all their stuff released to change over their campaign.

As for conversions, no, they didn't offer them.  They said "Just start over again, in all honesty."  And hey, they were honest about it.  But that's not exactly the best way of getting previous people on board.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 26, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Then they didn't - past tense - offer those things.
> 
> They offer them _now_, yes.
> 
> ...



This does raise an interesting issue, though. One sentiment that I do not often see expressed on messageboards (and I will be happy to be corrected if I am wrong) is a statement of intent along the lines of: "The new edition does not have sufficient material for me to convert my ongoing campaign, so I will continue to play using the old edition and only change over to the new one when it does." 

The _impression_ I get from the messageboard posts that I have read is that the ability to convert existing characters, etc. is only a secondary concern. The primary dissatisfaction is that the new edition delivers a gameplay experience which the non-converters would not want anyway, even if it was possible to convert every character and element of the ongoing campaign from the old edition to the new.

I wonder if it is because the majority of gamers today no longer favor extended ongoing campaigns, and thus, depending on whether they prefer the gameplay experience of the new edition or not, most groups would either start a new campaign with the new edition (perhaps after one final world-changing adventure in the old campaign to bring it to a close), or continue an existing campaign with the old one.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Where?  When?  I was a Dragon subscriber and never saw one bit of that.  I saw suggestions that we retire old campaigns and start anew.
> 
> There were new versions of classes and races with the new mechanics, but there was no guide for converting your 3.X era game to 4Ed like there was for the 2Ed=>3Ed changeover.



There was, sort of.  It was mostly a list of suggested ways to use the existing 4e classes and some house rules and reskinnings to create reasonable approximations of 3e classes that didn't yet exist in 4e, or which were never going to exist in 4e.  There was no algorithmic conversion guide that procedurally translated material from 3e to 4e.

Which is probably for the best.  Those things always suck.  I'm a little mystified why so many people want them.  Its like poor Charlie Brown and the football, Kierkegaard, and the Knight of Faith.  Past experience never quite informs future hopes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2010)

FireLance said:


> This does raise an interesting issue, though. One sentiment that I do not often see expressed on messageboards (and I will be happy to be corrected if I am wrong) is a statement of intent along the lines of: "The new edition does not have sufficient material for me to convert my ongoing campaign, so I will continue to play using the old edition and only change over to the new one when it does."
> 
> The _impression_ I get from the messageboard posts that I have read is that the ability to convert existing characters, etc. is only a secondary concern. The primary dissatisfaction is that the new edition delivers a gameplay experience which the non-converters would not want anyway, even if it was possible to convert every character and element of the ongoing campaign from the old edition to the new.




The interest in conversion is only partly about keeping existing campaigns alive.  Its also a litmus test for whether the game plays the way you do.

For me, its like buying a car.  At one point in my life, I thought about buying a Toyota 4Runner.  The dealership told me they had just sold their demo.  I told them to make a new car the demo.  They said no.  I told them I wasn't going to spend that money on a vehicle without a test drive.

One of the ways I've "test driven" a new version of D&D was in converting old PCs or campaign elements to see if they still felt the same.  That exercises is partly about the mechanics and partly about fluff and partly about legacy games in general.

4Ed was the first to fail that test.  Some PCs converted OK, but didn't retain the same _feel_- the fluff was wrong.  Some converted OK, but had radically different capabilities than they did in previous editions- the mechanics were wrong.  Others didn't convert at all- from the perspective of the day, the legacy had been ditched.  (FWIW, I'm talking about PCs from my old campaigns and also those originating from more recent, 3.XEd era games.)

I didn't take the system for my traditional test drive because, frankly, there was nothing for me to test.  I didn't feel the need to try new PCs- 4Ed didn't support my playstyle.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 26, 2010)

Hussar said:


> My quibble is with the idea that 3e is backwards compatible with 2e.



That was my biggest squawk when 3e came out - lack of backwards compatibility.  10 years and 1 edition later, I'm still squawkin'.  







> Having rewritten more than a few 1e and 2e modules and seen the rewrites done by others, it's a lot of work because the scaling is completely different.  Backwards compatibility doesn't only mean on the player side of the screen.  Encounter numbers in 1e and 2e modules would crush PC groups in 3e because the monsters got SO much stronger.  So, you have to tweak just about every single encounter to make them work.



Oddly enough, it's not that hard to convert the other way: 3e adventures to 1e.  Just ignore all the feats and funky abilities, and some of the spells, and it (at least at low-ish levels) falls rather nicely into place.

I just got done running Forge of Fury - well, half of it anyway; they bailed without exploring the rest as soon as they'd done what they went to do - for my 1e-variant group, and the actual conversion was much easier than I'd expected.  (the module itself was horribly laid out, what with the main monster write-ups being at the back rather than in with the write-up of where they would be met, but that's another issue)  There's a couple of other 3e/d20 adventures I'd like to run someday as well.

Lan-"Orcs don't come with little edition numbers stamped on their foreheads"-efan


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To which I must counter: at least they gave us a conversion guide, at least base classes that had been in the game since 1Ed were not excised, at least base races that had been in the PHB since 1Ed were not booted out, etc.
> 
> By comparison, 4Ed didn't even _try._
> 
> ...





TSR gave us a conversion guide before the release of 2edADnD too.

and they use to send out a catalog of available products and ones in the making.

online ones for the 2000ed seemed to work for the most part.


----------



## Psion (Feb 26, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> That was my biggest squawk when 3e came out - lack of backwards compatibility.  10 years and 1 edition later, I'm still squawkin'.




Yup.

I did conversions of parts of Undermountain and Return to the Tomb of Horrors.

Undermountain was a minor deal. Fortunately, I found I could tweak most encounters pretty easily by adding class levels.

Tome of Horrors was a bigger deal. Above CR 10 or so, there's WIDE variation between the target power level between 1e/2e and 3e. I totally had to punt the 3e mountain giant and make my own (actually a templated hill giant, BID).

4e takes this a step further by changing creature _concepts_.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 26, 2010)

Psion said:


> 4e takes this a step further by changing creature _concepts_.




What I find interesting is that I think converting a 2e or 1e monster into 4e is pretty easy, but converting the adventures, as you said, can be a lot trickier.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 26, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> As for conversions, no, they didn't offer them.  They said "Just start over again, in all honesty."  And hey, they were honest about it.  But that's not exactly the best way of getting previous people on board.




I remember them saying "finish your current campaign, and then start a new one in 4E". I also remember them saying that if you did want to switch to 4E mid-campaign, the best idea would be to take the soul or spirit of your character and build a 4E character from there.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 26, 2010)

Another (obvious) observation re: Ed. Warz  ---hey, I think I found my next PC name!

Arguments about minutia are a part of how many hobbyists enjoy their hobbies. This is hardly exclusive to gaming. Nerds of all stripes argue simply for the pleasure of it. 

I imagine opera fans regularly have it out debating baroque vs. _bel canto_ or which singer sang the definite role...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2010)

> Which is probably for the best. Those things always suck. I'm a little mystified why so many people want them.




I think it's more of a philosophical security blanket that _such a thing does exist_, and a way to set limits on which sacred cows the new edition actually gets to burn.

That is, _it can't burn those that I have already embraced_.

If I have decided that gnomes play a key role in the world I've created, and 4e comes out practically bragging about not having gnomes in it as a race, 4e clearly isn't going to support my world.

If, in 5e, the designers say "Dragonborn were silly, monstrous-looking creatures whose link to dragons was poorly explained and not at all justified. For 5e, we're going to go in a direction that supports a more humanoid-looking world, to keep D&D as a brand distinct from various other fare. Dragonborn may come back in a future supplement, but we've focused our energies on orcs for the first PH" then a lot of folks who, in 4e love dragonborn, and who use them extensively in their games, are going to pretty much react in a similar way: "Oh. Looks like 5e isn't going to be the kind of D&D _I_ want to play."


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Where?  When?  I was a Dragon subscriber and never saw one bit of that.  I saw suggestions that we retire old campaigns and start anew.
> 
> There were new versions of classes and races with the new mechanics, but there was no guide for converting your 3.X era game to 4Ed like there was for the 2Ed=>3Ed changeover.




There was a series of articles on the topic.  Here is one.





> Which made those of us who were interested in converting _right now_ ticked off.
> 
> The hype was fresh.  The game was new.  We were set to convert our PCs to the new system and run some adventures...
> 
> and we couldn't.  Not until some future point uncertain when they decide its time to reintroduce what they excised?




All races were available from the start (though a couple were in the MM).  It did not take long to get all the classes out there as well (though obviously not some of the more unusual later-splat-book classes, but then neither did 3e cover those right away).



> By the time those elements were brought back into the game, 4Ed had been relegated to dust-catcher status.  (Ship had sailed, train had left the station, etc.)  The game we wanted to play wasn't the game that was released.
> 
> (See the mock Kanye West statement above.)




Yes, I get that not everything was available initially.  But your comment was not past tense only.  So, to clarify, not everything you wanted to convert was as easily convertible initially as it is now.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 26, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Then they didn't - past tense - offer those things.
> 
> They offer them _now_, yes.
> 
> But when 4e came out, no.  They didn't offer conversions and all the base classes and races.




By June 2008 you had conversion guides, all races, and almost all classes.  How much faster did you want it? Was 3e really that much faster in offering conversions for 2e?



> As for conversions, *no, they didn't offer them*.  They said "Just start over again, in all honesty."  And hey, they were honest about it.  But that's not exactly the best way of getting previous people on board.




Except, that is not accurate.  Within a week of the 4e core books coming out in June of 2008, they were offering conversion advice in a series of articles open to the public.  Again, here is the first one of them.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 27, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> By June 2008 you had conversion guides, all races, and almost all classes.  How much faster did you want it? Was 3e really that much faster in offering conversions for 2e?




yes. release date for the conversion guide was the same day they released the phb.

edit: the conversion was part of the cd in the phb for the 2000ed.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 27, 2010)

diaglo said:


> yes. release date for the conversion guide was the same day they released the phb.
> 
> edit: the conversion was part of the cd in the phb for the 2000ed.




Diaglo, June 2008 IS the same month the 4e core books were released.  The first conversion article was 6/13/2008. according to that link  The core three books were 6/6/2008 according to wikipedia. So, from what I can tell, it came out the first week.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 27, 2010)

Those conversions were only available online.  By the time the one you linked us to had been released, Dragon was 9 months out of print.  The only people who got them were those who went looking on WotC's site.

The 2Ed-3Ed conversion was available _in the stores._



> All races were available from the start (though a couple were in the MM). It did not take long to get all the classes out there as well (though obviously not some of the more unusual later-splat-book classes, but then neither did 3e cover those right away).




I won't get into the PHB/MM distinction again- its been covered ad nauseam.  Suffice it to say, "They're in the MM!" isn't going to fly for everyone.

However, the Druid and Barbarian aren't some "unusual later-splat-book-classes."  The former has been in the PHB since the mid 1970s, and the latter was an expansion class in 1Ed and was a standard class by 3Ed.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Those conversions were only available online.  By the time the one you linked us to had been released, Dragon was 9 months out of print.  The only people who got them were those who went looking on WotC's site.
> 
> The 2Ed-3Ed conversion was available _in the stores._




Considering Dragon Magazine probably wasn't selling much more than 50/60k at that time, there is a good chance that more people checked out WOtC's website free conversion over buying the conversion in Dragon Magazine.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 27, 2010)

> Considering Dragon Magazine probably wasn't selling much more than 50/60k at that time, there is a good chance that more people checked out WOtC's website free conversion over buying the conversion in Dragon Magazine.




Dragon only had press releases regarding upcoming design changes.

The actual conversion guide was a free and separate booklet sitting on shelves in every game store that sold the game, usually right next to the game itself, but occasionally at the registers.  I know of at least one store that simply put one in your bag when you bought the game, so you didn't even have to ask about it.

IOW, you didn't have to go looking for it, it was there in plain sight.

In favor of the 4Ed conversion, though, I must admit this: that guide is still out there, while the 3Ed booklets eventually ran out.  Such is the nature of digital media.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dragon only had press releases regarding upcoming design changes.
> 
> The actual conversion guide was a free and separate booklet sitting on shelves in every game store that sold the game, usually right next to the game itself, but occasionally at the registers.  I know of at least one store that simply put one in your bag when you bought the game, so you didn't even have to ask about it.
> 
> ...




Fair enough, we didn't get it over here, in the stores, which I why I didn't know. But your original argument, which was what I quoted, said something else. 

Another point is this: Compared to 2000, a lot more people buy their RPG books online and rarely show up in the gaming store. Also, the amount of people using WotC's website has dramatically increased between 2000 and 2008.

So it does make sense (IMO ofc) to have moved conversion guides to the net.


----------



## outsider (Feb 27, 2010)

Why I occasionally dip my toes into the edition war:

When you allow people to spread falsehoods and you don't call them on it, you run a serious risk of the audience starting to treat those falsehoods as though they are the truth.  Much of the edition wars are subjective.  However,  there are some objective facts that are frequently ignored, and some subjective opinions that are treated as objective fact.  If these things go unchallenged, they pollute and devalue the boards and the discussions we have here.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 27, 2010)

outsider said:


> Why I occasionally dip my toes into the edition war:
> 
> When you allow people to spread falsehoods and you don't call them on it, you run a serious risk of the audience starting to treat those falsehoods as though they are the truth.  Much of the edition wars are subjective.  However,  there are some objective facts that are frequently ignored, and some subjective opinions that are treated as objective fact.  If these things go unchallenged, they pollute and devalue the boards and the discussions we have here.




I think there are also a lot of people who see someone post their impressions and *treat them* as if the poster was trying to post objective facts. I shouldn't have to say "In my opinion" before everything I post. There are some statements I make that should be pretty obviously my opinions or impressions. If I say that "4e plays like a glorified miniature skirmish game," there's no reason to assume that I'm stating an objective fact. It's obviously in the realm of subjective impression and needs no correction.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 27, 2010)

My stake in an edition war is getting to play the version I like and want. If I can, through whatever means, convince others to go that route then I increase the potential players or GMs for the edition I enjoy most.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Those conversions were only available online.  By the time the one you linked us to had been released, Dragon was 9 months out of print.  The only people who got them were those who went looking on WotC's site.
> 
> The 2Ed-3Ed conversion was available _in the stores._




So?



> I won't get into the PHB/MM distinction again- its been covered ad nauseam.  Suffice it to say, "They're in the MM!" isn't going to fly for everyone.




It was not perfect. Not perfect is different from claiming it cannot be done.  It could be done, many people did it, it wasn't that bad. 



> However, the Druid and Barbarian aren't some "unusual later-splat-book-classes."  The former has been in the PHB since the mid 1970s, and the latter was an expansion class in 1Ed and was a standard class by 3Ed.




Fortunately they were covered in those conversion articles.  Again, not perfect, but doable.  

I get that the conversion was more difficult this time around.  I just object to people claiming it could not be done and that WOTC made no attempt at all to help people convert their games.


----------



## outsider (Feb 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I think there are also a lot of people who see someone post their impressions and *treat them* as if the poster was trying to post objective facts. I shouldn't have to say "In my opinion" before everything I post. There are some statements I make that should be pretty obviously my opinions or impressions. If I say that "4e plays like a glorified miniature skirmish game," there's no reason to assume that I'm stating an objective fact. It's obviously in the realm of subjective impression and needs no correction.




Sure there is.  People that are ignorant on the topic might actually take your opinion at face value and treat it as fact.  While uninformed readers aren't as common as they were back in the lead up/early days of 4e, I'm sure there still are some lurking around the boards.

Something like "I dislike 4e" is completely harmless.  Even "I absolutely hate 4e because I don't like tactical movement and miniatures in my roleplaying games" is fine, and is perhaps a very valuable statement to an uninformed reader.  Neither of those statements misrepresents any facts.  "4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game" misrepresents the facts and should be corrected.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 28, 2010)

outsider said:


> "4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game" misrepresents the facts and should be corrected.




Unless I actually think it does play like a glorified miniatures game, in which case, anyone trying to correct my opinion can keep it to themselves. Any attempt at correction misrepresents and disrespects my opinion making it substantially more likely that any further discussion will be an increasingly heated edition war, even if hadn't been one before.


----------



## outsider (Feb 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Unless I actually think it does play like a glorified miniatures game, in which case, anyone trying to correct my opinion can keep it to themselves. Any attempt at correction misrepresents and disrespects my opinion making it substantially more likely that any further discussion will be an increasingly heated edition war, even if hadn't been one before.




Whether it actually is an opinion or not is irrelevant, as the only clue on your intent is the words you write.  When you choose to write your opinions as a declaration of fact, the reader is in the right when they treat your words as a declaration of fact.  Language works the way it does for a reason, and when you use it improperly, you are to blame for any misunderstandings that arise.

Skipping "I think" or "in my opinion" is a good short cut amongst people that know you, and/or are looking you in the face when you say it.  It is not, however, a good shortcut when using the written word to communicate with hundreds of complete strangers with varying levels of knowledge on the topic being discussed.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2010)

> "4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game" misrepresents the facts and should be corrected.




I'm not so sure that it does misrepresent the facts. It's entirely possible for two people to play 4e and come out with different play experiences. Giving such a poster the benefit of the doubt, and saying "Really? It doesn't seem that way when I play. Why do you think that?" rather than saying "No. You're wrong. Stop posting lies!" can get closer to some real differences. 

Saying "You're wrong, shut up," has never been a very good way to have a conversation. 

Saying "I think differently. Why do you think the way you do?" is usually better.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 28, 2010)

I find it usually safe to assume that, unless written otherwise, everything someone posts on a message board is opinion. Makes for a much better experience.


----------



## outsider (Feb 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Saying "I think differently. Why do you think the way you do?" is usually better.




And when you say "In my opinion 4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game", it's reasonable to expect such a reply.  Basically, what you are suggesting is that I respond to somebody with patience, when they have deliberately chosen to post in an impatient manner(have no doubt that it was an intentional choice to do so, as the poster has already admitted as much).  While taking the high road in such a situation is commendable, it should not be expected, and the one to instigate the confrontation is the one at fault.

"You're wrong, shut up" is clearly inappropriate.  "You're wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z" is perfectly acceptable though.  If the poster would like me to choose my words carefully and not flat out say he's wrong, he can choose his own words carefully.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2010)

> If the poster would like me to choose my words carefully and not flat out say he's wrong, he can choose his own words carefully.




My grandma used to have a saying.

"I don't care who started it. I just want it finished."

A constructive conversation can require that you prioritize the conversation itself above who is right or who is wrong or wounded egos.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 28, 2010)

outsider said:


> While taking the high road in such a situation is commendable, it should not be expected, and the one to instigate the confrontation is the one at fault.




I beg to differ.  You are always responsible for your own behavior.  The other guy isn't Professor X, or something, such that he can take control of your mind.  It isn't as if you have some sort of seizure, such that you cannot control yourself, is it?

We must expect the best from each other, or we shall never get it.  

This is not to say that the person who was curt in the first place is not also responsible for his own actions.  But you don't get to point fingers if you yourself haven't taken the high road.


----------



## outsider (Feb 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> "I don't care who started it. I just want it finished."




I agree.  However, coddling people by never telling them they are wrong isn't going to accomplish that.


----------



## scourger (Feb 28, 2010)

Thinking about the original post (and admitting that I have not read this entire thread), I realize that for me what's at stake with a particular edition (or game) is my stake in the hobby.  The best way I can explain it is with examples.  When I started gaming, I was in elementary school.  I had plenty of free time and an increasing ability to understand these games.  That lasted until late high school when I left it for other pursuits.  Returning in college, I again had some free time and a good deal of intellectual energy to burn.  When I again returned as a young professional, I had some time (although I was then married) and hence the brain power to spare.  That was when I bought the most material too, as I had the most disposable income.  Now, as a middle-aged professional with a family, I find that my time, effort and money just can't support such an intensive approach to gaming.  I still like to get together with my long-time friends and enjoy a game every other week or so, but I just can't devote the large blocks of energy to it.  It even extends to new games.  I just can't get into them as I once did.  So, I value the existing games that I do have and my mastery of them because I can still have fun with those older editions and games.

And this is where my stake is.  I think what I see in my gaming firends is that is where their stake is, too.  Some are stuck a couple of editions ago.  Most all of us play for the past rather than really playing for the future.  And, then one of my problems is that it all feels familiar--like I've done it before; because I probably have.  What I'm really looking for is a new spin to an old record.  

For me to bring a game to the table these days, it has to have 3 elements: a compelling story, cool rules, and miniatures/counters.  I have a lot of material on my shelves that meets these criteria.  Something new has to measure up or it just isn't worth me spending my precious resources on it.  

I am not discounting that a certain edition or game has implications for narrative control and shaping the storytelling experience.  It does.  But, I think the reason people have something at stake in an edition (war) is more related to where thay have their stake in the game as a personal hobby.  It is for me.


----------



## outsider (Feb 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You are always responsible for your own behavior.




This is true, of course.  My point is that if you make a contraversial and curt post, you should expect contraversial and curt replies to follow.  When said replies occur, you are not a victim.  Maybe they aren't doing the right thing either, but you brought it on yourself.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2010)

> I agree. However, coddling people by never telling them they are wrong isn't going to accomplish that.




It isn't coddling when you look for the heart of the issue, instead of being distracted by perceived or actual factual inaccuracy.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 28, 2010)

outsider said:


> While taking the high road in such a situation is commendable, it should not be expected, and the one to instigate the confrontation is the one at fault.



It seems to me that the one who responds in a confrontational manner is the one at fault.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 28, 2010)

outsider said:


> This is true, of course.  My point is that if you make a contraversial and curt post, you should expect contraversial and curt replies to follow.  When said replies occur, you are not a victim.  Maybe they aren't doing the right thing either, but you brought it on yourself.




There is one small difficulty with this - sometimes (often, even) in a text-only medium, it can be very, very easy to say something that you think is okay (or maybe just a touch testy), and then find yourself deluged with people who think you just purposely spat on their shoes or something.

In speaking with folks after some of the nastier Edition War skirmishes, it was found that to start with, nobody _intended_ to be curt or controversial.  They just came across that way, and people responded in kind, and things began to snowball.

After that's happened a couple of times, people are bruised, and even more likely to take offense, and feel the other side deliberately intends offense.  After enough bruising, the other side really does mean offense, as they're fed up with being bruised just for having an opinion...

Whatever the stakes, it seems a great deal of the vitriol of the Edition Wars was built in this manner.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 28, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Fair enough, we didn't get it over here, in the stores, which I why I didn't know. But your original argument, which was what I quoted, said something else.
> 
> Another point is this: Compared to 2000, a lot more people buy their RPG books online and rarely show up in the gaming store. Also, the amount of people using WotC's website has dramatically increased between 2000 and 2008.
> 
> So it does make sense (IMO ofc) to have moved conversion guides to the net.



My original argument was that 3Ed had conversion guides, 4Ed didn't.

One you can't find- in your situation- or one you have no idea exists at all- my situation- is functionally the same as not having one at all.

Now, why your stores didn't have them, I can't say.  Why Wizards didn't direct people to the website via non-web resources, I can- they didn't have any.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 28, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> So?




As pointed out in my last post, a conversion guide- indeed, any product- you have no idea exists is (for you) functionally the same as one that doesn't exist.

By ensuring that game stores had copies of the conversion guide, WotC ensured those of that portion of the market interested in conversion had everything they needed.

No conversion guide in the stores for 4Ed meant those of their shoppers who were interested in conversion had nothing.  There was also no mention of online conversion guides whatsoever in retail outlets- I know because I asked for them.

If nothing else, not letting a significant portion of your market _or retailers _know that there is a conversion guide online is at the very least another flaw in the 4Ed product rollout.



> Fortunately they were covered in those conversion articles. Again, not perfect, but doable.




Conversion articles which obviously didn't reach a good portion of their installed base.  I may be somewhat of a neo-luddite (I don't think I am, but I'm open to the possibility), but 90% of my primary game group are computer programmers...and a few of them are in the computer game subset of that industry.

IOW, this is not a bunch of technophobes- any decent publicity of those conversion guides would have popped up on their radar.


----------



## merelycompetent (Feb 28, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My original argument was that 3Ed had conversion guides, 4Ed didn't.
> 
> One you can't find- in your situation- or one you have no idea exists at all- my situation- is functionally the same as not having one at all.
> 
> Now, why your stores didn't have them, I can't say.  Why Wizards didn't direct people to the website via non-web resources, I can- they didn't have any.




Y'know, I posted several times requesting conversion information. No links, no direction, frequently no response, certainly nothing ever pointing to those web pages from 2008. Even from WotC employees.

That page might as well have not existed.

I emailed one of those links that a previous poster graciously provided to some of the 20 or so gamers I know. First response: "Where did that come from?"

No one in my crowd of a couple dozen gamers knew this existed. One of the 4E fans among us was floored. (He's been trying to convince me to give 4E another try.)

That. Is. Sad.

Conversion information... that no one knew about.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 28, 2010)

Considering that WotC told you couldn't convert (first thing mentioned in the first article!), it made little sense to scour their website for a conversion guide.


----------



## Wayside (Feb 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I beg to differ.  You are always responsible for your own behavior.



Which is why when someone yells the nerd equivalent of "fire" in a crowded theater--in this case, yelling "4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game" in a forum made up substantially of 4e fans--they should be held accountable for the resulting stampede. After all, aren't they responsible for what they say? Nothing constructive ever comes of calling 4e videogamey or Pathfinder a money grab, and to insist that nobody can challenge such claims, as billd91 does, is even more laughable than the claims themselves.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 28, 2010)

Wayside said:


> and to insist that nobody can challenge such claims, as billd91 does, is even more laughable than the claims themselves.



No one is saying it's inappropriate to challenge those kind of assertions, just that it's inappropriate to accuse the person making them of being a liar.


----------



## outsider (Feb 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It isn't coddling when you look for the heart of the issue, instead of being distracted by perceived or actual factual inaccuracy.




Factual accuracy is my stake in the edition war.  I really don't care who's on what side or why they chose the side they did, as quite frankly I find the edition war pointless.  What I do care about is talking about the game of D&D, and I think it pollutes the discussion if we allow people to spread untruths about it, whether they stem from grognard rage or blind fanboyism.

Could I be less confrontational about it?  Sure.  But I'm not going to stop telling people they are wrong when what they say is objectively wrong.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 28, 2010)

merelycompetent said:


> Y'know, I posted several times requesting conversion information. No links, no direction, frequently no response, certainly nothing ever pointing to those web pages from 2008. Even from WotC employees.
> 
> That page might as well have not existed.
> 
> ...






Raven Crowking said:


> Considering that WotC told you couldn't convert (first thing mentioned in the first article!), it made little sense to scour their website for a conversion guide.




I'm quoting these, not to bolster my position, but to point out something else at stake in the Edition Wars:

Regardless of whether we care for the next iteration of the game's design, I'm sure we'd like WotC to learn from the mistakes many of us feel happened in the 4Ed rollout, and this is a telling example.

Hopefully, WotC is aware of this particular fumble and the next edition's conversion guide- if one exists- will be well-publicised.

Even to those of us who don't live on the Internet.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 28, 2010)

Wayside said:


> Which is why when someone yells the nerd equivalent of "fire" in a crowded theater--in this case, yelling "4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game" in a forum made up substantially of 4e fans--they should be held accountable for the resulting stampede. After all, aren't they responsible for what they say? Nothing constructive ever comes of calling 4e videogamey or Pathfinder a money grab, and to insist that nobody can challenge such claims, as billd91 does, is even more laughable than the claims themselves.




Asked for clarification or challenged for the reasons behind their impressions? Yes. Told that their subjective opinion is factually wrong? No. 

A 4e-oriented forum is *not* a crowded theater. Nobody will or even can be harmed as a direct result of stating an unfavorable impression of 4e. There is no equivalency.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 28, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Asked for clarification or challenged for the reasons behind their impressions? Yes. Told that their subjective opinion is factually wrong? No.




Some of the "lies" I have seen could have been paraphrased very directly by taking a paragraph directly out of the players handbook and wrapping a big CANNOT or SHOULDNOT statement around what it suggests and recommends... and when called on it... they get all offended that it is their opinion and just because they are bad at arguing is no reason to insult them... its opinion and that is all that matters....  I am not buying the innocent act.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 28, 2010)

outsider said:


> Factual accuracy is my stake in the edition war.




There is nothing factually accurate about the statement "4e plays like a glorified miniature game".  Nor is there anything factually inaccurate.  It is a statement whose truth-value is always subjective.

Trying to defend factual accuracy on the basis of subjective truths is sparrring with a shadow.  

"It's all D&D" or "D&D is the same as its ever been" is another one of those subjective truths that I find myself worked up about, so I know how it goes.  What I think you and I both object to is the statement of a subjective truth as though it were an objective one.  But that doesn't mean that the person on the other side is unaware of the subjective nature of his claims.

I try very hard (but let's be honest....not nearly successfully enough!) to give the other person the best possible reading of what they wrote.  But I miss things, and I have bad days, and some posts just rub me the wrong way.  Some folks just rub me the wrong way, possibly through no fault of their own.

I believe that very few people in edition wars imagine themselves the aggressor.  Almost everyone believes that they are simply defending their point of view, or the game they love.  It helps to believe that, because otherwise you will never actually "get" the other points of view.  

And sometimes, I have found, getting those points of view really does have benefits.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 28, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Some of the "lies" I have seen could have been paraphrased very directly by taking a paragraph directly out of the players handbook and wrapping a big CANNOT or SHOULDNOT statement around what it suggests and recommends... and when called on it... they get all offended that it is their opinion and just because they are bad at arguing is no reason to insult them... its opinion and that is all that matters....  I am not buying the innocent act.




We all know that games recommend things that, in play, never come to pass because what is recommended is not what is rewarded by the ruleset.  I am sure from prior conversations that you can think of many, many examples yourself.

We have all seen how "suggested" wealth by level tables became ironclad in the culture of 3e, to the point that people would suggest that the game would require massive work if the DM ignored them.

We have all seen how "status quo" settings, while an option in 3e, became largely perceived as "unfair" (I have been involved in a *lot* of these conversations!) because the 3e ruleset power curve is so steep that the game offers little hope of escaping a foe who is substantially more powerful than the PCs.

Presenting an option in a rulebook does not mean that the option will play well (i.e., be supported by the ruleset as written) at the table.  Need I bring up the 1e DMG unarmed combat rules?  And, if the game provides other options that work better, it is almost certain that most gamers will choose the other options.

Likewise, just because an option is not presented in a rulebook does not mean that the option is not strongly encouraged by the actual ruleset.  I don't know if disconnecting the narrative from the die rolls is explicitly optioned in 4e, for example, but I do know people who do so to bridge the disconnect between what is being described in the rules, and what happens at the table, with things like CaGI and healing surges.  

Someone writing a set of game rules wants to cover his bases.  Someone wanting to sell those rules as widely as possible wants even more bases covered, so as to sell to a wider audience.  As a result, a rulebook can offer the *perception* that all bases are covered, whereas the actual ruleset does a poor job (at best) of covering *some *bases.

And this is true for every ruleset.  Even my own.  Even the best, most honest, designer is still going to think that something is covered, when it is not actually well covered at all.


RC


EDIT:  And, no, I cannot tell you what 4e's flaws are in this regard.  Usually, it requires a lot of play with a ruleset before the disconnect between what the rules offer and what the rulebooks recommend becomes apparent.  If this isn't the case with a game (and you tell with a casual read-through), it is only because the designer(s) really flubbed the ball.

A charitable reading of the 4e marketing might well be WotC acknowledging the same.  "We thought 3e would play like this, but it really plays like that, and we'd like to revise the rules as a result."


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Some of the "lies" I have seen could have been paraphrased very directly by taking a paragraph directly out of the players handbook and wrapping a big CANNOT or SHOULDNOT statement around what it suggests and recommends... and when called on it... they get all offended that it is their opinion and just because they are bad at arguing is no reason to insult them... its opinion and that is all that matters....  I am not buying the innocent act.



And we are supposed to buy your innocent act?  not happening. 

There have certainly been cases of ranting against 4E.  And when there are ten legitimate complaints leveled, instead of a response to those, we get this kind of post you have just offered.  Don't offer anything constructive about the real responses, just hide behind the infrequent rants and stick your head in the sand to the real issue.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2010)

Wayside said:


> Nothing constructive ever comes of calling 4e videogamey



Wow!
That is as backwards as it gets.

If John Smith thinks that 4E is too "videogamey", then saying that he thinks so is in every way constructive feedback.

On the other hand, getting upset because people with opinions contrary to yours have the chance to express there opinion is completely non-constructive.  And further, trying to cover up or silence those opinions is is worse than "nothing constructive", it is deconstructive.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 28, 2010)

BryonD said:


> If John Smith thinks that 4E is too "videogamey", then saying that he thinks so is in every way constructive feedback.




Not necessarily - not by a long shot.

There is a world of difference between just plain criticism, and _constructive_ criticism, and the difference isn't in the substance of the opinion, but in the delivery.  The giving of constructive feedback is an art, and publishers will pay notable salaries to people who can do it - we call them professional editors.

There are a number of major points to providing constructive feedback that are violated in most internet conversations.

1) To be constructive, feedback must be targeted to someone who might be able to use it to improve the material.  

2) The focus of the feedback needs to be on the work, and what could be done to improve it, not on the emotions of the critic.  This is a big one - if the primary point of the statement is to express your own displeasure, then you're probably missing the mark.  A person giving constructive feedback ought to think of themselves as _part of the team creating the material_ - if you're in the frame of mind that there's "Them" (the designers) and "Us" the gamers who hate the design, then you're also going to miss the mark. 

Now, a good creator of content may be able to take non-constructive feedback, and use it in constructive ways despite its nature.  But that takes a lot of extra work.


----------



## Merkuri (Feb 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> There are a number of major points to providing constructive feedback that are violated in most internet conversations...
> 
> ...The focus of the feedback needs to be on the work, and what could be done to improve it...




I learned a similar lesson in creative writing classes at college.  Saying something like, "This character isn't likable" is bad.  Saying "This character isn't likable because..." is better, and "This character would be more likable if..." is usually best.

If you want to give constructive criticism you need to back up the emotional reaction of "4e is too videogamey" (using that as an example) with reasons why you felt that way and, if possible, ways you would improve it.  Otherwise you're just criticizing and not being constructive.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Not necessarily - not by a long shot.



I strongly disagree.

If you want to say that it is not "quality" constructive criticism, then I can accept that.  

But it is not the consumers job to design the game.  If John isn't buying a product because he thinks it is too video gamey, then the best, most constructive feedback he can provide to the designers is: "this is why I don't like your game."  

"Your game sucks" would provide nothing constructive.  
"Your game is too video gamey" gives the designer something, even if just a little something, that they can work with.  You may want to assume that the game designer doesn't know what to make of "too video gamey".  But if that is the situation then the people who hired these designers should take the feedback to mean that they need to hire people who have a clue about what the fans want.  

Again, the main point I was making is not that "too video gamey" is *great* constructive feedback.  But simply that it does most certainly meet the minimum criteria.  Whereas telling people that they shouldn't offer their opinion *IS* contrary to constructive.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> I learned a similar lesson in creative writing classes at college.  Saying something like, "This character isn't likable" is bad.  Saying "This character isn't likable because..." is better, and "This character would be more likable if..." is usually best.
> 
> If you want to give constructive criticism you need to back up the emotional reaction of "4e is too videogamey" (using that as an example) with reasons why you felt that way and, if possible, ways you would improve it.  Otherwise you're just criticizing and not being constructive.



You are not holding the complaint to the standard you described.
"This game is not likable" would be the equivalent non-constructive statement to "this character isn't likable".

The game is not likable because it is too videogamey.  
The game would be better if it was not so videogamey.
How is "too videogamey" emotional?  It is a qualitative assessment.  

You described one standard and then applied a very different standard to the point at hand.  Could there be better assessment?  Hell yes.  But lets not move the goals posts around.


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Now, a good creator of content may be able to take non-constructive feedback, and use it in constructive ways despite its nature.  But that takes a lot of extra work.




And it requires even the non-constructive feedback to hit a certain level of quality. Now, purely subjective "it feels like a video game to me, and this is the most eloquent way I can think of to put it" can sort of be helpful. Sort of. Sometimes. But at least it's better than complaining about things that are factually untrue, and boy howdy, does that ever happen. 

The main problem that I've encountered in years of trying to solicit more constructive criticism is that the Internet is also a place where people want to make statements, but not necessarily to discuss. They like short and punchy phrases that "say it all." Unfortunately, when a phrase _doesn't_ say it all, and you ask for clarification, you don't always get it. Sometimes you do, and hey, it's constructive criticism; you had to go through an extra step to get to it, but there it is, and now you can actually talk about the topic. Sometimes you don't, though, and you get a person who's angry and defensive about how this short, punchy phrase is somehow not having the argument-ending fist-pump effect they were hoping for. Defending that turn of phrase becomes more important than talking about the issue it was coined to represent.

I've found that constructive criticism pretty much tends to come from people who are interested in discussion, but it's anyone's guess whether or not you can get it out of people who are interested in making a statement. Of course, this is really not exclusive to gaming.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2010)

outsider said:
			
		

> What I do care about is talking about the game of D&D, and I think it pollutes the discussion if we allow people to spread untruths about it, whether they stem from grognard rage or blind fanboyism.
> 
> Could I be less confrontational about it? Sure. But I'm not going to stop telling people they are wrong when what they say is objectively wrong.




See, that first part I quoted is part of the problem. In the first, a lot of posters have pointed out that "4e plays like a glorified minis skirmish game" is not, in fact, an objective statement whose veracity can be tested. It is also not necessarily motivated purely by nerd rage of fanboi fury. Assuming either of those effectively shuts down any conversation that can result. You have the ability to turn that provocative statement into something significant and worthwhile by engaging with the substance behind the provocation. You don't have to shut down the conversation. You don't have to get snippy and rude (even if the other person did so first). If you care about talking about the game, you can talk about the game, even with such a post, by finding out what lead the person to that opinion, by assuming that their opinion is a valid one (and by noting that it is an opinion, and not a statement of objective fact).

If you're only entering a conversation to shut it down, why bother? 

If you want to correct misleading viewpoints, you don't do that by shutting down the conversation. The OP gets angry, the responders get angry, the thread deteriorates, and nobody can say anything of worth anymore, because the shouting about who is TRUE and who is FALSE overwhelms it all.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> 1) To be constructive, feedback must be targeted to someone who might be able to use it to improve the material.
> 
> 2) The focus of the feedback needs to be on the work, and what could be done to improve it, not on the emotions of the critic. This is a big one - if the primary point of the statement is to express your own displeasure, then you're probably missing the mark. A person giving constructive feedback ought to think of themselves as part of the team creating the material - if you're in the frame of mind that there's "Them" (the designers) and "Us" the gamers who hate the design, then you're also going to miss the mark.




"4e plays like a minis skirmish game" or "4e is too videogamey" or statements like that, generally aren't the best criticism, because they paint with broad, abstract, subjective, "feels-like" brushes. 

Which is part of why engaging those criticisms, and working to find out the specific rules or the specific train of thought behind them, can make the criticism much better.

Then, the poster can say "4e plays like a minis skirmish game because 80% of the game's resources are focused on combat, and combat itself involves a grid and movement speeds and push/pull effects. These things emphasize using minis combat as the main unit of play, which, I think, puts too much effort on minis combat, making 4e much more of a minis skirmish game than an RPG, despite what it says on the tin."

Which is a more pointed, accurate, about-the-game-not-about-the-critic observation. That's a worthwhile conclusion, even if you disagree with it (and many still will). That's something that someone can look at and say, "Oh, well, Game X might be better for you, or if you want to change 4e, try House Rule Y, or how I avoid this feel in my games is Z."

Most people aren't just going to come out swinging with a cogent, analytical description of a problem they have with the game. Most people are going to start with their subjective feelings -- why they didn't have "fun."


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> "4e plays like a minis skirmish game" or "4e is too videogamey" or statements like that, generally aren't the best criticism, because they paint with broad, abstract, subjective, "feels-like" brushes.
> 
> Which is part of why engaging those criticisms, and working to find out the specific rules or the specific train of thought behind them, can make the criticism much better.
> 
> ...



And, these detailed discussions have been engaged over and over to boot.  

This thread isn't about whether or not 4E is videogamey.  This thread is about the edition wars.  To me it seems entirely reasonable to reference the term and not be required to repeat the full debate every reason one might think 4E is videogamey.  

And the implication that videogamey is a stand alone brainless comment which has never been substantiated is less than honest.

But even with all that, if one guy out there has nothing better to say than "it is too videogamey", then that guy speaking serves WotC better than the other guy who wants him silenced.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 28, 2010)

BryonD said:


> There have certainly been cases of ranting against 4E.  And when there are ten legitimate complaints leveled, instead of a response to those, we get this kind of post you have just offered.  Don't offer anything constructive about the real responses, just hide behind the infrequent rants and stick your head in the sand to the real issue.




Some of the folk were rather specifically pointing out that they "only" interject when they saw something inaccurate... which by side effect means they don't get involved in a pure subjective issue (considering how many are talking about the edition wars being about feelings... well was that the lions share) and yes you are right it also means they also wouldn't get involved in something accurate and not subjective. It seems folk indeed find it hard not to get involved when somebody is "wrong on the internet" ... and that is when it feels like a war. Disinformation is a weapon don't you agree. 

I react to things I don't think are necessarily wrong...yup even subjective... and like pointing out how looking at something differently you can get a lot out of it. But this is more likely to come up in non-edition war threads.(because they are more civil when the person is already using 4e and trying to come to grips with some element that is new to them)

I wasn't interesting in 4e during the time of its very initial offering (I wasnt even looking at it because like you I had found other games that seemed better than D&D) and actually wasn't sure about it until I did see that web offering with regards to character conversion - and had an opportunity to play around with character builder - and read the players handbook.
If the article with regards to conversion was available early on ... I think they should have made more effort to get it in front of people because for me it embodied an interesting style and a new feel to D&D demonstrating a feature inherent in table top games which specifically isn't in the electronic rpgs.  In those games you have no control over the visualization... The players handbook mentions that the player should do it, its not just about creating new classes, bringing to life and visualizing the abilities of the "standard" ones.

Something like that has always been possible in D&D but 4e seems to embrace it more.  In some ways for me 4e captures things that were in D&D all along and does so with less reservation and more focus than ever. For instance I think 4e accepts the abstract definition of hit points and using a single focused attribute in the performance of actions more.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Disinformation is a weapon don't you agree.



Yep.  And both sides need to be called on it.
But if calling those out and then trying to paint real complaints with that broad brush becomes the main dispute, then progress is hopeless.


Call it out AND engage the ideas.  Focusing on the worst offenders is an easy out, but it makes no progress, makes their claims more visible, and ultimately in no better.  If you want credit, then start engaging the informative side.


----------



## Merkuri (Feb 28, 2010)

BryonD said:


> The game is not likable because it is too videogamey.
> The game would be better if it was not so videogamey.
> How is "too videogamey" emotional?  It is a qualitative assessment.




"Too videogamey" is too broad a statement to be constructive, in my opinion.  What is "videogamey"?  I've played a lot of video games in my time, and they vary greatly.  (Note, I'm not looking for an actual answer here, I'm just pointing out that "videogamey" may mean different things to different people.)

Now, if you said, "I don't like the way hit points are tracked, it feels too much like a video game.  If it wasn't as easy to heal in combat I'd like it better," that's more specific and is more qualified to count as "constructive criticism".  

So, yes, I do think that "too videogamey" is like saying, "that character in your book is not likable".  Tell me why and what I can do to fix it if you want to be constructive.


----------



## ggroy (Feb 28, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> "Too videogamey" is too broad a statement to be constructive, in my opinion.  What is "videogamey"?  I've played a lot of video games in my time, and they vary greatly.  (Note, I'm not looking for an actual answer here, I'm just pointing out that "videogamey" may mean different things to different people.)
> 
> Now, if you said, "I don't like the way hit points are tracked, it feels too much like a video game.  If it wasn't as easy to heal in combat I'd like it better," that's more specific and is more qualified to count as "constructive criticism".
> 
> So, yes, I do think that "too videogamey" is like saying, "that character in your book is not likable".  Tell me why and what I can do to fix it if you want to be constructive.




Good point.

Back in the day, a possible definition for "too videogamey" would be a game which resembled Atari's "Adventure", 

Atari Arcade | Adventure

with characteristics like:

- the player can only hold one object at any one time
- the player can only die from being eaten by a dragon
- a bat keeps on stealing/exchanging objects
- too much like "capture the flag"
- the game can be "reset" with everything in its previous place, but with the dragons coming back to life


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 28, 2010)

BryonD said:


> But even with all that, if one guy out there has nothing better to say than "it is too videogamey", then that guy speaking serves WotC better than the other guy who wants him silenced.




If he has nothing better to say than that — if he cannot, or will not explain his feelings beyond that statement — then no, he doesn't serve WotC any better. He's about equal. 

But it's not really about serving WotC: it's about serving your own feelings, and making them known in a sufficiently constructive fashion that somebody else will be able to maybe act on your opinion. It's ultimately in a person's own best interest to say what he or she does or doesn't like as clearly as possible. Otherwise, the company that should be listening to the consumer is stuck doing the equivalent of reading tea leaves to interpret what they're saying, and when that happens, odds are greater they'll get it wrong.


----------



## NN (Feb 28, 2010)

The Edition wars are simply a matter of taste.

The different editions of D&D support different styles of play unequally.


----------



## outsider (Feb 28, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Disinformation is a weapon don't you agree.




Exactly.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 28, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> As a compassionate human being I definitely care to see people able to continue being gainfully employed and "pay their mortgages." As a vested member of the economy I definitely care to see people able to continue being gainfully employed and "pay their mortgages." And from the multitude of well-wishers involved in the "WotC layoff" threads I surmise that your assertion in incorrect in regards to "most everyone else."




I was away from the boards for a few days, so apologies for not responding earlier, but I wanted to clarify things a bit:  I absolutely want people to live satisfying and productive lives, and I would never wish for anyone to fail.

However, whether or not people who create games pay their mortgages by being paid to make games, or by running their own businesses, or selling vacuum cleaners door-to-door...that makes no difference to me.  I want them to succeed in a general sense, but why would I care HOW they succeed.

Now, someone who knows a game designer personally, or is a huge fan of a particular designer, may have a vested interest in having that designer get paid for creating games, but that's not how I feel.  

It takes a lot of thought and planning for me to figure out how I'm going to pay my mortgage, and I assume that everyone else can do the same for his or herself.

And to be clear--I never ever even hinted at wanting to see anything or anyone fail.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 28, 2010)

BryonD said:


> If you want to say that it is not "quality" constructive criticism, then I can accept that.




Well, I'm more drawing a distinction between "feedback that potentially contains information if I dig through it" and "constructive feedback".  Constructive feedback is specifically and intentionally laid out to be of use.  It takes effort to produce it.  



BryonD said:


> This thread isn't about whether or not 4E is videogamey.  This thread is about the edition wars.  To me it seems entirely reasonable to reference the term and not be required to repeat the full debate every reason one might think 4E is videogamey.




On the other hand, if your comment doesn't contain any new information that hasn't been part of the aforementioned prior discussions, why are you making it?  You claim exactly what it means has been clearly hashed out in the past - why refer to it yet again?  When clearly no change to the structure of the system as a whole is in the immediate offing, how is it constructive to repeat the thing like a mantra for over a year?  If anyone who is in a position to act upon it hasn't heard it by now, yet one more iteration isn't going to get it into their heads.

There is a point where "more of the same statement" is not constructive, and feedback has to step up a notch in order to be of use.

And, of course, there's the simple question whether this is the proper forum for giving feedback.  I'm pretty sure it isn't.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 28, 2010)

BryonD said:


> This thread isn't about whether or not 4E is videogamey.



My housemate -- an MMO addict; she plays Aion and CoX for hours a day -- loves 4E because, and this is a quote ...

... "It's just like an MMO!"

I just like telling that story, because it cracks me up.  I (not an MMO player) agree with her and don't like 4E.  My other housemate (MMO player but not quite as addicted) agrees with her and is relatively neutral on 4E, and she loves it.

_Because_ it's videogamey.  In her humble opinion, of course.


----------



## catastrophic (Feb 28, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Yep. And both sides need to be called on it.



I've never seen the pro-4e side of the debate use disinformation, and i'm pretty sure you're using it by claiming that they do. The equivalancy fallacy is not a legitimate or constructive tactic, it simply obscures the real issues.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 28, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Good point.
> 
> Back in the day, a possible definition for "too videogamey" would be a game which resembled Atari's "Adventure"... with characteristics like...




You forgot:
If you kill all three dragons in specific rooms, then find the invisible key in the maze, you can pass through the wall to see developer credits.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2010)

> I've never seen the pro-4e side of the debate use disinformation, and i'm pretty sure you're using it by claiming that they do. The equivalancy fallacy is not a legitimate or constructive tactic, it simply obscures the real issues.




When I see a 4e fan posting "Wizards in 3e were overpowered!", I feel it has about the same objective truth as "4e plays like a videogame."

In other words, there's reasons for this perception, but the perception is not inherently true.


----------



## catastrophic (Feb 28, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> When I see a 4e fan posting "Wizards in 3e were overpowered!", I feel it has about the same objective truth as "4e plays like a videogame."
> 
> In other words, there's reasons for this perception, but the perception is not inherently true.



Everything is not just a matter of opinion. 

On the one hand, frankly if we're ever going to accept that any game system has any impact that is in any way other than subjective, we should be willing to recognise things like the caster/non-caster power split in 3e. But fine, let's just leave that aside, it's all subjective, DMs can warp the system so that every wizard is an insomiac and every fighter has an amulet of mind blank, whatever.


BUT that doesn't change the fact that people have been misrepresenting the nature of the 4e system ever since it came out, not in subjective terms, not in terms of extrapolated game style, but in terms of making claims that are directly contrary to the actual facts of what is included in the books. 

There are literally hundereds if not thousands of posts in these threads, made by people who were critical of 4e and yet, despite clearly having never read the books, still felt they had the right to make not subjective claims, but factual allegations about what the books contained.

We all know what i'm talking about. 4e doesn't support skill usage (even though it has an entire system for using skills, a system with no equivalent in 3e). 4e doesn't have any fluff for monsters, even though every monster entry has paragraphs of fluff under the knowelge check system. 4e doesn't have utility spells, even though there's an entire system set aside specifically for utility spells. And the list goes on.

Sometimes it seems like there isn't a feature 4e spends a chapter on, that 4e-haters haven't criticised it for lacking.

And no, it's not a matter of opinion, it is a mater of fact. It's a matter of page-count, in fact. That's how bad it is. That is the degree to which people have been misrepresenting this issue.

And no, it's not valid to say that since there is sometimes a real issue lurking there, six layers deep, that these criticisms are valid. Skill challenges and rituals could certainly be better, but that doesn't make it ok for people to _pretend that they don't exist_, and then have their dishonesty or ignorance championed as a virtue or coddled as if it's something everyone in the debate is doing.

And these claims are often made by people who claim that these utterly false features were a deliberate design decision by the people who wrote the books, and that this is proof of their design philosophy. Myth upon myth, or to be frank, lie upon lie. And then somebody corrects them, and they say "well that's my subjective opinion", and the entire absurd merry-go-round goes around for another turn. And all of this damages the comunity's ability to come to grips with the real issues.

And let me just repeat: I _don't care_ if you want to wrap this all in a blanked of subjective sophistry, and preted this is all ok. It's not ok, it's extarordinarily damaging to both the discussion, and the comunity. 

I know that people who hate 4e crow about the collapse of it's third party market as a victory, but you can't blame the GSL for that whole mess- at some point you have to recognise that the endless negativity, and misrepresentation of 4e has had a real, and entirely undeserved impact there. Yes, there were issues with the GSL, no, that did not justify the endless frenzy of pure BS that was hurled around about both the game, and the GSL. Do not tell me that there were not 4e haters, sitting on GSL threads, deliberatly making all sorts of allegations about how the GSL would be the death of any company that touched it, because there were.

And the real issues of how 4e effects people trying to do 3pp for it? Completly obscured by this garbage! I remember one case on this forum, when somebody mentioned a really good point about the difficulties of doing 3pp for 4e (iirc relating to the character builder), and a mod shut the discussion down because it was touching on the GSL or something and the frenzy over it had caused the mods to take action. Since then people have managed to talk about real issues somtimes, but they still don't get to talk about the 500 pound gorilla in the room- the edition wars themselves, and how they've damaged 4e's 3pp market.

The comunity has also been damaged. I have lost count of the number of people i've seen saying that they'd really like to play 4e, but they get flack of even mentioning it in their not so friendly LGS, and on the forums they hang out on. The people dishing out that abuse, and the false claims they make about the system, and their belief that their attitude is reasonable, all flow directly from this absurd debate. And no, there is not a huge army of retrocloners or pathfinder society people out there, making up the difference. The result is a net loss for the comunity, and further damage to the always tenuous process of forming networks of gamers in local areas.

By pandering to the extended temper tantrum that is the hostility to 4e, people on threads like this are only perpetuating this absurd process, and moving people away from a more rational discussion and better outcomes for the comunity and the industry.

It is a miracle that anyone manages to get anything fruitful out of a discussion like this, but that occurs despite the style of the debate, not because of it. There's nothing constructive about pretending that everything is just a matter of opinion, or that the two sides of this debate (as if there even were two sides) are equivalent, or that this process is constructive and sound when it's really just people slinging mud at something they don't like.

Here's the real truth about the edition wars: People threw a huge tantrum when a new edition came out, and their hostility, ignorance, overt dishonesty, and petulance was encouraged and placed upon a pedestal, when it should be recognised as immature, self-indulgent, and destructive.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, I'm more drawing a distinction between "feedback that potentially contains information if I dig through it" and "constructive feedback".  Constructive feedback is specifically and intentionally laid out to be of use.  It takes effort to produce it.



As I said, it is not the customers responsibility to be a game designer.



> On the other hand, if your comment doesn't contain any new information that hasn't been part of the aforementioned prior discussions, why are you making it?



I can not respond to your question because the presumption is not valid.



> There is a point where "more of the same statement" is not constructive, and feedback has to step up a notch in order to be of use.



We are discussing "what is at stake...".  The point of fact that some people find 4E "too videogamey" may be pertinent, whereas arguing the details over and over again is simply a pointless derailing.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2010)

catastrophic said:


> I've never seen the pro-4e side of the debate use disinformation, and i'm pretty sure you're using it by claiming that they do. The equivalancy fallacy is not a legitimate or constructive tactic, it simply obscures the real issues.



lol  
thanks for your input


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> "Too videogamey" is too broad a statement to be constructive, in my opinion.



Ok, our opinions differ.  Who wins?



> What is "videogamey"?



Again, you are taking a phrase that has been argued over and over and treating it as a new phrase suddenly dropped out of the blue.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> If he has nothing better to say than that — if he cannot, or will not explain his feelings beyond that statement — then no, he doesn't serve WotC any better. He's about equal.



I find that pretty shocking.

So if you ran a restaurant and someone said they were never coming back, you would find them giving no explanation at all to be just as good as them saying they didn't like the flavor of your food?  That information wouldn't give you much to go on, but at least you know it is the food, rather than rude waiters, ugly decor, prices, whatever.  

And having someone prevent them from telling you the food was not good is no more harmful than them simply not telling you?  Really?  If that is your position, we disagree.

And again, this whole reply plays along with the presumption that "videogamey" is a wildly abstract unknowable assessment that has not been discussed since before 4E came out.


----------



## Merkuri (Feb 28, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> "Too videogamey" is too broad a statement to be constructive, in my opinion.





BryonD said:


> Ok, our opinions differ.  Who wins?




Nobody.  This isn't a competition.



Merkuri said:


> What is "videogamey"?





BryonD said:


> Again, you are taking a phrase that has been argued over and over and treating it as a new phrase suddenly dropped out of the blue.




As I stated at the end of that paragraph, I'm not actually looking for an answer.  I don't care what videogamey means or whether 4e is or is not like a video game.

My point was that saying 4e is videogamey is not "constructive criticism".  An earlier poster (I don't remember if it was you, BryonD, or somebody else) stated that one of the things at stake in edition wars was to give WotC constructive criticism and I was disputing this.

I could have used another example of criticism but that one was easily at hand.  Personally I don't like to take sides in edition wars.  I haven't played 4e enough to say whether I like it better than 3e or not, and I'm not in favor of getting into heated arguments about which one is better.  They've both got their benefits and their flaws, in my opinion.


----------



## catastrophic (Feb 28, 2010)

BryonD said:


> lol
> thanks for your input



I'm sorry for interupting the otherwise endless rounds of ByronD's sophistry circle; please, do go on.

~ a good example of how to get threadbanned: Admin ~


----------



## Ourph (Feb 28, 2010)

catastrophic said:


> There are literally hundereds if not thousands of posts in these threads, made by people who were critical of 4e and yet, despite clearly having never read the books, still felt they had the right to make not subjective claims, but factual allegations about what the books contained.




Well, the fact is, they do. And you have the right to contradict them within the bounds of the posting rules laid out by whatever message board you're posting on.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 28, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> The main problem that I've encountered in years of trying to solicit more constructive criticism is that the Internet is also a place where people want to make statements, but not necessarily to discuss. They like short and punchy phrases that "say it all." Unfortunately, when a phrase _doesn't_ say it all, and you ask for clarification, you don't always get it. Sometimes you do, and hey, it's constructive criticism; you had to go through an extra step to get to it, but there it is, and now you can actually talk about the topic. Sometimes you don't, though, and you get a person who's angry and defensive about how this short, punchy phrase is somehow not having the argument-ending fist-pump effect they were hoping for. Defending that turn of phrase becomes more important than talking about the issue it was coined to represent.




For me, this is what the edition wars is all about.  It's not about rational folks discussing differing opinions, but about those who "wish to make a punchy statement".  If we were all calmly discussing the differences between our favorite editions, it would be called the "edition discussion" and not the "edition war"


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2010)

catastrophic said:
			
		

> Everything is not just a matter of opinion.
> 
> On the one hand, frankly if we're ever going to accept that any game system has any impact that is in any way other than subjective, we should be willing to recognise things like the caster/non-caster power split in 3e. But fine, let's just leave that aside, it's all subjective, DMs can warp the system so that every wizard is an insomiac and every fighter has an amulet of mind blank, whatever.
> 
> BUT that doesn't change the fact that people have been misrepresenting the nature of the 4e system ever since it came out, not in subjective terms, not in terms of extrapolated game style, but in terms of making claims that are directly contrary to the actual facts of what is included in the books.




Now, it seems to me, that this is _exactly_ part of what causes the edition war to spiral out of control.

"My criticism of your favorite edition is valid, but your criticism of my favorite edition is DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION."

Fact is, people have different play experiences, and dismissing a criticism (especially one that keeps coming up) out-of-hand is not going to foster a conversation about how to improve each of our play experiences (or how Wizards can improve the majority of players' experiences going forward). 

As for my specific point, I was merely pointing out that there is a sort of equivalence, no fallacy involved, between various criticisms. Both "4e is like a videogame" and "3e's wizards made everyone else useless" are _subjective_, based on play experiences that are probably not universal. Giving people who post similar things the benefit of the doubt, you can see that most of the edition discussions are actually about something relevant, but get sidetracked because all too often people want to shut down statements they don't agree with, rather than engage it, to find out where the true difference lies.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 28, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> My housemate -- an MMO addict; she plays Aion and CoX for hours a day -- loves 4E because, and this is a quote ...
> 
> ... "It's just like an MMO!"
> 
> ...




Good example!

I don't have a problem labeling 4E as "videogamey" (and I love 4E), but I do have a problem with how the term is used as a perjorative with nothing solid to back it up.

Videogames borrowed rather heavily from prior editions of D&D.  So a lot of fantasy and scifi videogames are "D&D-y".  The new edition borrows concepts, rather obviously, from videogames, particularly MMOs.  But since many of those concepts were originally borrowed from D&D, it's a inspiration circle . . .

I don't see the problem with designers taking what is good from MMOs and modifying them to fit into D&D.  Both to improve the game and to catch the interest of the majority of RPG players, MMO players.

And, while certain concepts are clearly influenced by MMOs, I don't think that the new D&D actually plays like a videogame at all.

So, I guess to sum up . . . the descriptor "videogamey" doesn't bother me, just how most of the 4e haters use it bothers me.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2010)

> I don't have a problem labeling 4E as "videogamey" (and I love 4E), but I do have a problem with how the term is used as a perjorative with nothing solid to back it up.




Which is why I try to ask for back up.  Coming into the thread and telling that poster to effectively shut up, and accusing them of trolling, and saying they're clearly ignorant, and that they're only there to spread misinformation, and...

...well, those things seem to not encourage a dialog, to me. 

Coming into the thread and asking "Not my games. Why do you say that?" works better, IMXP.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 1, 2010)

The key thing to have a healthy debate on the issues, is to use facts instead of buzzwords and appeals to emotions.

For example, instead of talking about it being "videogamey", try to discuss it in detail.  Maybe mechanics are less simulation oriented and more game-oriented like the healing surges.  Someone who thinks it's too miniatures based can simply compare the games and how 4e (and actually starting with 3.5e) emphasizes the battle board.  Someone who thinks its like the CCG games can point out to the lack of emphasis on rituals and the minimal descriptive text used in the rules as compared to all prior editions.

There ARE objective facts regarding the differences between editions.  I think both sides use their own subjective opinions to ignore the changes.  As I pointed out before, there are ways to measure the differences--while conversion was always needed, the changes between 1/2 and 3e has a much smaller gap between 1/2/3 and 4e.  You could easilly create a table or spreadsheet and tally up the rules changes.  

In this case, a 4e fan saying something like "the spirit is the same" is just as wrong as a 4e critic saying something like "the spirit is not the same".   People need to be able to back up their concerns with facts, or just agree to disagree and simply state their opinion.

I also think there needs to be more understanding from both camps.  3e fans should realize some people like the new game and that's cool.  4e fans should also remember that 4e objectively changed a lot of things and considering that D&D has a huge fanbase and literally decades of tradition they should at least be understanding about the disappointment and accept this is going to cause a huge schism.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 1, 2010)

> Since then people have managed to talk about real issues somtimes, but they still don't get to talk about the 500 pound gorilla in the room- the edition wars themselves, and how they've damaged 4e's 3pp market.




I don't think the criticism of 4e or the "edition wars" caused people to abandon the 4e market.  Most smart publishers know how to separate a verbal or vocal faction from their audience.  I think the collapse of the 3pp market came from the following factors.


The d20 glut hurt a lot of publishers, and the 3.5e release didn't help matters.
The GSL was a huge change from the expected OGL, and some people didn't like the legal ramifications.  And there were several delays--WoTC deserves criticism for not communicating effectively.  Furthermore, the OGL allowed the older product to be supported.
There seems to be an economic slowdown for many publishers, even those that didn't support d20.  (And this seemed to start happening before the economic recession).
Regardless of whether the changes to the ruleset were good, bad, better, worse, there are a lot more differences than any other edition.  A lot of older work would be a lot harder to convert.  Some authors might not even care or want to support this.  And companies might also have to take into account if their existing fan base is even interested in the new game.

Blaming the "negativity surrounding 4e" for the market reduction to me is blaming a symptom rather than the problem, and at least in part you have to recognize that WoTC probably brought this amongst themselves.  Yes, there are 4e detractors who go too far, but remember, this is a hobby, and people have a right to be upset and disgruntled, at least in terms to their own purchases.  In fact, if nobody provides negative feedback, companies won't learn from their mistakes.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 1, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> There seems to be an economic slowdown for many publishers, even those that didn't support d20.  (And this seemed to start happening before the economic recession).




When did this start?  Was it before the announcement of 4E at Gencon 2007?

What are some of the causes of this rpg economic slowdown, besides the d20 glut and "unspoken" rumors of a 4E before it was announced?


----------



## MrGrenadine (Mar 1, 2010)

catastrophic said:


> (A lot of anger, and then...) Here's the real truth about the edition wars: People threw a huge tantrum when a new edition came out, and their hostility, ignorance, overt dishonesty, and petulance was encouraged and placed upon a pedestal, when it should be recognised as immature, self-indulgent, and destructive.




Here's the real truth about the edition wars:  people portraying one group as an innocent victim, and another group as the evil instigators.


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 1, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I find that pretty shocking.
> 
> So if you ran a restaurant and someone said they were never coming back, you would find them giving no explanation at all to be just as good as them saying they didn't like the flavor of your food?  That information wouldn't give you much to go on, but at least you know it is the food, rather than rude waiters, ugly decor, prices, whatever.




For all I know, I'm serving Italian food, and he doesn't like garlic or tomatoes. There is not enough information to go on whether the food was undercooked, overcooked, or simply not to his taste — and there are gamers, customers in every field, who are the equivalent of people who don't like garlic, go to an Italian restaurant, order something garlicky, and then feel ill-used. 

The customer articulating something other than "I don't like the flavor of your food" is the valuable one. He's the one who can actually isolate if something _is_ wrong, because at the very least he's willing to use phrases like "underdone" or "over-seasoned" when he talks to me. 



> And having someone prevent them from telling you the food was not good is no more harmful than them simply not telling you?  Really?  If that is your position, we disagree.




Well, _is_ the food bad? Was it overcooked? Overseasoned? I don't know, and the guy who just posts "not good" on the Internet and acts defensive if I ask him to explain further is not going to help me know. If a fellow customer tells him that if he has nothing more useful to say than "not good", then he might as well save his breath, then no, that's no more harmful. Either way, I have learned nothing that I can actually use to improve my food. 

Feedback is something game designers crave, but there really needs to be signal to noise. If it's all noise and no signal, or worse, the signal is rooted in factual inaccuracies ("I had no reason to believe there would be garlic in these Italian dishes"), it's not helpful. That can be surpassed if someone is willing to go further, but if they're not — if they feel "it tasted bad" is all they need to say — how is any professional cook supposed to learn from that? 



> And again, this whole reply plays along with the presumption that "videogamey" is a wildly abstract unknowable assessment that has not been discussed since before 4E came out.




I don't presume that. The trouble I have with "videogamey" is that it's a buzzword that people use to make statements rather than discussions, rather than articulating personal opinions. It's used as if that's all that needs to be said, but not everyone even uses it in the same way. As opinions go, it's valid, but I only ever see it improve the quality of discussion if people are willing to articulate what it means to them.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As pointed out in my last post, a conversion guide- indeed, any product- you have no idea exists is (for you) functionally the same as one that doesn't exist.
> 
> By ensuring that game stores had copies of the conversion guide, WotC ensured those of that portion of the market interested in conversion had everything they needed.
> 
> No conversion guide in the stores for 4Ed meant those of their shoppers who were interested in conversion had nothing.  There was also no mention of online conversion guides whatsoever in retail outlets- I know because I asked for them.




I've been here since the early days of 3e.  I've never, EVER, heard of an in-store conversion guide.  I was shopping at three different stores at the time, and I never, ever saw such an in-store conversion guide.  I am not saying you didn't get one.  However, I am saying that either 1) your store printed them for their customers and were not actually "sent" them from WOTC, or 2) you encountered a relatively rare in-store conversion guide that many people never saw or heard about.

As for the online guide, the books themselves are very explicit about the online information regarding the game.  The 4e books often speak of checking their website (with the URL mentioned) for additional information like errata and additional material.  If your game store didn't ever mention to you that the WOTC had extra stuff, then they made a mistake.  WOTC went pretty darn far to get word out that there was additional useful content, including things like errata, on the website.



> If nothing else, not letting a significant portion of your market _or retailers _know that there is a conversion guide online is at the very least another flaw in the 4Ed product rollout.




I think your assumption that no stores knew about the online conversion articles is false.    Your store didn't know - but then your store also had an apparently rare or printed conversion guide for 2e to 3e, so your store seems to be rare fairly consistently.



> Conversion articles which obviously didn't reach a good portion of their installed base.




Obviously? How so? You are speaking for who else exactly here?



> I may be somewhat of a neo-luddite (I don't think I am, but I'm open to the possibility), but 90% of my primary game group are computer programmers...and a few of them are in the computer game subset of that industry.
> 
> IOW, this is not a bunch of technophobes- any decent publicity of those conversion guides would have popped up on their radar.




Again, I don't think you can say with confidence that the extraordinarily small sample group of your players can speak for the world on this topic.  I think most people knew to go to the WOTC website for additional information because that fact is mentioned in the 4e books (all three "core" books say it), and anyone who did could have seen the set of conversion articles.

4e REQUIRES someone have some basic internet access, in order for you to get some essential information such as errata.  For that matter, so did 3e, and 3e also mentioned their website in the core books.  I think at this point, everyone knows that someone in their group should go to the WOTC every once in a while to see if there are any important things there for the game.  

And heck, you know how to use Google.  I found that conversion article ranked high when searching for any of a half dozen variations on the topic.  Anyone looking for the WOTC conversion articles just had to Google the topic to find it.  You didn't even need to go to the WOTC website directly to find them.


----------



## Mark (Mar 1, 2010)

ibtl


----------



## Merkuri (Mar 1, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> For all I know, I'm serving Italian food, and he doesn't like garlic or tomatoes. There is not enough information to go on whether the food was undercooked, overcooked, or simply not to his taste...




This reminds me of the time when I went out to a restaurant for a friend's birthday party.  There were some people I knew and some people I didn't know.  The guy sitting across from me I didn't know, and I happened to order the same thing as him.  When we got our meals mine looked delicious and I was eagerly waiting to dig in.  He looked at his plate and, without touching it, disgustedly told the waitress to take it back.

The waitress asked him what was wrong with it and he refused to answer, as if the question insulted him.  I think at one point he said that it was "false advertising" or that the menu entry didn't represent the actual meal.  He did not get more specific than that.  

He didn't end up eating anything that night, and I think he complained (in similarly vague terms) about the cup of coffee he had for "dessert".  He wouldn't even tell us what was wrong with the food.  He would just shudder and repeat the statement about how he doesn't like things being misrepresented.

Sure, the restaurant knew this guy didn't like the food.  However, they had no idea what about the food was wrong.  I sure as heck didn't know what was wrong with his food.  Mine was delicious!

The criticism he gave (that it was "misrepresented") wasn't constructive because it was very vague.  When giving criticism about a game system (or anything, really) if your goal is to be helpful the more specific you get the better.

This is an extreme example of nonconstructive criticism, but I think it goes to show that not all criticism is helpful.


----------



## Wayside (Mar 1, 2010)

BryonD said:


> On the other hand, getting upset because people with opinions contrary to yours have the chance to express there opinion is completely non-constructive.  And further, trying to cover up or silence those opinions is is worse than "nothing constructive", it is deconstructive.



First, your desire to reframe the issue in terms of free speech is misguided. On ENWorld speech is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege is routinely and rightfully revoked for a variety of reasons--which you already know, since you yourself have had your posting privileges suspended on multiple occasions in the past.

Second, every comment I've ever made about the edition wars, without exception, has been on the rhetorical strategies used by participants. So making assumptions about my views and whether they are contrary to the views I am responding to is careless on your part. It isn't people's views I'm responding to but how they articulate those views.

Finally, and in summary: as someone who has played 3e and 4e exactly twice each and who could not care less which game you've built your entire identity around, I would very much like partisans of all editions to be specific in their criticisms, rather than to just repeat their side's talking points, lean on weasel words like "videogamey," and in general cultivate an air of extreme _ressentiment_.

That's all I have to say about it. You can have the last word.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 1, 2010)

> I've been here since the early days of 3e. I've never, EVER, heard of an in-store conversion guide. I was shopping at three different stores at the time, and I never, ever saw such an in-store conversion guide. I am not saying you didn't get one. However, I am saying that either 1) your store printed them for their customers and were not actually "sent" them from WOTC, or 2) you encountered a relatively rare in-store conversion guide that many people never saw or heard about.




Nope- its an actual WotC product, nice & slick, and as I just found out today, was also available as a pdf.  Since I got mine at different, non-affiiliated stores and they had identical production values, i highly doubt that the stores themselves printed them.

Conversion Manual - RPGnet d20 RPG Game Index

How rare they were, though, I can't say.  Again, I saw them in stores all over the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex...but then again, I'm in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, which is in the top 10 population centers in the USA.



> I think your assumption that no stores knew about the online conversion articles is false. Your store didn't know - but then your store also had an apparently rare or printed conversion guide for 2e to 3e, so your store seems to be rare fairly consistently.




I shop in 3 main gaming stores- 2 solo stores and a large, local chain- as well as a couple of national chain bookstores.  Nobody knew about a conversion guide.



> You are speaking for who else exactly here?




For myself, obviously, and my technophile buddies- as mentioned, 2 of whom are in the (computer) gaming industry, and, it would seem, those others who have posted in this thread with the same experience.

Its not like a host of 4Ed non-adopters haven't posted about the lack of a conversion guide before- its a fairly common complaint in the Edition Wars threads.



> Again, I don't think you can say with confidence that the extraordinarily small sample group of your players can speak for the world on this topic. I think most people knew to go to the WOTC website for additional information because that fact is mentioned in the 4e books (all three "core" books say it), and anyone who did could have seen the set of conversion articles.
> 
> 4e REQUIRES someone have some basic internet access, in order for you to get some essential information such as errata. For that matter, so did 3e, and 3e also mentioned their website in the core books. I think at this point, everyone knows that someone in their group should go to the WOTC every once in a while to see if there are any important things there for the game.
> 
> And heck, you know how to use Google. I found that conversion article ranked high when searching for any of a half dozen variations on the topic. Anyone looking for the WOTC conversion articles just had to Google the topic to find it. You didn't even need to go to the WOTC website directly to find them.




Personally, I rarely go for anyone's web-enhancements unless its required for my job.

Even if I had noticed a blurb about web-enhancements for D&D 4Ed, I probably wouldn't have gone looking for it.  And since my past experience with WotC included a nice, friendly conversion guide pamphlet and there wasn't one when I got my 4Ed stuff, nor at any of the several stores I shopped, my conclusion was that no such thing existed.

But that's me.

Still, few things here:

First, as several have pointed out here and elsewhere, when interviewed, certain 4Ed designers actively discouraged persons from attempting to convert- given this, why would one then go looking for a 4Ed conversion guide?

Second, as someone has pointed out in this thread, when WotC was _directly contacted _regarding a conversion guide, they were NOT directed to it.  Whether this was a lack of WotC telling their own employees these things existed or whether it was the result of a policy that reflected the aforementioned hostility towards the conversion process I can't say.  But if the publishing company itself doesn't acknowledge such a thing exists when asked directly about it, why in the world would I continue looking for it?  That's insane.

Last- and this may amaze you- there are certain people on this very board whose internet access is limited to say the least.  We have military who may not be permitted to download certain things or access certain sites, we even have people who visit here who are still on dial-up because that's the best thing available...so web-enhancements are essentially valueless for a variety of persons who would be looking for some of these things.


----------



## mudbunny (Mar 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> First, as several have pointed out here and elsewhere, when interviewed, certain 4Ed designers actively discouraged persons from attempting to convert- given this, why would one then go looking for a 4Ed conversion guide?




When they were asked, I recall most of them saying that, due to differences between the editions, a direct conversion guide wasn't going to be done. However, that you could often get a very close approximation by determining the spirit of the character, and then using that as a guide to build the 4E character.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 1, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> When they were asked, I recall most of them saying that, due to differences between the editions, a direct conversion guide wasn't going to be done.




That's my recollection as well...and a good reason not to go looking for a 4Ed conversion book.



> However, that you could often get a very close approximation by determining the spirit of the character, and then using that as a guide to build the 4E character.




I can convert D&D characters into HERO- I've done so.  I can go the other way as well.

That's not the same as there being a D&D => HERO or HERO => D&D conversion guide being a real product.

My skill with doing such conversions also doesn't mean there isn't a desire for there to be such conversion guides, by me or by less system-savvy gamers.


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 1, 2010)

SpiderMonkey said:


> Hi, all.
> 
> Before I begin, I'd like to stress that I do *not* want to fan any edition wars flames.
> 
> ...




That's a way complex question..

For some, it's ego.  As with any hobby or pass time, some people just need to feel that they are "right".  And they want everyone else to admit it.

There's also simple things like personal preference.  Different editions *do* play very differently.....2nd Ed. was different than 1st, which was different from 3rd, which was different from 4th.  If someone likes one style of play, they probably want to keep playing that way as long as possible.  For those preferring older editions, this leaves them with the fear of being "left in the dust" and no longer being able to find players for their favourite edition.

For others, I think they just enjoy debate/arguing.

I think personal investment has a big part as well.  I'm willing to bet that those with larger financial or time commitments in a particular edition are more resistant to change, and might have an interest in change being delayed.

As to comments elsewhere in the thread about a 2nd Ed. to 3rd Ed. conversion guide, I know it existed, as I have one sitting in my gaming bag right now.  It was available for free at my FLGS.  I didn't see anything comparable for 3rd to 4th Ed....but I also wasn't looking.

Banshee


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Reasons why it's WOTCs fault Dannycatraz didn't know about the conversion guide




Here is the order of events in this thread, and I think it is constructive to examine it for the broader topic of this thread:

1) People saying there was no conversion guide
2) People pointing out there was one
3) People claiming it came a long time after 4e came out
4) People point out it came out actually a week after the PHB
5) People claiming they were not aware of it and therefore it's WOTC they didn't know.

See how this is going? The initial claim was false.  But instead of just admitting it was in error when the information is provided, instead a series of reasons to still blame WOTC were presented.  And when the second one was proven false, a third set of reasons were hauled out.  Each time, instead of admitting to an error, no acknowledgment of an error is ever made, and only another reason to be upset.

And I am not saying it's just you, or just 3e fans.  4e fans do it also.  I probably do it myself.  This continual unwillingness to ever resolve a dispute.  To ever grant someone that they might be right.  To always make ones claims a moving target.

Which goes to prove, in my mind at least, that there is nothing at all at stake in the edition wars.  Nobody can ever really be convinced of anything.  If shown without question their claim was false, they will still find a way to shift their claim to something that cannot be proven false.  Because, it's not about coming to the resolution of a debate.It's about engaging in the edition war itself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 1, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Here is the order of events in this thread, and I think it is constructive to examine it for the broader topic of this thread:
> 
> 1) People saying there was no conversion guide
> 2) People pointing out there was one
> ...




I have no problem admitting my error that one existed since you pointed it out...just like you haven't squawked about the 3Ed conversion guide's existence since I posted the RPGnet link describing it.

However, I made no claims about when the 4Ed one came out, just that since it was online only, it was less likely to be found than the 3Ed version that sat on shelves next to the books or next to the cash registers.

You also (dis)missed some of the crucial points like:

1.5) People asking WotC designers about one pre-release, WotC designers saying in response that there was none, and that you should either start fresh or "re-imagine" their PCs and approximate them.  They did not direct anyone to the online conversion guide.  This is a *fact*- the video clip has been posted in previous "edition wars" threads.

4.5) People claiming they ASKED WotC for one _directly _ and _more than one time_ through WotC's own customer service department and were not directed to one.

There can be no doubt that _those ARE WotC's fault._

Those who heard 1.5 would have no reason to look for one (among those would be me).  Those who got the treatment claimed in 4.5 looked for one and were turned away.

That's WotC's own publicity engines failing their customers.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 1, 2010)

Umbran said:


> There are a number of major points to providing constructive feedback that are violated in most internet conversations.
> 
> 1) To be constructive, feedback must be targeted to someone who might be able to use it to improve the material.
> 
> 2) The focus of the feedback needs to be on the work, and what could be done to improve it, not on the emotions of the critic.  This is a big one - if the primary point of the statement is to express your own displeasure, then you're probably missing the mark.  A person giving constructive feedback ought to think of themselves as _part of the team creating the material_ - if you're in the frame of mind that there's "Them" (the designers) and "Us" the gamers who hate the design, then you're also going to miss the mark.



This all makes the very big and quite possibly wrong assumption that if-when I criticize an edition I'm talking to the designers.

I'm talking to the consumers.

The design process is long since finished.  It's too late to improve the (official, published) material, so there's no point in targeting "someone who might be able to ... improve the material" with what I say.  But it's never too late to at least throw an opinion out there; an example might be this game has a lot of 'x' in it and thus here's a warning to stay away if you don't like 'x'.

Now if we're talking about games that aren't out yet e.g. 5e, then what you say is exactly right: but we're not criticizing at that point, we're suggesting.

Lan-"Canada.  Hockey.  Gold."-efan


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 1, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> This all makes the very big and quite possibly wrong assumption that if-when I criticize an edition I'm talking to the designers.  I'm talking to the consumers.




I'll disagree here too.  If I'm a consumer interested in learning more about the new edition of D&D, the same types of criticisms that would be useful to a designer would be useful to me . . . to help me determine if I should spend my money and time on the product.

A lot of the negativity towards 4e that focuses on the "buzzwords" of videogamey, too anime, broken, etc, etc doesn't really tell me anything useful as to whether I'll enjoy the game or not.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 1, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> This reminds me of the time when I went out to a restaurant for a friend's birthday party.  There were some people I knew and some people I didn't know.  The guy sitting across from me I didn't know, and I happened to order the same thing as him.  When we got our meals mine looked delicious and I was eagerly waiting to dig in.  He looked at his plate and, without touching it, disgustedly told the waitress to take it back.




Oh yeah, I've had meals with that person too!!!  I have some married friends who routinely criticize food and service at restaurants like this, stiffing the server and bewildering the staff and management.  It's embarrassing and I avoid going out to eat with them and doing other public things with them.

And, oddly enough, I also avoid gaming with them also!  Never correlated it before . . . .


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 1, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Again, you are taking a phrase that has been argued over and over and treating it as a new phrase suddenly dropped out of the blue.




The mere fact that the term has been argued over and over should clue you in that it isn't a useful term. When you use it we don't know what side of the fence you are on. We DON'T know what you mean. Only a touch of arrogance would lead one to believe that someone has kept tabs on every discussion they have been involved in and kept track of every opinion each person holds. "Too videogamey" is nothing more than a reductive slam and will inflame arguments whether you intend to use it that way or not.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 1, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's my recollection as well...and a good reason not to go looking for a 4Ed conversion book.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There is a lot of art in this... 

Best cases I have found revealed more about the character than was originally understood before the conversion but that doesnt mean a guide book is going to get you there and possibly some of the worst cases are formulaic methodical translations that fail to capture the feel.

Somebody translating a character currently might think they need to follow class names to take a D&D character from an earlier edition in to 4e..And now that they have a healthy chunk of classes it would be more possible but also very possibly - not recommended ... 
For instance your Elf might have been a fighter wizard - may haps she ought to be built as bard with no multi-classing at all just re-flavoring a bit with feats which emphasize the arcane. Or might be best built as a ranger with ritualist training or hybriding might now be the best option. Or using the swordmage directly.

And your ranger perhaps a higher level one who liked his magical element ... might be better served as a seeker class character or even a nature themed paladin.

Races are similarly not one to one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 1, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The mere fact that the term has been argued over and over should clue you in that it isn't a useful term.





It is my experience that, when a term is argued over and over, it is because it *is* a useful term, describing what is meant very well, that simply carries implications someone doesn't like.

Controlling what terms can be used controls what can be discussed.  For this reason, IMHO & IME, some folks like to declare certain terms ambigous, misleading, or not useful.

YMMV.



RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is my experience that, when a term is argued over and over, it is because it *is* a useful term, describing what is meant very well, that simply carries implications someone doesn't like.
> 
> Controlling what terms can be used controls what can be discussed.  For this reason, IMHO & IME, some folks like to declare certain terms ambigous, misleading, or not useful.




How can a term be useful if it means so many different things to different people? I would have to know *your* definition of "too videogamey" to find it useful for discussion. The term reduces one's opinion to two words that can mean too many different things. I would rather one expound upon their opinion than reduce it to a buzzword. Or, if one is offended that they are being asked to explain their opinion again, then put a link in your sig to a summary of the opinion. Otherwise I still believe it arrogant to assume that everyone understands what one means by "too videogamey."


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is my experience that, when a term is argued over and over, it is because it *is* a useful term, describing what is meant very well




Sloppy terms themselves take center stage in place of the content they hide.

Delving through terminology may be a necessary preliminary as KM is pointing out if somebody "in good faith" uses a term with a vague definition you can dig in to it and maybe find the content behind it... persistently using that term instead of more clear or enumerated ideas... is asking to rehash... after rehash after rehash.... it does not make the term good... it means its a sloppy term. 

And if in context that term is used to rake coals in a hostile emotion tweaking fashion its just an edition war troll mantra.

Kamakaze M argues rather eloquently in favor of granting "the person"  the benefit of the doubt. But "the ambiguous term" can get canned.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is my experience that, when a term is argued over and over, it is because it *is* a useful term, describing what is meant very well, that simply carries implications someone doesn't like.
> 
> Controlling what terms can be used controls what can be discussed.  For this reason, IMHO & IME, some folks like to declare certain terms ambigous, misleading, or not useful.
> 
> ...



And mine is almost the reverse - that in many cases the definitions differ so widely as to make it meaningless.  Of course there's a simple test as to which it is: will consensus arise from the thread asking what is meant by "Video-gamey".  So far it's not looking hopeful.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 1, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Which goes to prove, in my mind at least, that there is nothing at all at stake in the edition wars.  Nobody can ever really be convinced of anything.  If shown without question their claim was false, they will still find a way to shift their claim to something that cannot be proven false.  Because, it's not about coming to the resolution of a debate.It's about engaging in the edition war itself.



Exactly. Just like _Global Thermonuclear War_ and _Tic-Tac-Toe_ the only way to win is not to play.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 1, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> How can a term be useful if it means so many different things to different people?




Is "D&D" a useful term?  It means so many different things to different people.......Because everything you said about "too videogamey" also applies.



Garthanos said:


> Sloppy terms themselves take center stage in place of the content they hide.




It is a fallacy to imagine that most terminology is not vaguely defined unless read "in good faith"; and even then the usage is probably more vaguely defined than most users realize.

The only reason folks have to "rehash... after rehash after rehash...." is because, once they have said what they mean, the opposite side demands that, no, the first speaker means what the opposite side means by the same term.  You can do that with anything, if the goal is to "win", to demonize the other side, or to take offense.  

It doesn't make the term sloppy; it makes the argument sloppy.

And "canning the ambiguous term" means "canning the opinion", not the terminology, as every attempt to define the term also ends up being "too ambiguous".  I have seen this on EnWorld (and elsewhere) again, and again, and again.



Neonchameleon said:


> And mine is almost the reverse - that in many cases the definitions differ so widely as to make it meaningless.  Of course there's a simple test as to which it is: will consensus arise from the thread asking what is meant by "Video-gamey".  So far it's not looking hopeful.




Will consensus arise from asking what is meant by "D&D"?  So far it's not looking hopeful.

But, then, honest discussion doesn't require that you and I mean the same thing by "D&D"; it only requires that I know what you mean, and that you know what I mean.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 1, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Which goes to prove, in my mind at least, that there is nothing at all at stake in the edition wars.  Nobody can ever really be convinced of anything.  If shown without question their claim was false, they will still find a way to shift their claim to something that cannot be proven false.  Because, it's not about coming to the resolution of a debate.It's about engaging in the edition war itself.




Bullocks.

I am reminded very much of the scenes at the begining of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where both the people trying to plow down Arthur Dent's house, and the Vogans, make a (factual) claim that the plans have been available for a long time, and (non-factually) it is not their fault if Arthur Dent or the Earth didn't make a protest at the appropriate time.

That a (partial) conversion guide became available is a fact.

That WotC said that there would not be one is a fact.

That WotC did not advertise the conversion guide outside their site is a fact.

Either that some people who asked WotC for one were not directed to what was available is a fact, or people are lying about the same is a fact.

The *basis of the claim *has nothing to do with whether or not WotC quietly made a conversion guide available, but that WotC effectively advertised that there would not be one, and didn't make any effort to let people know that there was one once they changed their mind, so that *effectively*, for many people, there was no conversion guide.  

In contrast to the conversion guides for 2e and 3e.

If someone slanders your name in 72-point type over the fold on the front page of a newspaper, and then prints an apology in 8-point type in the personals the next day, it is technically true that a public apology was made.  I guess if that doesn't satisfy you, once its pointed out to you -- if perhaps that doesn't seem like a real public apology -- you must really just want to avoid resolving the issue.  

Right?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Bullocks....
> If someone slanders your name in 72-point type over the fold on the front page of a newspaper, and then prints an apology in 8-point type in the personals the next day, it is technically true that a public apology was made.  I guess if that doesn't satisfy you, once its pointed out to you -- if perhaps that doesn't seem like a real public apology -- you must really just want to avoid resolving the issue.
> 
> Right?




I don't see how that addresses my point.  Do you think the edition war, right now (not a year ago), actually ever convinces anyone of anything?  We're talking about the meta issue itself, not the example we were just going back and forth about.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 1, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The mere fact that the term has been argued over and over should clue you in that it isn't a useful term.



I completely disagree.
By that reasoning "4E is fun" should no longer be a valid position.
It has certainly been argued over and over.



> When you use it we don't know what side of the fence you are on. We DON'T know what you mean. Only a touch of arrogance would lead one to believe that someone has kept tabs on every discussion they have been involved in and kept track of every opinion each person holds. "Too videogamey" is nothing more than a reductive slam and will inflame arguments whether you intend to use it that way or not.



While *I* find it fun to argue about it with whoever, the larger "what's at stake" issue applies only to WotC.  Whether or not you grok the meaning is completely beside the point.  As I said before, if WotC wants to expand their fan base, then they need to grok the meaning.  I believe they do grok the meaning.  

Perhaps they just don't care.  I really doubt that.

Perhaps they don't get it.  Again, I really doubt that.  But if this were to be true, then they would need to find a way to be more in touch with a wider band of potential fans if they want to grow support.  

Calling it a "reductive slam" is just sticking your head in the sand.

Though I'd not be surprised if examples of it being used that way could be produced.  It starts with someone saying the game is too videogamey to them, because it is too videogamey to them.  Some fans don't agree and rather than trying to resolve the disagreement just start attacking the idea.  H4ters see that a nerve has been struck and wade in.  The truth that both sides throw thoughtless attacks around the idea in no way stops the original legitimacy of the point.

(No intent to claim "4E fans started it".  This is one of many many examples, and it goes both ways)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Is "D&D" a useful term?  It means so many different things to different people.......Because everything you said about "too videogamey" also applies.




I've not really seen heavy usage of "D&D" as an adjective. Being a proper noun it is neither useful nor useless. In the discussions some people started in regards to a certain edition it certainly is not a useful term when you try to define it beyond its objective meaning.

What makes "D&D" less useful in those discussions is that it is used as shorthand for "Is Edition X _my kind_ of D&D?"

There is no objective meaning for "too videogamey" and as the dedicated thread proves it varies in meaning from complimentary attributes to derogatory ones. One cannot ascertain what someone else means when they simply state "too videogamey." And since it has transformed into a derogatory slur in common usage, people are going to assume the worst. Especially since the majority of its full usage is "I don't like Edition X because it is too videogamey." That doesn't leave much room for good faith interpretation.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 1, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I completely disagree.
> By that reasoning "4E is fun" should no longer be a valid position.
> It has certainly been argued over and over.




I never said "too videogamey" is an invalid position. You are more than welcome to hold that opinion or any other opinion, I'm not contesting that. I just don't find it useful to anyone interested in readin your opinion to assume that they know what you mean by "too videogamey." I find it reductive whether your intents are good or malicious. I would ask the same of someone who stated their opinion "4E is fun." Both "4E is fun" and "4E is too videogamey" beg the question "Why?"




BryonD said:


> While *I* find it fun to argue about it with whoever, the larger "what's at stake" issue applies only to WotC.  As I said before, if WotC wants to expand their fan base, then they need to grok the meaning.  I believe they do grok the meaning. Perhaps they don't get it.  Again, I really doubt that.  But if this were to be true, then they would need to find a way to be more in touch with a wider band of potential fans if they want to grow support.




So, if your intent is to ultimately provide feedback to WotC and you acknowledge that they need to understand what you mean by "too videogamey," then why waste your time posting if you won't explain what you mean? As Umbran said, aren't you then just posting without adding useful content?



BryonD said:


> Calling it a "reductive slam" is just sticking your head in the sand.




It *is* reductive no matter your intent behind its use. You are stating what you claim to be a much larger opinion as a buzzword. The "slam" comes from the most common usage of the term I've seen, "I don't like 4E because it's too videogamey." It give people the impression that you have no real opinion and can only parrot buzzwords. And I'm *positive* that is not your intent.



BryonD said:


> (No intent to claim "4E fans started it".  This is one of many many examples, and it goes both ways)




It certainly can and has started from all fanbases. I'm not playing sides here, just stating that discussion here would be more fruitful if people stopped using buzzwords and just stated their full opinions. And yes, sometimes that means in a new thread you may have to restate all or part of your full opinion because not everyone involved in the current discussion will have participated in prior ones or those who had will not necessarily remember your opinion.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 1, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I don't see how that addresses my point.  Do you think the edition war, right now (not a year ago), actually ever convinces anyone of anything?  We're talking about the meta issue itself, not the example we were just going back and forth about.




What I was addressing was the contention that, because people do not buy your reasoning about what the facts you have presented mean, that they do not believe facts, or that they do not allow facts to guide their reasoning.  

Specifically, I was pointing out that your limited selection of facts were not necessarily the most relevant facts to the point they were addressing.  

That these selection of facts were then used to discredit the thinking of people who did not automatically agree with you is....questionable.  

On to your question:

Do I think that the edition war, right now, actually ever convinces anyone of anything?  Hm.  I imagine that depends upon whether or not I think there is an "edition war" currently going on.  Some might say that the term "edition war" is too vague to have any real meaning.   

Certainly, I believe that the ongoing discussion about editions, their relative merits, and the design philosophy (both stated, and in terms of play value) has been of use to *me*.  I have read posts that have convinced *me* that I needed to change my then-current beliefs.  

I have said so in the past, and will no doubt say so in the future.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I've not really seen heavy usage of "D&D" as an adjective. Being a proper noun it is neither useful nor useless. In the discussions some people started in regards to a certain edition it certainly is not a useful term when you try to define it beyond its objective meaning.
> 
> What makes "D&D" less useful in those discussions is that it is used as shorthand for "Is Edition X _my kind_ of D&D?"
> 
> There is no objective meaning for "too videogamey"




There is no objective meaning for any word or term; all meaning is inherently subjective.

Is Basic Fantasy D&D?  Traveller?  3e?  4e?  Surely you know, as well as I do, that there are folks who consider all of those to be D&D, and folks who consider none of them to be.  There are folks who believe that calling some of them D&D is provocative, and folks who believe that denying that any of them are D&D is provocative.

Consider the words "table" and "chair".  What makes one object a "table" and the other object a "chair"?  It is nothing inherent to either; it is rather what our relationship is to the objects....what we do with them, and how we think of them.

Language is a great tool, so long as you avoid thinking of any term as having an absolute (objective) meaning, and don't get too carried away worrying about how subjective other terms might be.  *Language works because of subjective meaning.*  That subjectivity allows us to formulate and, to some degree communicate, things we might not otherwise be able to.

Close your mind to it at your own peril.  


RC


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 1, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Exactly. Just like _Global Thermonuclear War_ and _Tic-Tac-Toe_ the only way to win is not to play.




Nice reference to Wargames


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> On to your question:
> 
> Do I think that the edition war, right now, actually ever convinces anyone of anything?  Hm.  I imagine that depends upon whether or not I think there is an "edition war" currently going on.  Some might say that the term "edition war" is too vague to have any real meaning.
> 
> ...




Let me be very specific then, because I didn't mean to ask about current beliefs.  Do you think the edition wars, right now, convince anyone to switch from 3e to 4e, or from 4e to 3e? Do you think, right now, they are convincing WOTC to change anything?


----------



## Merkuri (Mar 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Is "D&D" a useful term?  It means so many different things to different people.......




It depends on how you use it.  If you were to compare another rules system to "D&D" for example, somebody might wonder what edition of D&D you were referring to, since different editions of D&D have subtle and not-so-subtle differences.  Or maybe you were referring to a particular page in the D&D PHB and you don't specify which version of the book.

In those cases, yes, it is a non-useful term.  It should be made more specific (by using the edition number).

But if you wanted to start a thread about funny stories people have from their years playing D&D it's pretty safe to assume you are including all editions and are speaking of D&D as a whole.  You may not be, in fact, but it's a fairly safe assumption to make.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 2, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Let me be very specific then, because I didn't mean to ask about current beliefs.  Do you think the edition wars, right now, convince anyone to switch from 3e to 4e, or from 4e to 3e?




I would be more likely to try 4e now as a result of posts, so I guess I would have to say Yes.  I have no desire to DM it, though.



> Do you think, right now, they are convincing WOTC to change anything?




I think, right now, they are probably influencing what WotC will do in the future, yes.  At the very least, 5e will probably have better marketing than 4e because of the longterm effects that the 4e marketing had.  

Do you think that WotC would care more, had the protests died down in a week?  I don't think WotC that foolish.......but YMMV!  



RC


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 2, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would be more likely to try 4e now as a result of posts, so I guess I would have to say Yes.  I have no desire to DM it, though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




OK, fair enough.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 2, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Let me be very specific then, because I didn't mean to ask about current beliefs.  Do you think the edition wars, right now, convince anyone to switch from 3e to 4e, or from 4e to 3e?



Absolutely not.



> Do you think, right now, they are convincing WOTC to change anything?




Convincing?  Only time will tell...10 (?) years from now when they announce the pending release of 5Ed.

I hope, though, that it is reminding/convincing them of some basic marketing principles about how important it is to play up your new products while not badmouthing the old, and that ditching marketing methods that were effective can get you in trouble.  That marketing is all about perceptions.

And that regardless of the amount of market research you do, your interpretation of your data may matter just as much as (if not more than) the raw data itself.

I'm one of the most vocal but _precise_ users of the New Coke example.  Coke had tons of data, but where they failed in interpretation was that while New Coke beat the pants off of Pepsi and the original formula Coke in tests, Coke drinkers didn't want a replacement for Coke. 

Coke learned its lesson, and currently has a whole host of beverages in its line, including its original recipe and, according to some 2006 data, New Coke (now called Coke II).

The lesson of New Coke is that your marketing research is only as good as the questions you ask.  They asked whether it tasted better, they didn't ask if people would buy it _instead_ of their preferred drink.  Yes, its a logical assumption, but its an assumption that didn't bear out in the market.

As good a game as 4Ed is- and I make no claims that it isn't, because I'd be lying- there is a significant portion of the market that didn't want 3.X to go away.  They were not ready for a replacement of the game they preferred, but a refinement would have been quite acceptable.

I could easily envision a 4Ed RPG without any D&D linkages- different races, spells, etc.- that would have sold like gangbusters.  Perhaps it would have been linked to some kind of hot IP out there, or the designers could have come up with something unique.  Heck, I might have bought more than just the first Core 3 books in that alternative reality.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2010)

Somehow, I am totally not shocked that some people would see using vague, mostly incomprehesible terms as a good thing.  It simply keeps the arguement alive no?

After all, why discuss the actual issue when you can simply hide behind, "Well, you're just not understanding what I'm saying" over and over again, page after page.  Instead of actually trying to communicate, it's easier to obfuscate.  

It's not about shutting down someone.  It's about people actually taking responsiblity for what they say.  If someone uses a vague term, which they KNOW has multiple meanings, like "videogamey" then they should not expect people to understand their point.  I can say 4e is blarfnarg too, but that doesn't mean I'm communicating.

This is totally not about controlling what other people say or free speech.  Those that want to continue obfuscating issues want to frame it that way and I really have no idea why.  What is the point of using terminology that you KNOW will not be understood?  What value does it have?  What does it actually add to the conversation?

Instead, we have umpteen threads and posts of, "Did you mean this?" "No."  "Did you mean this?"  "No."  "Did you mean this?"  "No." "Well, what DO you mean."  "Oh, you're just misrepresenting my point!"

Over and over and over again.

So, BryonD, I'll put it to you directly, what benefit is gained by using vague phrases with highly charged connotations?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, BryonD, I'll put it to you directly, what benefit is gained by using vague phrases with highly charged connotations?




It's a conversation starter. "Nice weather we're having here."

The fault lies with someone treating a vague statement like it's highly charged. It should be the starting point to request clarification and generate discussion.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> It's a conversation starter. "Nice weather we're having here."
> 
> The fault lies with someone treating a vague statement like it's highly charged. It should be the starting point to request clarification and generate discussion.




Oh come on.  Really?  After ten years of people telling me that 3e is nothing but D&D Diablo, you're going to say that there is no baggage associated with something like "videogamey"?  That's it's a completely neutral term lacking in any negative connotations at all?

And you wonder why people get testy?  It's a bit of a stretch to think that at this point in time, anyone who is not a completely new poster would have no idea that certain terms are pretty much hot button edition war flags.

Whether its videogamey, anime-y, dungeonpunk, nostalgia glasses, or whatever.  

It was a starting point maybe ten years ago.  Now?  Now it's just trolling.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Oh come on.  Really?  After ten years of people telling me that 3e is nothing but D&D Diablo, you're going to say that there is no baggage associated with something like "videogamey"?  That's it's a completely neutral term lacking in any negative connotations at all?
> <snip>
> It was a starting point maybe ten years ago.  Now?  Now it's just trolling.




I wouldn't call it trolling.  I'd call it shorthand, yes, with a negative connotation, but still understandable.

As mentioned in the "What does Videogamey mean to you?" thread, its probably either something they feel is handled better in video games OR something they don't like in the video game(s) it reminds them of.

As the reader of a post containing the term, you then have the option of accepting this assertion at face value (see paragraph immediately above) or you may ask them to clarify...  Realizing, of course, that if you do ask for clarification, you're just going to wind up going down into a warren of oft-repeated and rehashed discussions.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> It's a conversation starter. "Nice weather we're having here."



Whatever, man. As far as I'm concerned the weather is totally blarfnarg.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 2, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Whatever, man. As far as I'm concerned the weather is totally blarfnarg.



I dunno. The weather I'm getting seems to be quite videogamey. I was playing a video game the other day, and it was sunny in the game, too.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I wouldn't call it trolling.  I'd call it shorthand, yes, with a negative connotation, but still understandable.
> /snip




"Shorthand with negative connotation".  Exactly how is this different from trolling?  When you use a vague term that you KNOW is negative, but does not actually state what you are being negative about, how is that different from trolling?

And, as I mentioned in the other thread, what does it mean if I agree with you?  If you say X is videogamey and I say, "Yup, you're right", what have we actually said?  How could you possibly know that I'm interpreting your point correctly?  I could be agreeing to something completely different than your meaning and, unless you start asking me what I'm agreeing with, you'd never know.

Instead of using "shorthand with negative connotation", why not just speak plainly?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It was a starting point maybe ten years ago.  Now?  Now it's just trolling.




What people discussed 10 years ago, given 4e is a new edition, isn't very relevant. There are new aspects of the game worth discussing. Frankly, 4e does have elements that I find videogamey but you wouldn't know what they were if you shut your communication off before I elaborated on them. 

If you find the topic so onerous, you're free to not bother getting involved in the discussion. Getting involved is always your choice. It's not like an edition war comes and storms your beaches. Participation is always voluntary. And if participating, you can either volunteer to improve it or drag it down. The direction you want to put on it is up to you.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 2, 2010)

Ourph said:


> Whatever, man. As far as I'm concerned the weather is totally blarfnarg.




Blarfnarg, eh? What exactly do you mean by that? I thought the weather was nice because it was sunny without being too bright and hit about 40 degrees.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 2, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Let me be very specific then, because I didn't mean to ask about current beliefs.  Do you think the edition wars, right now, convince anyone to switch from 3e to 4e, or from 4e to 3e?



Switch outright?  Not at all sure.

And keep in mind that for some of us the edition war goes far beyond the trivialities of 3e vs. 4e. 

But do the wars provide avenues for DMs of all systems to find ideas to port from one system to the other?  Absolutely. 







> Do you think, right now, they are convincing WOTC to change anything?



Let's hope so, if only in terms of realizing they serve their market better to support editions other than that which they are currently printing.


			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Convincing? Only time will tell...10 (?) years from now when they announce the pending release of 5Ed.



You're being overly optimistic, methinks, if you think they'll wait 10 years to release 5e.  If they wait even 5 years from now I'll be astonished.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Blarfnarg, eh? What exactly do you mean by that? I thought the weather was nice because it was sunny without being too bright and hit about 40 degrees.



40 degrees *is* blarfnarg!  At that temperature, it's too hot to roll dice... 

Lan-"or are you talking in Fahrenheit"-efan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> "Shorthand with negative connotation".  Exactly how is this different from trolling?  When you use a vague term that you KNOW is negative, but does not actually state what you are being negative about, how is that different from trolling?




I don't know about you, but to me, "trolling" is posting something deliberately provocative in order to have a heated discussion in a thread.

By using a term like "videogamey" to describe a P&P RPG, I, at least, am trying to let the readers know that there are elements of that game that I dislike, that it is related to electronic gaming, and that I'm not going any further unless someone asks me directly.

Which, in certain circumstances, may constitute trolling itself.



> And, as I mentioned in the other thread, what does it mean if I agree with you?  If you say X is videogamey and I say, "Yup, you're right", what have we actually said?  How could you possibly know that I'm interpreting your point correctly?  I could be agreeing to something completely different than your meaning and, unless you start asking me what I'm agreeing with, you'd never know.




Really, most of the time, the real reasons why someone considers a P&P videogame simply don't matter.  Its not going to decide anything.

The only thing gained by detailing why I or someone else might critique a P&P as "videogamey" is a rhetorical lynchpin for someone who likes the game to assert a counterargument.

IOW, you're trying to refute an opinion with counter-opinion.  Which resolves nothing and only ticks people off, because you're telling them their opinion is wrong because you don't perceive or react to the exact same thing the same way they did.  This could be trolling (as I mentioned above).



> Instead of using "shorthand with negative connotation", why not just speak plainly?




If for no other reason, to avoid posting the same long-winded paragraphs of complaints in detail that so many will have read before, which will result in heated discussions.

IOW, its a time-saver...as long as you just accept that the person has a particular objection that you really don't need the details of.

I mean, I've used the term before, always, as I've pointed out, to talk about how 4Ed reminds me of arcade combat games.  Not MMORPGs, because I don't play them at all.

But I'm the minority.

But others use the term to refer to MMORPG game mechanics, and still others refer to the closed structure of the games themselves, and so forth.

I mean...we all use placeholder words like this, especially in certain professions.  How big would a given law book be if every time I wanted to refer to the case of Brown v Board of Education I actually reprinted the entire text?

Our game books have glossaries to avoid page bloat.  We don't reprint the entire definition of Natural Weapon every time we use the term in the books, do we?

Just place "videogamey" in your mental glossary as a term having at least 3 definitions and move forward.

It will save a LOT of time.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> What people discussed 10 years ago, given 4e is a new edition, isn't very relevant. There are new aspects of the game worth discussing. Frankly, 4e does have elements that I find videogamey but you wouldn't know what they were if you shut your communication off before I elaborated on them.




On the other hand, and I'm just going out on a limb here, you could have saved a bunch of time by elaborating them in the first place instead of playing the "Please ask me about what I meant" game.

Like:

"*sigh*"

"What?"

"Oh nothing..."

"What is it, something is bothering you..."

"No...it's....nothing."

"Tell me what's wrong..."

"Well, this person I met at the mall today called me a name..."

"Ok, why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of saying *sigh*  I don't know what *sigh* means."

I understand that people do it all the time, but that doesn't make it right.  Communicating would be so much easier if people said what they meant instead of forcing other people to drag it out of them.  And at message board speeds that might cut DAYS off a conversation.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't know about you, but to me, "trolling" is posting something deliberately provocative in order to have a heated discussion in a thread.



That's correct.  And the term "videogamey" is deliberately provocative.  It says "I don't like this thing and I'm not going to tell you why."  It's connotation at this point is "Entertainment for stupid people".  No one uses the term videogamey to refer to it in a good light.  And almost every argument that says "X is videogamey" amounts to "RPGs are for smart people, video games are for dumb people.  This reminds me of a game for dumb people."

So when you make a post that says "X is videogamey", it reads the same to me as if you had posted "Anyone who plays X is stupid."

I can understand a post that says "I like to have more options than are offered in X" or "I prefer a different sort of flavor in my games" or "I like more lethal games" And I can understand, difference of opinion and all that.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> The only thing gained by detailing why I or someone else might critique a P&P as "videogamey" is a rhetorical lynchpin for someone who likes the game to assert a counterargument.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> If for no other reason, to avoid posting the same long-winded paragraphs of complaints in detail that so many will have read before, which will result in heated discussions.



So you are saying that you are using "videogamey" because it is not concrete enough to form a counter argument against?  And therefore, by using the term you seek to create less arguments?

Because I haven't seen a single thread where the term "videogamey" was used WITHOUT creating an argument.  And one that is more heated and less rational than the ones where the term wasn't used.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I mean...we all use placeholder words like this, especially in certain professions.  How big would a given law book be if every time I wanted to refer to the case of Brown v Board of Education I actually reprinted the entire text?



But once again, reference to that case are clear.  We know what happened in that case, we can reference it.  That's the reason we use placeholders.

Videogamey doesn't tell me anything other than "related to video games" and video games being such a broad category, it's close to useless.  You might as well say "travelly", "sportsy", "televisiony", "moviey" or so on.  And at least none of those terms currently carry a negative connotation to go with them.  They'll be just as meaningless, but at least people will just be confused when you use them instead of angry and confused.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Just place "videogamey" in your mental glossary as a term having at least 3 definitions and move forward.




Too late.  I have it in my mental glossary as being "A game with limited choices so that stupid people or those with short attention spans can understand it".  Since it's been defined that way for me by 20 or 30 other people before.


----------



## Hairfoot (Mar 2, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> And the term "videogamey" is deliberately provocative.  It say "I don't like this thing and I'm not going to tell you why."  It's connotation at this point is "Entertainment for stupid people".  No one uses the term videogamey to refer to it in a good light.  And almost every argument that says "X is videogamey" amounts to "RPGs are for smart people, video games are for dumb people.  This reminds me of a game for dumb people."




I don't think it's that insidious.  You'd have a hard time finding a roleplaying gamer in 2010 who doesn't play videogames of some sort, so it's unlikely that "videogamey" is simply a euphemism for "dumb" or "stupid".

Most often, it's employed as shorthand for "the design of this game makes it more shallow and constraining than I believe roleplaying games should be, and therefore is less fun than it could be, because a key reason I play RPGs is to get something video games can't provide."


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 2, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> I don't think it's that insidious.  You'd have a hard time finding a roleplaying gamer in 2010 who doesn't play videogames of some sort, so it's unlikely that "videogamey" is simply a euphemism for "dumb" or "stupid".
> 
> Most often, it's employed as shorthand for "the design of this game makes it more shallow and constraining than I believe roleplaying games should be, and therefore is less fun than it could be, because a key reason I play RPGs is to get something video games can't provide."




You'd be surprised.  Originally I had no bad feelings towards the term.  I hadn't heard it used before 4e came out.  And then there were suddenly 30 threads a days saying "4e sucks, it's too videogamey".

And in each one of those threads, we had to ask "What do you mean, videogamey?  What does that even mean?" and the answers were always different, so we'd keep having to ask again the next time.  But there was a general theme in the definitions.

Either the poster didn't play video games at all(which surprised me at how often posters who were calling things videogamey said that) because they thought video games were stupid or they were directly comparing 4e to video games they thought were for stupid people and pretty much saying so.  Often the answer was "They remind me of MMORPGs.  Those games are destroying the world by making people think LESS when we want them to think MORE.  Why would WOTC make the game STUPIDER?  I mean, the reason WoW is popular is because it caters to the lowest common denominator.  We should be encouraging to move beyond that, not dropping to their level."

In fact, if I was taking a poll, that would be the answer(worded in various different ways) that came up the most often.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 2, 2010)

This thread is starting to remind me of what was, for me, one of the most bizarre aspects of the edition wars threads.

Now maybe it's just because I don't play any video or computer games, and never have, but the resemblances of 4e mechanics to WoW-ish mechanics (as I understand them) seem pretty superficial. Whereas the resemlbance of 4e mechanics to indie RPG mechanics strikes me as obvious and deliberate. What surprises me about the edition wars, then, is that we get all these debates about whether or not 4e is videogamey, but comparatively little coherent discussion of the sorts of play (other than the tactical miniatures wargame stuff) that an indie-inspired edition of D&D might support.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 2, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That's correct.  And the term "videogamey" is deliberately provocative.  It say "I don't like this thing and I'm not going to tell you why."  It's connotation at this point is "Entertainment for stupid people".  No one uses the term videogamey to refer to it in a good light.  And almost every argument that says "X is videogamey" amounts to "RPGs are for smart people, video games are for dumb people.  This reminds me of a game for dumb people."
> 
> So when you make a post that says "X is videogamey", it reads the same to me as if you had posted "Anyone who plays X is stupid."




That's your problem.  To me, "videogamey" may be broad, but its not so vague as all that.

It says "I don't like this thing because elements of it reminds me of videogames."  - thats no more vague than "rules heavy."



> So you are saying that you are using "videogamey" because it is not concrete enough to form a counter argument against?  And therefore, by using the term you seek to create less arguments?




I'm saying that 1) the term has been thrown around enough that we've seen several definitions of it pop up so we all have a general idea of what it may mean, AND 2) that any counterargument is doomed to fail because you're not going to convince anyone that their perception, their interface with the game, is anything but how they perceive it.

SO specificity of which definition of "videogamey" a poster is using is immaterial.



> But once again, reference to that case are clear.
> We know what happened in that case, we can reference it.




Only because we (as a society) have had countless discussions & editorials that went something like "In Brown v  Board of Education, the defendants claimed...blah, blah, blah, ...separate but equal is illegal...blah blah, etc." where it has all been spelled out to great and lengthy detail. 

However, unless you're a lawyer, you probably don't know the details, how many appeals were involved, etc....because that stuff doesn't matter 99.99% of the time.



> Videogamey doesn't tell me anything other than "related to video games" and video games being such a broad category, it's close to useless.



"Related to video games" is sufficient understanding.  How is additional detail helping you successfully argue that something that reminds me of video games shouldn't?

You mentioned that you've seen threads where greater specificity has been used, and that those threads were less heated.  GREAT!!!

However, did anyone's opinion change?  Did greater specificity actually enable you to convince someone that their perception was flawed?

I'm betting it hasn't so far.  And if it hasn't, the greater specificity was useless in the end-goals of the debate.



> You might as well say "travelly", "sportsy", "televisiony", "moviey" or so on.  And at least none of those terms currently carry a negative connotation to go with them.  They'll be just as meaningless, but at least people will just be confused when you use them instead of angry and confused.




I use the term "videogamey" precisely to imply a negative connotation by the context in which I use it, which, to date, has always been something like "I don't like those videogamey healing surges."

And I'm pretty sure that others using the term have not intended a positive connotation either- its always being used as a reason why they don't play 4Ed.  And its always understood to be an attack on the game.



> Too late.  I have it in my mental glossary as being "A game with limited choices so that stupid people or those with short attention spans can understand it".  Since it's been defined that way for me by 20 or 30 other people before.




Then that's _your_ problem- the OED has had to refine its definitions of countless words.  Rest assured that when the first appearances in the English language of "run" had nothing to do with computer programs, "cool" had nothing to do with popular appeal, and "chips" referred to small bits of wood and stone, not computer parts or french fries.  And so forth.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 2, 2010)

pemerton said:


> This thread is starting to remind me of what was, for me, one of the most bizarre aspects of the edition wars threads.
> 
> Now maybe it's just because I don't play any video or computer games, and never have, but the resemblances of 4e mechanics to WoW-ish mechanics (as I understand them) seem pretty superficial. Whereas the resemlbance of 4e mechanics to indie RPG mechanics strikes me as obvious and deliberate. What surprises me about the edition wars, then, is that we get all these debates about whether or not 4e is videogamey, but comparatively little coherent discussion of the sorts of play (other than the tactical miniatures wargame stuff) that an indie-inspired edition of D&D might support.




You've hit it right on the head- 4Ed doesn't remind you of video games because you don't play video games.

For you, the WoWish mechanics seem superficial.  To the guys in my group who routinely play- or program- MMORPGs, those aspects leapt out at them within the first half-hour.

Me?  I don't play MMORPGs at all, so I didn't make that connection.  Instead, I was reminded of the coin-op/console combat games_ I _play. 

But- to those of you who care- would specific definitions for me or my buddies' objections help you refute these perceptions?  Nope.

As for the resonance that 4Ed has with indie games and what kind of play it may inspire...what can I say?

Its a valid comparison, but who will participate in a meaningful way?

Indie games are a growing and innovative branch of the hobby, but its still a minority.  I personally don't know any gamers who play indie games.  The few I own are actually just playtest editions.

I mean...I bet that if you actually started a thread you'd get some nibbles.  Maybe even nibbles by some of the "big fish"- game designers like Mouseferatu- and fellow indie enthusiasts.  Maybe you'll even get a hot thread going.

But the bulk of us?  We might read it and merely lurk.


----------



## Hairfoot (Mar 2, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> And in each one of those threads, we had to ask "What do you mean, videogamey?  What does that even mean?" and the answers were always different, so we'd keep having to ask again the next time.  But there was a general theme in the definitions.




Can you link to anything to back that up? 

I've followed the edition wars quite closely, and to me it's always seemed to pan out the same way as the current "What does Videogamey mean to you?" thread: one group of people declaring "videogamey" is a meaningless, offhand insult, and another group giving considered, diverse and reasoned definitions.

This is actually becoming a duplicate thread, FWIW.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 2, 2010)

pemerton said:


> This thread is starting to remind me of what was, for me, one of the most bizarre aspects of the edition wars threads.
> 
> Now maybe it's just because I don't play any video or computer games, and never have, but the resemblances of 4e mechanics to WoW-ish mechanics (as I understand them) seem pretty superficial. Whereas the resemlbance of 4e mechanics to indie RPG mechanics strikes me as obvious and deliberate. What surprises me about the edition wars, then, is that we get all these debates about whether or not 4e is videogamey, but comparatively little coherent discussion of the sorts of play (other than the tactical miniatures wargame stuff) that an indie-inspired edition of D&D might support.



How would you call that? Indiey? Indy? Indiana?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 2, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Can you link to anything to back that up?



Nope, I can't search.  Plus, there were about 100 threads a day popping up for the first month after 4e was released.  But at the very beginning the average thread went:

"The problem with 4e is that it reminds me of a video game."
"What do you mean?"
"I don't know, it just is."
"Well that's not helpful."
"Well...it's like the powers seem to be designed for a computer rather than a person.  Like we can't figure out anything more complicated and the game has been dumbed down."
"I wouldn't say it's been dumbed down.  It's just different.  I like it better."
"No.  WOTC is treating us like idiots.  I'm not 14.  I don't need to have everything spelled out for me like I'm a child.  I play video games when I want to be kind of mindless.  I play RPGs when I want to expand my mind.  4e is more like a video game."

And...repeat.  Likely with the next thread comparing 4e to WoW and how marking was a mindless mechanic designed for video games because it was easier for kids to understand and that's why it was put into 4e.

There was a lot of hateful things thrown around.  It's gotten better since then.  I actually got so sick of it that I left the message boards for about 6 months because I couldn't stand reading anymore.  And any thread about 4e would immediately be hijacked.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 2, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> "The problem with 4e is that it reminds me of a video game."
> "What do you mean?"
> "I don't know, it just is."
> "Well that's not helpful."
> ...




Granted, terminology like "dumbed down"* and "idiots" and the like are charged, but did the greater specificity of that person help any?  I'd say no- it introduced a lot of  language into the discussion simply LOADED with negativity.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it isn't "videogamey" that was the negative term, but the language that came out when greater specificity was elicited.

And being a human being, when that term came up again, your mind made the connection from the previous thread that someone was using this as a code for "dumbed down" etc.

...but if you look back in the recent past- especially this thread and the "Videogamey" thread that are currently active- I don't think you'll see anyone using loaded language in their definitions of the term.  They've been pretty clinical and civil.  All while being negative and critical of the game.

So, what term or phrase would you suggest to replace "videogamey" as shorthand for "something that reminds me of video games" and/or lengthy explanations in order to fend off heated exchanges?

* To look at this one further, consider if the poster had said "The game seems oversimplified to me" when calling the game videogamey: its less charged, but not really less critical of the game.  Would "videogamey" still be as negative to you?


----------



## Hairfoot (Mar 2, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Nope, I can't search.  Plus, there were about 100 threads a day popping up for the first month after 4e was released.  But at the very beginning the average thread went:...




Your memory is very different to mine.  Certainly, there was a lot of animosity toward 4E, but I think a lot of it is now being written off as meaningless spite when there was, in fact, a great deal of considered, informed and accurate criticism posted.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 2, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Can you link to anything to back that up?
> 
> I've followed the edition wars quite closely, and to me it's always seemed to pan out the same way as the current "What does Videogamey mean to you?" thread: one group of people declaring "videogamey" is a meaningless, offhand insult, and another group giving considered, diverse and reasoned definitions.
> 
> This is actually becoming a duplicate thread, FWIW.



Correction: Another group giving diverse, reasoned, _and inherently contradictory_ reasons.  And it is the contradictions between the group giving contradictory reasons that leads to it being written off as a criticism.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 2, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Your memory is very different to mine.  Certainly, there was a lot of animosity toward 4E, but I think a lot of it is now being written off as meaningless spite when there was, in fact, a great deal of considered, informed and accurate criticism posted.




I saw the same couple of arguments thrown out over and over again just stated in different ways.  I posted a list in the other thread on this issue.  Since I was in the unique position of having ran 4e games months before everyone else saw the rules, I was on the message boards day one trying to respond to people's concerns.

But I got very frustrated because the concerns were (mostly) things that there was no response to.  How do you respond to "this game has been dumbed down" other than being offended by it.  What is the definition of "dumbed down" other than "changed in a way I don't like".  Same thing with videogamey.  You can't respond to that.  "This game is too videogamey"  "Umm...which one?  A golf game?  A racing game?  I like racing games.  Is it like Everquest?  How is that a bad thing?  It used to be my favorite game because it was so much like D&D."

Meanwhile all of the people posting these things were saying "What?  I'm being perfectly reasonable and informed in my opinion.  Everything about 4e is exactly like a video game.  And I like video games but not 4e.  What is there not to understand?"


----------



## BryonD (Mar 2, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> But I got very frustrated because the concerns were (mostly) things that there was no response to.



I'll stick with Hairfoot.  I think your "mostly" claim is not at all accurate.

And to offer a mirror observation, when I offered concern after concern before 4E was released I was constantly blown off as simply making assumptions without seeing the whole game in context.  In the last few months before release that became the mantra for any critical comment.  It didn't actually address the complaint, it just stood in for "you are wrong, but I can't explain how".

Then the game came out and the "full context" didn't change anything.

If someone has a complaint and you truly can't find a response to it, then don't respond.  Or just say, sorry, clearly WotC didn't make a game that appeals to whatever it is you find fun.

But we get people saying "videogamey" means "you don't understand 4e".
"Videogamey" means "you are closed minded and just won't accept a new edition".
And so on...

You claim "100 threads a day" with people saying things like "I don't know, it just is."  I completely dispute your claim that this is remotely an accurate representation.  It may very well be true that you could find 100s of thread with that type of statement in them.  But, if you did, 90%+ of those threads would *also* include people making cogent arguments.  (And threads more than 3 posts long would be more like 100%). 

And there is a parallel here.  
The claim that "videogamey" means someone doesn't understand is just as counter-productive as "4e sucks but I don't have any reason why".  You get people with chips on their shoulder on both sides.  
Talk to people who do make points.


----------



## Hairfoot (Mar 2, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Correction: Another group giving diverse, reasoned, _and inherently contradictory_ reasons.  And it is the contradictions between the group giving contradictory reasons that leads to it being written off as a criticism.




In what way were they contradictory?  Can you link to examples?

A dozen people may make separate comparisons with video games as criticism, but it doesn't follow that any number of those criticisms are contradictory.  They may be a dozen valid and relevant points.


----------



## UniversalMonster (Mar 2, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> Your memory is very different to mine.  Certainly, there was a lot of animosity toward 4E, but I think a lot of it is now being written off as meaningless spite when there was, in fact, a great deal of considered, informed and accurate criticism posted.




I never saw anything resembling informed opinion from the haters.


----------



## Hairfoot (Mar 2, 2010)

"Haters".

I suggest you may not interested in informed opinion.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 2, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I'll stick with Hairfoot.  I think your "mostly" claim is not at all accurate.
> 
> And to offer a mirror observation, when I offered concern after concern before 4E was released I was constantly blown off as simply making assumptions without seeing the whole game in context.  In the last few months before release that became the mantra for any critical comment.  It didn't actually address the complaint, it just stood in for "you are wrong, but I can't explain how".



Think back. What were your complaints? How did you describe them? Would you say it gives someone a way to answer to them and recognize them as true or wrong, or true or wrong under a certain perspective/play style/star formation?

In other words, did you say things like: 
- The game is dumbed down
- It is videogamey
- It is broken
- It is not D&D

or did you say things like: 
- I don't like (daily) powers for non-magical characters.
- I don't like wizards and fighters staying balanced forever. 
- I don't like the removal of skill points and find the concept of trained vs untrained to binary.
- I don't like that roles are proscribed for a class instead of something naturally emerging from play or choices from character creation.
- I don't like that they do not use one of the traditional D&D settings with the Great Wheel. 

These are opinions. There are ways to talk about them. Some of them can't be answered without having the actual game, of course, though one can try to hint at possibilities how it might work that would actually be fine with you. Whether that's how the game works or whether it actually is acceptable for you is another matter. 

I remember that we (not you and me, "we" EN Worlders) had a lot of discussion about the entire encounter power/balance paradigm 4E highlighted. It was interesting and enlightening in many ways, but I still wonder how much we got "wrong" due to our lack of knowledge of the actual system. 

For example, did we estimate the "power level" of daily powers in that context corretly? I definitely was still thinking of a daily power something like 3E Fireball, dealing 5d6 to 10d6 points of damage vs a weapon attack dealing 2d6+5 damage. But daily powers actually turned to be up a lot less "decisive" in the pure damage department. 

Also, I don't think the concept of the "miniatures" game aspect of the combat system was really understood then - all those pushes, pulls, slides create a very different dynamic dynamic. The concept of "spamming powers" for example is not really a problem, because you are not just trying to deal xWy+z damage, but you often want to change the battlefield or enable yourself or others certain options and negate others. Sure, you use the same power as last round, but this time you might have a different goal with it then the last time. 

Neither did we really understand - and maybe we don't even understand it now - how much more important dynamic and exciting combat encounters are than "winning" a combat encounter, e.g. whether people really chose to play in a 15 minute adventure day style because they wanted the most "oomph" the most decisive victory and to play it safe, or because they did it because it lead to more interesting things happening, with everyone slinging spells as if their was no tomorrow... 

Or did we really understand what it meant that there we no longer any long-term buffs? Do we now?


----------



## UniversalMonster (Mar 2, 2010)

Hairfoot said:


> "Haters".
> 
> I suggest you may not interested in informed opinion.




I'm just not interested in hearing anyone howling at the moon in anguish. I'm here for D&D.  

To put it another way: I fully accept and understand that there are some people out there who for whatever reason (hey, ANY reason at all- good or not) don't want to play 4E. That's totally fine.  _But I simply don't care. _The haters have literally nothing to offer here. They should talk about things they _do_ like, so I can talk about things I like, and in some cases, maybe those things will intersect or in some cases maybe they won't..but in the end we'll still be talking about gaming rather than our tragic loss of identity and tiefling resentment. 

I hope that didn't come out too harsh.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 2, 2010)

Peter said:


> I never saw anything resembling informed opinion from the haters.






Hairfoot said:


> "Haters".
> 
> I suggest you may not interested in informed opinion.




Indeed.



Peter said:


> I fully accept and understand that there are some people out there who for whatever reason (hey, ANY reason at all- good or not) don't want to play 4E. That's totally fine.  _But I simply don't care. _




That explains why you don't feel a need to respond, or to characterize people negatively.

Gotcha.  


RC


----------



## UniversalMonster (Mar 2, 2010)

The edition wars from the beginning have been pointlessly bitter. 

It's a game. It has certain features. Some people like it one way, some people like it another way. This rule works like this, but it used to work like that... It used to be X, now it's Y. Things change, yadda yadda.. life goes on. 

Except there's still this tiny minority of people that only seem to be able to talk about things they _don't_ like, and_ don't_ play, and they have gone out of their way for the last two years to let us know all about it, in the hopes of what? Turning back the clock?

The clock is never, ever, ever turning backwards. Nope, 5E is not coming out next year. or the year after that. (And when it does come out --as eventually it will--it will not be a replica edition that you recalled from your youth, and you yourself will not be 12 again. 

So what is the point in telling people over and over how much they resent 4th edition? 

The question of this discussion, "what is really at stake?" perplexes me, because I see people getting hung up on the rhetoric and not seeing the end result. The real thing is at stake is the minority group of haters (and if there's a less negative way of characterizing these people I wish I knew what it was)  puts itself in an isolated box that will just continue to shrink over time. 

They are in effect, kicking themselves out of the hobby. They don't see it, yet. But think about it. 

Are they here to talk about D&D? Or are they here to talk about (pick any of the following) their feelings, the company that makes D&D, the games they used to play, how different it is now, the industry, the Hasbro conference call, etc..) 

Theyv'e become spectators. Outsiders.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 2, 2010)

Peter said:


> The edition wars from the beginning have been pointlessly bitter.




There we agree.

But if you imagine people who don't go to 4e are kicking themselves out of the hobby, or becoming spectators, you are seriously fooling yourself.  

If you imagine that the only reason people prefer an earlier edition over 4e is nostaligia (because they were 12), you are seriously fooling yourself.

If you imagine that 5e, or 6e, or 7e, cannot reject the path that 4e has forged, and appear to be closer to the original game in concept and/or rules, you are seriously fooling yourself.

If you are imagining that the hobby, at its core, cannot be enjoyed without WotC -- that WotC determines the course of the hobby, rather than those who play the games -- you are even more seriously fooling yourself.



RC


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 2, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> My problem with the term is that I consider 4e the least videogamey version of AD&D ever.
> 
> You don't run round picking up health packs (healing potions).  You don't have an arcane magic system that makes absolutely no sense other than as a mechanical formulation (Vancian).  You don't have really weird healing rules by which an almost dead 1st level wizard can be restored to back on his feet and in full fighting trim by a spell that wouldn't do much at all to a tenth level fighter (Cure Light Wounds).  You don't have people that can keep going all day as long as the healing magics flow, or people who recover back to their full health readily and repeatedly (Healing Surges are part of that full health).  Now to me that's all very videogamey so I get confused the other way.
> 
> ...




There are certainly elements which resemble action movies on purpose. (and applies to hit points and surges but not the core argument regarding video gaminess. Which is why I suggested it was a different apple on the tree entirely and why it being theer was evidence of orange and apple trees both being called - videogamy)

Here is my take the problem I see is there is a player role vs dm role ...and a perspective disconnect.  

Video games have explicitly defined limited sets of actions.
And table top role playing games have explicit limited set of mechanics which are used to govern/under-pine the nearly infinite actions a character chooses to take.

In 4e the player is encouraged to visualize the infinite choices the character can take in terms of that more finite set of mechanics and differentiate them narratively...Character says I can sing thousands of songs but the Player looks at the character sheet  which only lists ... "Rock Blues" and "Hot Dance". . The character may want to do something plausible like do a romantic dance it isnt in the characters specialties but seems obvious to the player and DM it is plausible. So the DM excercises her job..and uses page 42 to extend the games mechanics ie to stretch or take off the lid

... he has less job than he used to involving converting from narrative to simple mechanics a lot of those have been given to the player, but his job of being an enabler for going beyond the explicit rules is now even more important. And there are actual guidelines for it.. Page 42 is used as a short cut reference for this but it is not limited to being expressed on pages 42/43, that say "yes, but.." philosophy applies directly to the idea of opening up the mechanics .. and DMG guidelines encourage doing it in a controlled sort of way.

Somebody reading the players perspective and ignoring the dms (whose job always has been enabling going beyond the rules), may see more restrictions than there are.


----------



## UniversalMonster (Mar 2, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> But if you imagine people who don't go to 4e are kicking themselves out of the hobby, or becoming spectators, you are seriously fooling yourself.




Don't misunderstand me. Before 4E there were plenty of people who only played earlier editions and other games. But they also didn't spend all their time obsessing on their resentment of the current edition of D&D. So that's the real issue. 



> If you imagine that the only reason people prefer an earlier edition over 4e is nostaligia (because they were 12), you are seriously fooling yourself.




I never said this, but I do think that once people start to get upset over nitpicks of how things used to be, versus how they are-- (ie magic missile resentment) then there's a good chance the real issue isn't a game at all, but anguish over a memory. 



> If you imagine that 5e, or 6e, or 7e, cannot reject the path that 4e has forged, and appear to be closer to the original game in concept and/or rules, you are seriously fooling yourself.




The clock is never turning back.  It will never be the 1970s or the 1980s again. Retro editions certainly have their appeal, but that is based on them being retro in the first place.  



> If you are imagining that the hobby, at its core, cannot be enjoyed without WotC -- that WotC determines the course of the hobby, rather than those who play the games -- you are even more seriously fooling yourself.




Well, you are right, but perhaps you just don't understand how huge 4th edition is? How many fans there are? How much this massive community of fans are pleased by the way things are and how little they care about how things used to be? So yes, it is the fans who determine the way things are going. The fans have spoken. The fans are enjoying themselves. The fans like D&D4e just fine. 

Yes, I realize that doesn't include everyone. But most of those people who don't like 4E have fallen into the trap of thinking that resentment will get them what they want, rather than simply labeled as self-identified non-participants. THAT is what is happening.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is no objective meaning for any word or term; all meaning is inherently subjective.




Careful not to get sucked in to that wormhole you're creating, because according to you Objective is Subjective.

I get the point you're making and realize your putting some humor into it. But the point is that everyone (who understands English at least) can agree upon what a chair is and what a table is. Not everyone can agree on what "too videogamey" means. You have to obstensively take the tack you are taking to make an issue about agreed upon words. And doing it at this point just to be contrary since upthread you agree with me that honest discussion "only requires that I know what you mean, and that you know what I mean." The only way to do that is to expound beyond two word catch phrases.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Frankly, 4e does have elements that I find videogamey but you wouldn't know what they were if you shut your communication off before I elaborated on them.




This whole time Hussar and I have been asking that people elaborate. How exactly is that "shutting communication off?"


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If for no other reason, to avoid posting the same long-winded paragraphs of complaints in detail that so many will have read before, which will result in heated discussions.




Then as Umbran said, what are you adding to the discussion by posting even your short-hand rant?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> This whole time Hussar and I have been asking that people elaborate. How exactly is that "shutting communication off?"




Hussar is bringing 10 year old baggage against the term to the discussion. He's already prejudiced against the very discussion because the term "videogamey" has come up. That's not being open to communication. 

Take a look at the rest of this thread and the other one currently talking about what videogamey means. There's a lot of people (not just Hussar) who feel that saying "4e is videogamey" is trolling. If you are seriously and genuinely trying to find out what people mean by the term and open to take what they say at face value, it has become obvious that you are in the minority.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Take a look at the rest of this thread and the other one currently talking about what videogamey means. There's a lot of people (not just Hussar) who feel that saying "4e is videogamey" is trolling. If you are seriously and genuinely trying to find out what people mean by the term and open to take what they say at face value, it has become obvious that you are in the minority.




I think anyone who says "4E is videogamey" and _refuses to elaborate_ is trolling. The person probably knows that the term carries negative baggage and is trying to incite others. If the person wasn't trolling they would be able to elaborate on their opinion. And if they really aren't trying to troll, but have nothing more to say than "too videogamey" why post anything at all? As Umbran pointed out, they wouldn't be adding anything new.

Personally, I would rather people assume that I've never heard their opinion before and use plain terms to discuss an issue. If you can't be bothered to restate your opinion then why spend time posting the buzzword?


----------



## jfauch2 (Mar 2, 2010)

I think the main feeling was of betrayal by WoTC in release a game that was not what they expected, that made all of their skill sets and ideas about the game ‘out of date’ sort of like people who hate Vista/7 and still use XP or 2000.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 2, 2010)

Peter said:


> Don't misunderstand me. Before 4E there were plenty of people who only played earlier editions and other games. But they also didn't spend all their time obsessing on their resentment of the current edition of D&D. So that's the real issue.




That can be a serious issue, I agree.  Of course, the reverse is also true -- were people playing the newest edition obseesing on their resentment of those who didn't like it?



> The clock is never turning back.  It will never be the 1970s or the 1980s again. Retro editions certainly have their appeal, but that is based on them being retro in the first place.




Have you tried the Cubical 7 Doctor Who RPG?  It *could* be 1970 again..... 

Seriously, though, the appeal of retro editions, at least as far as I am concerned, is based on their design parameters.  Earlier design parameters play differently.  This is not simply a fad.

In fact, the game I am working on is a fusion between those old systems and newer systems.  Both have design parameters that I like for different reasons.



> The fans have spoken. The fans are enjoying themselves.




I am not certain of that at all.  There is an argument (Mistwell brought it up most recently in another thread, I think, and provided links to back the assertion) that 1e far outsold anything that has come along since.  There is another argument that there are more 1e players right now than there are 4e players.

I am not certain if either of these arguments is correct, or if both are just so much rubbish.....what I do know is that I haven't enough information to say that the issue is closed.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Careful not to get sucked in to that wormhole you're creating, because according to you Objective is Subjective.




No.  According to me, we very often fool ourselves into believing that subjective things are objective, because we find that comforting.

An _*object*_ can be objective.  A _*meaning*_ cannot.  The concept of meaning requires it to be subjective.



> I get the point you're making and realize your putting some humor into it. But the point is that everyone (who understands English at least) can agree upon what a chair is and what a table is. Not everyone can agree on what "too videogamey" means.




Go back up to Umbran's post for a second.

The reason that few people argue (very much) about what is or is not a chair or table is because few people are that emotionally invested in the nomenclature of furniture.  But it is precisely when one is strongly invested (emotionally, at least) that one's reasoning is most likely to be compromised.

You and I don't have to agree on what X means to have a conversation.  I just have to be open to understanding what you are trying to say, and vice versa.

The problem is not the term.  It is the emotional investment, and how that affects people's willingness to understand what others are saying.  Any term, no matter how well defined, that means the same thing will have the same problem.


RC


(Oh, and thank you for realizing that I tried to be funny.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think anyone who says "4E is videogamey" and _refuses to elaborate_ is trolling.




Not necessarily.

Some people haven't really thought deeply enough about why they think "X is Y" to elaborate effectively.  Other times, the person might view the request for elaboration as baiting; itself being a kind of trolling.

For example, if asked to elaborate the definition of X, a person might include Y, Z, A, and B as terminlogy.

The person who asked for elaboration might then sequentially ask for elaboration on Y, Z, A, and B.  This in turn requires more pharases to be defined.

Elaboration is again asked for.

Now, you and I know that, in some cases, this is legitimate enquiry.  But we also know that there are some folks, on EnWorld and elsewhere, for whom this is a method to "prove" that the entire line of reasoning is meaningless, or to simply get the party to give up on the conversation.

Circumstantially, anyone who says "4E is videogamey" and _refuses to elaborate_ may be trolling....or the person who asks for elaboration may be trolling.  Or both parties may wrongly believe the other is trolling.

It is usually better to assume the "best reading".  It is not easy, I know -- I frequently fail at doing so regardless of how hard I try.  But that is my fault, not the fault of the poster whose writing is reasonable when granted the "best reading".


RC


----------



## billd91 (Mar 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Personally, I would rather people assume that I've never heard their opinion before and use plain terms to discuss an issue. If you can't be bothered to restate your opinion then why spend time posting the buzzword?




There are a lot of people who aren't very good at posting complete and detailed positions on message boards and there are also people who get distracted from the task at hand or who end up being rushed and never get around to it. I don't think they should really be lumped in with deliberate trolls simply because they are a bit vague in their criticism. 

Honestly, we put up with a lot of vague and loose-definition-word criticism in 3e from previous edition adherents, disillusioned 3e players, and even 4e designers over the last 10 years. I think we aren't going to see a great improvement in communication skills on these boards any time in the near future without putting in the effort ourselves to make it better. And that includes the receiving end of the communication process.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not necessarily.






billd91 said:


> There are a lot of people who aren't very good at posting complete and detailed positions on message boards and there are also people who get distracted from the task at hand or who end up being rushed and never get around to it. I don't think they should really be lumped in with deliberate trolls simply because they are a bit vague in their criticism.




Fair enough on both points. It was only my opinion and I could see cases where my inclination could be proven wrong.



Raven Crowking said:


> It is usually better to assume the "best reading".  It is not easy, I know -- I frequently fail at doing so regardless of how hard I try.  But that is my fault, not the fault of the poster whose writing is reasonable when granted the "best reading".




I'm really just trying to say that I cannot give someone's post my "best reading" when all the poster spouts is a catchphrase with no substance behind it. They might as well post "3E, cowabunga dude!"



billd91 said:


> Honestly, we put up with a lot of vague and loose-definition-word criticism in 3e from previous edition adherents, disillusioned 3e players, and even 4e designers over the last 10 years. I think we aren't going to see a great improvement in communication skills on these boards any time in the near future without putting in the effort ourselves to make it better. And that includes the receiving end of the communication process.




I'm not asking for perfection. We all (yes, me too, RC) make errors in communication from time to time. I'm just positing a singular method that could help discussion. I agree with Mustrum Ridcully that there have been some very civil and enlightening discussions about how roles that are comparative to MMORPGs have effected the game, whereas threads that start as "4E is too videogamey" tend to need a lock.


----------



## DanFor (Mar 2, 2010)

I don't play 4E or WOW. But, when someone states that "4E is too videogamey", I understand what they are trying to convey--that, in their opinion, 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game. I don't require elaboration. Nor do I consider the statement to be trolling or deliberately provocative. It is merely a negative opinion.

I can understand why someone would disagree with the person's opinion, but I don't understand why anyone would be offended or make trolling accusations. I suppose a 4E fan could read between the lines and make the conclusion that the person who made the statement is insulting their intelligence, but that seems like an overreaction to me.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Mar 2, 2010)

DanFor said:


> I don't play 4E or WOW. But, when someone states that "4E is too videogamey", I understand what they are trying to convey--that, in their opinion, 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game. I don't require elaboration. Nor do I consider the statement to be trolling or deliberately provocative. It is merely a negative opinion.
> 
> I can understand why someone would disagree with the person's opinion, but I don't understand why anyone would be offended or make trolling accusations. I suppose a 4E fan could read between the lines and make the conclusion that the person who made the statement is insulting their intelligence, but that seems like an overreaction to me.




Absolutely.  And this is the crux of the whole exchange, and why this rather academic thread has turned into another endless roundabout argument.

Its probably impossible for someone to change the way they feel, but to those who have such powerful reactions to a _game_ that they like to play being called "videogamey"--no matter how the person using the term defines it personally--or the game being called anything else for that matter, I'd like to ask:  why have such a strong emotional reaction?

Its been suggested numerous times in this thread that of one assumes the best out of the poster, and engages in dialogue, instead of accusation, then...well...dialogue may actually occur.

And if it actually turns out that the person who labeled 4e "videogamey" meant it as an insult to people who enjoy 4e, (a stance no intelligent person would put forth), then again I ask:  why have such a strong emotional reaction?  


You are not the game you play.


----------



## Merkuri (Mar 2, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> why have such a strong emotional reaction?
> 
> You are not the game you play.




Is it worth going into _why_ people have such strong emotional attachments to their game/edition of choice to the point where they get upset when they think someobdy is belittling their system?  I think that has a lot to do with what's at stake in the edition wars.

I've heard stories in this thread and elsewhere about friendships breaking up or threatening to break up over 3e versus 4e, and this makes me sad.  After all, D&D is just a game, right?

Why do we get so emotionally attached to RPGs?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 2, 2010)

I would like to say at this point that what REALLY seems to be at stake hinges on how many pages this thread can go before crashing the server.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 2, 2010)

jfauch2 said:


> I think the main feeling was of betrayal by WoTC in release a game that was not what they expected, that made all of their skill sets and ideas about the game ‘out of date’ sort of like people who hate Vista/7 and still use XP or 2000.




Yep.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

DanFor said:


> I understand what they are trying to convey--that, in their opinion, 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game.




I've read this explanation many times. I don't understand what you mean when you say that 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game. For one, immediately I must ask what constitutes a "PNP roleplaying game" to you such that 4E can fall somewhere inbetween videogame and PNP.

I think another possible reason so many people here on ENWorld react negatively against this criticism is that many of us here are DMs (evidenced by prior ENWorld polls). Computer roleplaying games are run by pre-programmed artificial intelligences at best. Are you saying that 4E DMs are pre-programmed bots that can't think outside their programming like DMs of other editions could?

I am asking for a serious explanation of what you mean. I promise I am not baiting as RC thinks some people are.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 2, 2010)

You are aware, I assume, that Monte Cook is on record as saying that removing the DM from the equation, as far as possible, was a design goal of 3e?  That he believed that they went too far?  That he believed that 3.5 went further along that path?

(If not, you missed some "may you live in interesting times" posts about 3e.  Lucky Vyvyan!)

I don't think it is any surprise that some might feel that 4e take that mandate even farther.  *I am not saying that this is objectively what occurred*, merely that I am not surprised that some people "read" it that way.


EDIT:  If you are not aware of it, there are threads on other sites where people discuss threads on EN World, including how they're going to post here to bait people, or how they have posted here to bait people in the past.  

Luckily, EN World has excellent moderation overall, and those who telegraph what they are doing are shut down pretty quickly.  You should be aware that it happens, though, and try not to let yourself be baited.

Hopefully, your Will save is better than mine.  I used Wisdom as my dump stat.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 2, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I would like to say at this point that what REALLY seems to be at stake hinges on how many pages this thread can go before crashing the server.




Is there a pool?  Closest without going over wins?


----------



## MrGrenadine (Mar 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Are you saying that 4E DMs are pre-programmed bots that can't think outside their programming like DMs of other editions could?




Saying the rule set is "videogamey" has nothing to do with DMs or players.  Honestly.  I play 4e with one of the best DMs I have ever met, with an outstanding group of people I look forward to seeing once a week, but I also think 4e is more like a videogame--and I'm not talking about character roles and healing surges.

What I mean when I use the term is that the powers-based system feels very constricting, and...well, finite.  It feels, in fact, like the game world has been limited by the rule set, whereas prior editions felt freer, more inclusive, and like the action was limited by only one's imagination (and maybe crappy dice rolls).  

To explain:  My 7th level 4e cleric only has a dozen different powers, period--including spell-like and martial/physical powers.  And some of those powers he can only use once a day, period.  Yes, in prior editions, my cleric would have limited access to some spells, but if I wanted to, I could memorize the same spell for every available slot, or memorize all different spells, or some combination, and then change them up after a rest--in other words, I had more choices.  Yes, in previous editions, spamming "I swing my sword" was not the height of fun, but that is not how I played, so that wasn't an issue for me personally.  Yes, some people used spell casters in prior editions to stomp on other characters rolls, but I never played that way, so that wasn't an issue for me, either.  And yes, some spells were overpowered and could be used in ways that shut down the fun, but thats not my experience either.

And yes--I know about page 42!  It think page 42 is terrific, but its use is entirely at the DM's discretion, and for some of us, its not an easy answer to the issue of feeling limited.


So, in short, to some of us, the powers based system feels limited in a way that is akin to the more understandably and logically "finite" worlds of computer or video games, which are based on calculations and if-thens and _quantifiable_ conditions that need to be tracked and accounted for.  You can't have infinite choice in a computer game, and this is fine, but TTRPGs don't have to be finite, since the action is basically made up on the spot, and the other people around the table can act and react however they wish in an organic way.  

So, to me, the infinite and limitless _feel_ of TTRPGs that _seem_ to be bounded only by our imaginations is preferable to the _feeling_ of being told "you can pick from this short list of things to do".


I understand that what I've outlined here is not 100% accurate 100% of the time for 100% of gamers, but I hope it clears up where some of us are coming from.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 2, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> So, in short, to some of us, the powers based system feels limited in a way that is akin to the more understandably and logically "finite" worlds of computer or video games, which are based on calculations and if-thens and _quantifiable_ conditions that need to be tracked and accounted for.




Thank you for explaining. I do see this as a problem that occurs in some games. We've had discussions here on ENWorld about how to break players out of the box of thinking that powers are the only choice of actions they can take. I've made an effort myself as DM to make options outside of the power structure accessible to my players by tying them into the rules. That way they can better quantify their choices and have their characters act more like real people in the world.

This is the type of discussion that I think makes ENWorld a better place. I've had this discussion before and never saw anyone connect it to the term videogamey. It's a civil conversation even if the other side of the conversation dislikes 4E enough not to play it for these reasons.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 2, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> And if it actually turns out that the person who labeled 4e "videogamey" meant it as an insult to people who enjoy 4e, (a stance no intelligent person would put forth), then again I ask:  why have such a strong emotional reaction?



I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect the insulted party to be responsible for keeping the peace by ignoring obvious insults, especially in a place where they normally come to relax and have a good time. I'm not saying we have to fetishize our emotions to the point where any insult is an excuse for all-out retaliation, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be angry at an intentional insult or to hold the insultor responsible for being a <you know what>.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 2, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> Saying the rule set is "videogamey" has nothing to do with DMs or players.



Agreed 100%.  And I'll even go further and say that applies to pretty much every complaint or praise I have about any RPG.
Good RP, good players, good DMs, etc, etc.... all add to the overall quality of a gaming experience.  And "bad" [all of the above] detract from the quality.

When discussing the merits or failings of a certain game, the conversation really needs to be about the mechanics of that game.  To me, saying that GURPS is just as good as Mutants and Masterminds because you roleplay the same in either system is about as meaningful a statement as claiming they are both just as good because the sun rises in the east the next day no matter which game you play.  

The mechanics may be a very small factor in the level of fun achieved by a group.  I certainly would not claim it is likely to be the controlling factor.  But I do not go buy my group off a shelf.  When I am deciding between game A and game B, the contents between the covers are the basis of choice.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 2, 2010)

Ourph said:


> I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect the insulted party to be responsible for keeping the peace by ignoring obvious insults, especially in a place where they normally come to relax and have a good time. I'm not saying we have to fetishize our emotions to the point where any insult is an excuse for all-out retaliation, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be angry at an intentional insult or to hold the insultor responsible for being a <you know what>.




On the contrary, the forum rules do expect it, at least with respect to civil posts of your own. If you have a problem with an insulting post, report it.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> On the contrary, the forum rules do expect it, at least with respect to civil posts of your own. If you have a problem with an insulting post, report it.



It's not contrary to my point at all. Note that I said we shouldn't use our emotional responses to justify retaliation. However, the forum rules don't say "Ignore any insults directed your way. You should just force yourself to not have an emotional response to them." because that's not a reasonable response for someone who comes to ENworld to enjoy themselves. The forum rules hold the insultor responsible and ask that the insulted party handle their emotional response (anger, frustration, what have you) in a way that won't disrupt the forum by reporting it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think anyone who says "4E is videogamey" and _refuses to elaborate_ is trolling.




I disagree, for a multitude of previously stated reasons, the most important being that elaboration gains us nothing.

The only thing that elaboration gives us is a fuse to a little powderkeg.  When you try to debate someone about their personal perception of a mechanic, you will never be able to convince them they should think otherwise.

And that being the case, why initiate the debate?



DanFor said:


> I don't play 4E or WOW. But, when someone states that "4E is too videogamey", I understand what they are trying to convey--that, in their opinion, 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game. I don't require elaboration. Nor do I consider the statement to be trolling or deliberately provocative. It is merely a negative opinion.




Exactly.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> What I mean when I use the term is that the powers-based system feels very constricting, and...well, finite. It feels, in fact, like the game world has been limited by the rule set, whereas prior editions felt freer, more inclusive, and like the action was limited by only one's imagination (and maybe crappy dice rolls).




But, then, why not say that?  That's perfectly clear, honest and totally understandable.  "I feel that 4e mechanics are too restrictive on my imagination" isn't really something that people can get too fussed about.  And you can certainly back up that opinion with examples of why you feel that way.

But, "4e feels like a videogame" only tells me that you don't like 4e.  So does, "I don't like 4e".  Again, what is gained?  



			
				DannyA said:
			
		

> I disagree, for a multitude of previously stated reasons, the most important being that elaboration gains us nothing.
> 
> The only thing that elaboration gives us is a fuse to a little powderkeg. When you try to debate someone about their personal perception of a mechanic, you will never be able to convince them they should think otherwise.
> 
> And that being the case, why initiate the debate?




Precisely.  Why state it in the first place if you do not wish to engage in discussion?  Why state "4e is videogamey" if all it is is a negative opinion that cannot be changed by evidence or discussion? 

Is the point of posting something to a message board to engage in discussion?  But, if your opinion cannot be changed, then you no longer want discussion, you only want vindication.  

IOW if your point is so carved in stone that it cannot even be elaborated on, why bother in the first place?  What purpose does it serve?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 3, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I remember that we (not you and me, "we" EN Worlders) had a lot of discussion about the entire encounter power/balance paradigm 4E highlighted. It was interesting and enlightening in many ways, but I still wonder how much we got "wrong" due to our lack of knowledge of the actual system.



Ah, the memories come flooding back . . .

And the point you go on to make are all good ones, although to be fair to some of us I think the idea that the intricacies of encounter play would be a source of pleasure in the game, as much as (or even to an extent instead of) variety in powers, was at least mooted in some of those threads.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Precisely.  Why state it in the first place if you do not wish to engage in discussion?  Why state "4e is videogamey" if all it is is a negative opinion that cannot be changed by evidence or discussion?
> 
> Is the point of posting something to a message board to engage in discussion?  But, if your opinion cannot be changed, then you no longer want discussion, you only want vindication.
> 
> IOW if your point is so carved in stone that it cannot even be elaborated on, why bother in the first place?  What purpose does it serve?




Why post it?  For honesty & completeness.  Vindication has nothing to do with it.

If someone asks me what I dislike about 4Ed, I'll give them an honest answer, and among the many things I could list, I will say that its too videogamey.

Now, some of the things I list will be about mechanic/fluff changes that I disagree with for truly debatable reasons.

However, a pure gut feel that the game is too videogamey for me is both 1) a very real aspect of the game I dislike, thus a valid thing for me to list among my dislikes and 2) an emotional/perceptual assessment that is essentially inarguable; generally, it is not accessible to alteration through debate.

The ones seeking vindication are those who want to debate perceptions and then say "See, you were wrong about this and I'm right!"

Say, for instance someone had said "I dislike 4Ed because its too dead-grampaw-y." and you asked for them to explain.

And they post some horror story about their dead grampaw and its convoluted and- to you- only tenuous connection to the deceased, what good will your posts about "You know, 4Ed isn't really connected to your dead grampaw, and here's why...", what kind of reaction do you expect to get?  Do you think you're going to convince them that they're wrong, that you'll succeed in getting them to divest themselves of this connection?

Unless you're their psychologist, such a result is highly improbable.

And, while far less charged, the nature of the discussion of someone's videogamey perceptions is also unlikely to go anywhere useful.

IOW, note the objection, recognize it for what it is, and move on to those areas that are truly debatable- how to make combats less grindy, how to convert PCs or other elements from earlier editions, how to design new HR powers/classes/races while maintaining balance, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I've read this explanation many times. I don't understand what you mean when you say that 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game.



I think part of the explanation is that there are (judging from these forums, at least) a fairly large number of D&D players who are not especially familiar with developments in game design, driven by "indie" games, which 4e has incorporated to a signficant extent into D&D.

Not recognising those changes, and the sort of play they are intended to promote, and the way in which the players at the table are expected to use those mechanics, they make the "videogamey" accuation. To use healing surges as an example, if you play hit points and healing surges as simulationist mechanics, then of course the game will feel absurdly gonzo and video-gamey. If you use them in the way that I assume was intended, however, then you get something much closer to traditional D&D in flavour (heroes who have deep reserves of luck and endurance that enable them to avoid major injury and fight on through minor injury) although with a new mechanic designed to centre the gameplay around the encounter rather than the adventure as a whole.

Unfortunately, there is very little text in either the PHB or DMG for 4e explaining how the designers intend the game to be played. DMG2 is better in this respect.



Raven Crowking said:


> You are aware, I assume, that Monte Cook is on record as saying that removing the DM from the equation, as far as possible, was a design goal of 3e?  That he believed that they went too far?  That he believed that 3.5 went further along that path?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't think it is any surprise that some might feel that 4e take that mandate even farther.  *I am not saying that this is objectively what occurred*, merely that I am not surprised that some people "read" it that way.





MrGrenadine said:


> And yes--I know about page 42!  It think page 42 is terrific, but its use is entirely at the DM's discretion, and for some of us, its not an easy answer to the issue of feeling limited.



This is part of what I mean when I say the 4e PHB and DMG do not do a very good job of explaining how the game should be played. It is crucial for the game to work at the story level (and thus avoid the video-gamey, spamming, absurd gonzo feel) that the GM be _obliged_ to use p 42 frequently. It is no more discretionary than is the GM following the AC and to-hit rules. Again, DMG2 is better in this respect but is still far from ideal (compared for example to Robin Laws similar but much more detailed and elaborated presentation of this sort of stuff in the HeroQuest 2e rulebook).



Garthanos said:


> In 4e the player is encouraged to visualize the infinite choices the character can take in terms of that more finite set of mechanics and differentiate them narratively...Character says I can sing thousands of songs but the Player looks at the character sheet  which only lists ... "Rock Blues" and "Hot Dance". . The character may want to do something plausible like do a romantic dance it isnt in the characters specialties but seems obvious to the player and DM it is plausible. So the DM excercises her job..and uses page 42 to extend the games mechanics ie to stretch or take off the lid
> 
> ... he has less job than he used to involving converting from narrative to simple mechanics a lot of those have been given to the player, but his job of being an enabler for going beyond the explicit rules is now even more important. And there are actual guidelines for it.. Page 42 is used as a short cut reference for this but it is not limited to being expressed on pages 42/43, that say "yes, but.." philosophy applies directly to the idea of opening up the mechanics .. and DMG guidelines encourage doing it in a controlled sort of way.
> 
> Somebody reading the players perspective and ignoring the dms (whose job always has been enabling going beyond the rules), may see more restrictions than there are.



Entirely agreed. Unfortunately in my view none of the rulebooks explains it as well as this post does.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

Here's a thought.

Instead of us continuing to go around and around about the definitions of videogamey and why they need to be spelled out instead of using the umbrella term, why don't some of those who demand the increased clarity try taking a single definition that's been posted in this thread or the current Videogamey thread and actually try posting a forked thread detailing why that particular definition is not the case?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Here's a thought.
> 
> Instead of us continuing to go around and around about the definitions of videogamey and why they need to be spelled out instead of using the umbrella term, why don't some of those who demand the increased clarity try taking a single definition that's been posted in this thread or the current Videogamey thread and actually try posting a forked thread detailing why that particular definition is not the case?




Because that's not the problem?  It's not the problem that one particular definition is "wrong".  The problem is that there are multiple definitions, any one or more of which could be applicable in a given context.

It's not that videogamey is wrong.  It's that it's very, very vague.

But, I do like the suggestion that any more discussion of terminology be taken over to the other thread. 

Earlier upthread a number of people stated that what's at stake for them is veracity.  That there are a number of criticisms floating around that are just not grounded in fact.  In the Where's My Freaking Mule thread, we find the following:



Celebrim said:


> Mules are unheroic.
> 
> As are torches, rope, iron spikes, sacks, chalk, 10' poles, flint & tender, iron rations, more rope, mirrors, sprigs of wolfsbane, and garlic.  Since you don't need any of these things cluttering up your character sheet, you don't need a mule carrying them, much less porters, torcher bearers, drovers or teamsters for carrying the stuff in and out of the howling wilderness.  Nobody ever used that stuff anyway because they all used heroic type IV bags of holding (available for heros to purchase at local general goods stores), and if they did use mules and such anyway, it's all badwrongfun.
> 
> I resist your attempts to rain on my 4e loving parade.   Get back to the 70's and 80's were wierdo's like you belong.




Which is pretty much a fairly standard (IMO anyway) broadside in an edition war thread.  Yet, later on we get:



darjr said:


> Uhm...
> 
> Hempen rope (50ft) - players handbook
> Silken rope (50ft) - players handbook
> ...




Which, to me anyway, is how a lot of edition war threads go.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Because that's not the problem?  It's not the problem that one particular definition is "wrong".  The problem is that there are multiple definitions, any one or more of which could be applicable in a given context.
> 
> It's not that videogamey is wrong.  It's that it's very, very vague.




Its no more vague than any other word with multiple definitions- you can usually discern its meaning from the context.

Here, you can't use context to determine the exact use of the word, but the problem is that all or nearly all of the definitions are irrefutable due to their being descriptive of personal emotional/perceptive reactions to the game...which renders specificity moot.

There's nothing to discuss because you'll just end up circling each other ad infinitum.

Its akin to when all those piracy threads that would pop up, and I'd break out my Black's Law Dictionary and I'd post a definition of "Theft"- a word with many definitions.  And despite seeing legal definitions of theft that covered IP piracy/copyright infringement, etc., nobody was convinced otherwise.  The specificity didn't matter to those who attempted to argue that piracy shouldn't be criminal.  They were not making legal arguments, they were making assertions of perception, "us-vs-them", class struggle, entitlement and emotion.

My BP would boil and I'd get headaches.

My solution was 2 parted: I pretty much stopped reading/posting in such threads, and when it pops up elsewhere, I just note it and keep on going because I know that nothing I can say- over the internet, at least- will change that person's mind.



> But, I do like the suggestion that any more discussion of terminology be taken over to the other thread.




Agreed- I'll leave off the discussion of "videogamey" to the videogamey thread, especially in the light of recent postings.

If anyone has further things to address to me personally regarding this, just quote the passage and cross-post it there.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 3, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> I've heard stories in this thread and elsewhere about friendships breaking up or threatening to break up over 3e versus 4e, and this makes me sad.  After all, D&D is just a game, right?
> 
> Why do we get so emotionally attached to RPGs?




Why do we (the broad "we", meaning humans) riot in the streets, burning sofas, damaging the property of random people and sending others to the hospital when our favorite sports team loses?

Why do we do _exactly the same thing_ when our favorite team _wins_?

Those are just games, too.  Even more surprising - we aren't the ones playing!  Why are we emotionally attached to teams and get so worked up over their performance (or lack thereof)?

We are willing to take sides and become... horridly unreasonable about a great many things.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

A psychology professor once said to me:

"People like to think of humans as thinking, rational beings with emotions, when its closer to the truth to say we are emotional beings who can be rational.  Sometimes."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Its no more vague than any other word with multiple definitions- you can usually discern its meaning from the context.
> 
> Here, you can't use context to determine the exact use of the word, but the problem is that all or nearly all of the definitions are irrefutable due to their being descriptive of personal emotional/perceptive reactions to the game...which renders specificity moot.






> When you try to debate someone about their personal perception of a  mechanic, you will never be able to convince them they should think  otherwise.




I simply disagree here, due to my own experiences with "emotional perception". 

I disliked Startrek Deep Space Nine. It was not like Startrek - The Next Generation. I didn't "get it". Then I got a book "Making of Startrek Deep Space Nine". And I learned not just technical details, but also the philosophy behind the story, the different style it had, the story-telling concepts. And suddenly I "got it" and I loved it. Yes, even the first two seasons before the Dominion appeared on the scene. Today, it remains my favorite Startrek Show.

We can't argue with how you feel. But you can try to explain to you how a mechanic can be used (maybe as intendended by the designers, maybe just in a way you might prefer), or describe how we feel about it and why. And you can "get it" too. Maybe. No guarantees. But even if it doesn't work for you, it might work for someone else with similar concerns...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> We can't argue with how you feel. But you can try to explain to you how a mechanic can be used (maybe as intendended by the designers, maybe just in a way you might prefer), or describe how we feel about it and why. And you can "get it" too. Maybe. No guarantees. But even if it doesn't work for you, it might work for someone else with similar concerns...




Except, IME, that that is never what people who are discussing someone's use of "videogamey" are trying to do.  _Each and every time _I've seen the discussion, its been about how that perception is *wrong*, and they try to show why its *wrong*, how such an assertion is factually incorrect- with examples- and so forth.

Just like Majoru Oakheart complained- properly- that some people used the term as an insult and it pissed him off, that reflexive posting to "correct" someone's perceptions can be just as insulting.

*I don't care* about how many other things Healing Surges can be used for other than for healing *at all*- that initial underlying use is what bugs me, what reminds me of video games.  The only way it wouldn't is by its excision from the game.

(And let me be perfectly clear: despite what I just wrote there, I could easily see a game- even a P&P RPG- in which this mechanic was used that I would enjoy.  I just don't want that mechanic in my D&D.)

*My buddies don't care* about how marking and aggro work in 4Ed *at all*- their inclusion in the game is what bugs them, what reminds them of video games.  They like those in MMORPGs, but have no desire to use them at the table.

Its a matter of taste.  Some people like the combo of peanut butter and chocolate.  Some people like both flavors individually, but don't like them combined.

Those who are complaining of the videogamey aspects of 4Ed are mainly complaining about taste.  By harping on why this or that isn't "videogamey", how they ought to rethink or consider how others have used those elements, you might as well be telling them to sit down and enjoy their chocolate covered jalapeno stuffed turdmuffins.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 3, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am not certain of that at all.  There is an argument (Mistwell brought it up most recently in another thread, I think, and provided links to back the assertion) that 1e far outsold anything that has come along since.  There is another argument that there are more 1e players right now than there are 4e players.



To this I can only offer my own-eyes evidence:

Currently in our extended crew there are 19 players/DMs.

11 are active in at least one Victoria Rules (1e-variant) game.
11 are active in at least one 3.x-e game.
(3 are active in both and are thus counted twice)

I do not know anybody who is currently active in either a 2e or a 4e game.

As for the term "video-gamey", what it says to me is here is a game where you have the *illusion* of being able to do anything, but in fact you are still limited by what the programmers allowed for; and that sooner or later you're inevitably going to hit the end of the program and realize that no, there are in fact things you think you ought to be able to do but cannot.

A good example might be a car-race video game - you're racing around on a track, and it occurs to you that in real life you'd be able to try driving across the grass as a shortcut; so you try, but the program can't handle you getting more than x distance away from the track...or turning off the track and driving away down the street...and so you run into an invisible wall.  

Pen-and-paper games don't have the invisible walls.

Lanefan


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A psychology professor once said to me:
> 
> "People like to think of humans as thinking, rational beings with emotions, when its closer to the truth to say we are emotional beings who can be rational.  Sometimes."




Sounds right to me.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Except, IME, that that is never what people who are discussing someone's use of "videogamey" are trying to do.  _Each and every time _I've seen the discussion, its been about how that perception is *wrong*, and they try to show why its *wrong*, how such an assertion is factually incorrect- with examples- and so forth.




My experience varies. We have had discussions here on ENWorld based on the specifics of "videogamey" aspects that go very well. No one trying to prove the other wrong. Just people sharing their views on the subject. Every time I've seen it go south is when someone cries "Videogamey!" without elaborating their views. And usually this is because the main definition I think people make of "videogamey" is Lanefan's "off the track" example. Any "walls" I've encountered in any edition of any PNP RPG game I've played are put there by the GM, not the rules.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> *I don't care* about how many other things Healing Surges can be used for other than for healing *at all*- that initial underlying use is what bugs me, what reminds me of video games.  The only way it wouldn't is by its excision from the game.
> 
> (And let me be perfectly clear: despite what I just wrote there, I could easily see a game- even a P&P RPG- in which this mechanic was used that I would enjoy.  I just don't want that mechanic in my D&D.)
> 
> *My buddies don't care* about how marking and aggro work in 4Ed *at all*- their inclusion in the game is what bugs them, what reminds them of video games.  They like those in MMORPGs, but have no desire to use them at the table.




See? You've explained the aspects you find "videogamey" instead of just using the term. And your definition is *completely* different from Lanefan's. I agree that there is no counterpoint to _your_ definition of "videogamey" because it is a matter of personal taste. Whereas Lanefan's definition applies an attribute to the game I disagree with and I stated my opinion in that regard. With more discussion we may discover what "walls" Lanefan is finding in 4E. And further discussion of how to remove those walls may not help Lanefan enjoy the game, but might help a player of 4E with similar issues enjoy the game more. I'm not trying to prove anyone "wrong."



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Those who are complaining of the videogamey aspects of 4Ed are mainly complaining about taste.  By harping on why this or that isn't "videogamey", how they ought to rethink or consider how others have used those elements, you might as well be telling them to sit down and enjoy their chocolate covered jalapeno stuffed turdmuffins.




But it's when you relate a particular game or edition to a "chocolate covered jalapeno stuffed turdmuffin" that you start edition wars. Just because one person doesn't like something doesn't make it a "turdmuffin."


----------



## MrGrenadine (Mar 3, 2010)

D&D is too turdmuffiny.

From now on, I'm sticking with a modified GURPS/FATAL hybrid I created, using Schrodinger's Cat as the core mechanic.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 3, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> From now on, I'm sticking with a modified GURPS/FATAL hybrid I created, using Schrodinger's Cat as the core mechanic.



Frankly, Schrodinger's Cat is dead to me.  Do not want.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 3, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Frankly, Schrodinger's Cat is dead to me.





Only because you peeked.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 3, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> To this I can only offer my own-eyes evidence:



This is cool, but (as you said) wholly anecdotal. I have the opposite experience with 4e. I suspect that an area's edition preference often revolves around the skill and preference of the people organizing and running games; a superb GM running system X will mean that a disproportionate number of players in that area will also be playing that system.

This suggest to me that as D&D advances editions, more fragmentation is inevitable regardless of the quality of any future editions. I think 3e might have been an aberration, converting more groups than could be expected because it was a great game at a time when 2e was dying.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> *I don't care* about how many other things Healing Surges can be used for other than for healing *at all*- that initial underlying use is what bugs me, what reminds me of video games.




Where people are limited to the number of potions they can boost with in  a time period because those potions boost natural potentials (like real medicines) instead of  replacing them... where healing rate is proportionate to the vigor of the subject instead  of inversely proportionate that is realistic to me.

You must play some weird videogames... never seen a healing surge or anything like it in a video game... most all of them use the limitless potion drop technique or slave npc healer.

Are you going to start pretending D&D hit points are significant real wounds? talk about a fallacy - on second thought lets not.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I suspect that an area's edition preference often revolves around the skill and preference of the people organizing and running games; a superb GM running system X will mean that a disproportionate number of players in that area will also be playing that system.





I would be extremely surprised if you were wrong in this.


RC


----------



## Maggan (Mar 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> This is cool, but (as you said) wholly anecdotal.




I'll offer up another. When D&D3e came out, and the whole time while it was published, I was a regular at one of Sweden's largest dedicated RPG forums.

The amount of bickering over D&D in all its form was intense and widespread. D&D players were a minority (D&D has never been that big in Sweden). Indie and indigenous games dominated.

After 4e was released, there was a watershed. Now it seems every Jack and Jill on that forum is playing D&D4. Sometimes it feels like every single one picked it up, tried it and continued to play.

I don't feel special anymore ... 

/M


----------



## Pinotage (Mar 3, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I disliked Startrek Deep Space Nine. It was not like Startrek - The Next Generation. I didn't "get it". Then I got a book "Making of Startrek Deep Space Nine". And I learned not just technical details, but also the philosophy behind the story, the different style it had, the story-telling concepts. And suddenly I "got it" and I loved it. Yes, even the first two seasons before the Dominion appeared on the scene. Today, it remains my favorite Startrek Show.




Seven out of Nine times I liked Voyager more than Deep Space Nine! 

Pinotage


----------



## UniversalMonster (Mar 3, 2010)

Here's another anecdote: The Warhorn site for my (weekly- Thursday evening) local Living Realms meetup has 108 names on it. Not everyone shows up every night, and not everyone even bothers to sign up. 

At least 2-3 tables (usually 3, sometimes as many as 5)happen every single week. That's a range of 9 players to as many as 30+. I think the average is more like 15-18 people. 

I am not counting the the two NON LFR 4E campaigns that play on the same night, each of which has 4-7 players on any given Thursday. 

It's all anecdotal I'm sure, but to deny this is happening on a wide scale level is to deny reality itself.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Frankly, Schrodinger's Cat is dead to me.  Do not want.



Your face is video-gamey.


----------



## DanFor (Mar 3, 2010)

Peter said:


> Here's another anecdote: The Warhorn site for my (weekly- Thursday evening) local Living Realms meetup has 108 names on it. Not everyone shows up every night, and not everyone even bothers to sign up.
> 
> At least 2-3 tables (usually 3, sometimes as many as 5)happen every single week. That's a range of 9 players to as many as 30+. I think the average is more like 15-18 people.
> 
> ...




The Editions War is a splintered cohort.
The Editions War is snark and platitudes.
The Editions War is WOW comparisons and New Coke analogies.

The Editions War is also anectodal "evidence" and attempts to define reality. My experience contradicts your experience, so I reject your effort to impose your version of reality on me.

But, I still respect you.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 3, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Frankly, Schrodinger's Cat is dead to me.  Do not want.




Well, that's the problem with the SchroCat core rules - about half the people who open the book have a lively experience, the other half are like yourself.  I'm told that if you never actually open it, you get mixed results.

I'd draw a comparison to the HeisenSystem, but I'm not sure where I'd be going with that analogy...


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> . I think 3e might have been an aberration, converting more groups than could be expected because it was a great game....*snip*




*IS* a great game.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 3, 2010)

Way back when Wizards introduced its first new D&D game, along with new licenses, Ryan Dancey (IIRC) set out a theory of added value based on "network externalities".

Maybe some people who bought into that new D&D also bought into that theory of value.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 3, 2010)

Ourph said:


> I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect the insulted party to be responsible for keeping the peace by ignoring obvious insults, ...




The problem is that a lot of the time (especially in the videogamey example you were responding to) the problem is that people *choose to take offence* at things which are not actual insults.

If someone calls you a *&($£ then they are insulting you. If they say that 4e/3e/whatever is stupid, they are not insulting you.

It is important that people recognise the difference.

Cheers


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 3, 2010)

I will say this:  My opinion of 4e, *right now*, is a lot better than it was after the initial release.  And a lot of that is due to people who were willing to discuss problems that I had without taking those problems as personal attacks.

A number of these same people started out "taking sides" (or, at least, that's how I read their responses), but either they grew over the course of the conversation or I did, because by the end it seems that we had things of value to say to each other.

(Most of you know who you are, because I've given XP when I could.)

Shutting down the conversation *never* accomplishes that.


RC


----------



## Ourph (Mar 3, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> If someone calls you a *&( then they are insulting you. If they say that 4e/3e/whatever is stupid, they are not insulting you.




To be clear, the post I was responding to postulated a hypothetical situation in which the use of the word "videogamey" was intentionally used as an insult to people who play the game by the person using the term.


----------



## korjik (Mar 3, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, that's the problem with the SchroCat core rules - about half the people who open the book have a lively experience, the other half are like yourself. I'm told that if you never actually open it, you get mixed results.
> 
> I'd draw a comparison to the HeisenSystem, but I'm not sure where I'd be going with that analogy...




I remember that game. The more I learned the rules, the harder it was to find a place to play.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 4, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But it's when you relate a particular game or edition to a "chocolate covered jalapeno stuffed turdmuffin" that you start edition wars. Just because one person doesn't like something doesn't make it a "turdmuffin."




That's not what I said.

What I said was that if you keep trying to refute their personal perceptions with debate and logic, you might as well be telling them to try chocolate covered jalepano stuffed turdmuffins.  Its game _elements_, not the game itself. 

The turdmuffins, in this case are the game elements that you keep telling them are just fine when in fact they dislike them intensely.  Or more accurately, the elements become more and more turdmuffinlike in my mind the more someone tells me to try them this way or that way, or even worse, "you're not thinking about them the right way- the designers idea was ____________."  Welcome to Turdmuffinistan!

To tone down the example a bit- I wrote it that way because I'd had enough of people telling me to try chocolate covered jalepano stuffed turdmuffins for the day- imagine trying to convince a 4 year old to eat asparagus and/or brussels sprouts after they've already complained "They taste nasty!"  (And have, in fact, tasted the veggies.)

No matter how much you tell that kid to try that asparagus, you're going to meet resistance because he's already made up his mind.

Now, its possible he may change his opinion some time in the future- usually if he experiments with them of his own free will.  But every time you try to feed the kid asparagus, you're in for a war.

When it comes to things like Healing Surges and other videogamey mechanics, I'll paraphrase the words of Theodore Geisel, "I do not want them in the box, I do not want them with a fox, I do not want them, 4Ed lovers, now try to change the views of others."


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Mar 4, 2010)

~ comment removed by Admin. If you think something might be offensive, don't say it please ~

Sorry...didn't mean to be offensive... but


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 4, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Whereas Lanefan's definition applies an attribute to the game I disagree with and I stated my opinion in that regard. With more discussion we may discover what "walls" Lanefan is finding in 4E.



You're assuming I was defining the term specifically in relation to 4e, which is not the case.  That said, though I don't play 4e I have the first round of core books and a few of the adventures; and IMHO there's certainly a few areas where the rules *are* the invisible wall because they get in the way between me and what I want from the game. (a few quick examples: the large gap between commoner/minion and 1st-level; intentional design decision not to simulate reality where possible; too-fast healing, etc.)







> And further discussion of how to remove those walls may not help Lanefan enjoy the game, but might help a player of 4E with similar issues enjoy the game more. I'm not trying to prove anyone "wrong."



Fair enough, and well said.

Lan-"rules are like hockey referees: at their best when unnoticed"-efan


----------



## Maggan (Mar 4, 2010)

DanFor said:


> My experience contradicts your experience, so I reject your effort to impose your version of reality on me.




I think this is an interesting comment, even if made in jest.

To me, there is no need to reject your reality, and substitute it with my own. In reality, both (and many more) realities can exist at the same time.

For one person, D&D4e is the bee's knees and everyone is playing it, and for another, no one is playing it. And both situations can co-exist.

The trouble comes from people trying to extrapolate one isolated situation and claim that this is the norm and the whole of reality. And then it is further complicated when that extrapolation is used to underscore an argument that one edition or the other rules supreme.

I endeavour to talk about my experiences, and what I see around me. I try as hard as I can NOT to extrapolate those experiences and claim that my picture of things is the true reality.

That way, all I say about e.g. D&D4e is way less inflammatory, for I claim to speak for no one but myself.

My reality is the same reality you live in, but the weather here is different from the weather at your place. So is gaming.

/M


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's not what I said.




Sorry, I wasn't clear in that I was not attributing this sentiment to you. I was merely using your euphimism as a way to point out how someone takes the criticism too far and insults fans of a particular game.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> To tone down the example a bit- I wrote it that way because I'd had enough of people telling me to try chocolate covered jalepano stuffed turdmuffins for the day- imagine trying to convince a 4 year old to eat asparagus and/or brussels sprouts after they've already complained "They taste nasty!"  (And have, in fact, tasted the veggies.) No matter how much you tell that kid to try that asparagus, you're going to meet resistance because he's already made up his mind. Now, its possible he may change his opinion some time in the future- usually if he experiments with them of his own free will.  But every time you try to feed the kid asparagus, you're in for a war.




Using children in your analogy hurts the analogy because as a father of two wonderful boys I know that children are extremely difficult to reason with. If I instead use your example with adults I could get this exchange (as I actually have IRL):

Adult 1: I hate brussel sprouts!
Adult 2: Why don't you like them?
Adult 1: They're bitter and nasty.
Adult 2: How have you had them cooked?
Adult 1: Boiled.
Adult 2: Try frying them with seasoning and butter, baking them with this seasoning, or even roasting them on the grill.
<Later>
Adult 1: I tried frying the brussel sprouts.
Adult 2: How'd you like them?
Adult 1: Surprisingly good!

Just like someone who currently dislikes 4E for certain reasons may hear of a way that others who play but dislike the same aspects of the game have made changes to arrive at the feel they desire. Or they may "fry 4E" and still not like it.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> When it comes to things like Healing Surges and other videogamey mechanics, I'll paraphrase the words of Theodore Geisel, "I do not want them in the box, I do not want them with a fox, I do not want them, 4Ed lovers, now try to change the views of others."




I can't speak for others, but I'm not trying to change anyone's views of 4E when I talk about it. I'm just sharing my opinion.



Lanefan said:


> You're assuming I was defining the term specifically in relation to 4e, which is not the case.




Sorry, again I was only using your analogy and did not mean to imply that that was your view on 4E.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> When it comes to things like Healing Surges and other videogamey mechanics...




What videogames use Healing Surges? I've seen it posited that fighting games use those, but I've played many of those over the years and don't remember Healing Surges. I do remember something very similar to Healing Surges in Earthdawn, and being a huge fan of that game I didn't find the inclusion in 4E to cause me any hiccups.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 4, 2010)

It seems to me that edition wars usually start with someone making a "badwrongfun" attack.

That can take one of two forms. The first (and I think more common) is fans of older editions criticizing a particular new version using some pejorative phrase such as "dumbed down," "video-gamey," "WoW-ish," or, my personal favorite "not really D&D." The second is those who play a newer edition criticizing an older one using similarly pejorative language such as "limited," "overly complicated," "boring," "slow," or "old-fashioned."

It can be very hard for some people to believe that someone can honestly hold a different opinion without being WRONG. The ideal roleplaying game system (even the ideal D&D) is largely a matter of personal taste. However, I generally think Edition Wars get started by a fan of a previous edition explaining that they no longer play the current edition because they don't like it. But rather than just admitting the game has changed in a way that they don't like, they try to justify their decision by saying that the game "is no longer what it once was."

In a culture such as ours where most people like to have "the newest thing," I think some people feel the only way they can feel good playing an "old" version is to claim that it's inherently superior. And since it is "logical" (and in keeping with societal expectation) that things improve over time, the only way to assert superiority is to criticize some aspect of a new edition as having become "inferior" because of a BAD decision. Since not everyone agrees with the assertion that the decision is "bad," it starts a fight.

Similarly, when something gets changed that a particular person thought was "fine" as it was, they start quoting the aphorism that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If someone else asserts that it didn't work at their table, some folks, rather than admitting that everyone has different preferences, decide that the other people are somehow playing the game "wrong."

So I guess I'm saying that differing playstyles and preferences, and the inability of some folks to admit that those other than their own are _equally valid_, are ultimately responsible for Edition Wars.

My (slightly more than) two coppers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 4, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> But rather than just admitting the game has changed in a way that they don't like, they try to justify their decision by saying that the game "is no longer what it once was."




So, rather than just admitting that the game has changed, they say that the game isn't the same?


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 4, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, rather than just admitting that the game has changed, they say that the game isn't the same?




In common parlance, "It isn't what it once was" (which is the exact phrase I used) generally implies that something has degraded from its heyday. It's frequently used to refer to once great athletes, or a run-down car, or something similar.

By contrast, "the game has changed" is generally a much more value-neutral statement.

By way of example, I would suggest that many of the folks playing, for example, _Pathfinder_ would say that it "has changed" since Third Edition D&D, but would, by contrast, say that _Dungeons & Dragons_ (in its current edition) "isn't what it once was."

By contrast, I don't think you'll find anyone who plays Fourth Edition _Dungeons & Dragons_ who would argue that "the game has changed" because, well, it has. What they'd probably argue with is the implied value judgement of the latter statement in the paragraph above.

Make sense?


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 4, 2010)

I've seen plenty of people who are definitely not petulant children get awfully fed up with getting told that they have not given 4e enough of a chance to decide that they don't like it. As soon as one reaches this or that goal post, along comes someone to move it yet again! It sure can end up looking as if _nothing_ is going to be "fair" in the eyes of the partisans except joining them.

Here's a suggestion: Try playing with your local non-4e fan a game he actually likes. If you like it, too, then the sum of fun is greater than making him play something he dislikes. If you are not willing, _because you already know that it is not for you_ ...

... then let sauce for the goose be sauce for the freaking gander already, eh?



> What videogames use Healing Surges?



Here's a tip: If you know enough to answer that, then you probably *like* the latest thing in video games a lot more than someone who's using "videogamy" both negatively and (at least arguably, and without really much _caring_) inaccurately.

Dunno, but _maybe_ that's a clue as to what "videogamy" means, eh?


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 4, 2010)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> some pejorative phrase such as "dumbed down," "video-gamey," "WoW-ish," or, my personal favorite "not really D&D."



Of those, only "dumbed down" appears to me inherently pejorative. The others are negative only because _someone doesn't like what he or she doesn't like!_

*Frag* is "video-gamy" by, IIRC, explicit intent. If "like a shooter video game" was a selling point for giving it a try, then that is hardly pejorative!

*Frag* is also "Wiz-War-ish" in that it involves players moving pieces around a board to blast each other and pick up cards that provide special ways to move, blast, or avoid getting blasted. If one happens to like Wiz-War, then that's no put-down.

*Frag*, finally, is none at all the worse for being "not really D&D" -- for all that it might in some aspects fairly be called "dungeon-y" or "RPG-ish", and is with no ambiguity at all about "killing things and taking their stuff"!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 4, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Here's a tip: If you know enough to answer that, then you probably *like* the latest thing in video games a lot more than someone who's using "videogamy" both negatively and (at least arguably, and without really much _caring_) inaccurately.
> 
> Dunno, but _maybe_ that's a clue as to what "videogamy" means, eh?




I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. I was asking a question in honest curiosity because I am no longer a videogame player and never saw a mechanic in videogames when I did play them that resembles Healing Surges. I'm not looking to argue, just looking for an answer from someone who has played such a videogame.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 4, 2010)

VivyanBasterd said:
			
		

> I'm not looking to argue ...



Other people often are, and will go to great lengths to demonstrate that -- surprise, surprise! -- people who consider "videogamy" a negative are often not experts on videogames.



> I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.



I am talking about the facts I mentioned above, and about what seems to me the very high likelihood that in such cases "videogamy" is not really meant as some sort of objective correlation of fine technical points between one game and another to be "proved" or "disproved" as if it were a matter of fact.

I think it is more often meant to reflect a subjective impression -- maybe more an induced _affect_ than a discrete feature -- that somehow (perhaps in no way one can quite pin down) reminded someone more of videogames than of anything else that came to to mind. That person might even like some videogames, in their own rights and including this (maybe nebulous) quality.

The critical point is that the impression in question is _not_ what that person wants to get from (in this case) a game of "Dungeons & Dragons".


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm going to ignore comments about *Frag* because, as far as I'm aware, since the topic is "Edition Wars," the assumption is D&D (or some other roleplaying game with a legacy). Ergo, what is, or is not, pejorative relative to some other experience is irrelevant.



Ariosto said:


> Of those, only "dumbed down" appears to me inherently pejorative. The others are negative only because _someone doesn't like what he or she doesn't like!_




I will admit there's a distinction between a phrase that is "inherently pejorative" and one that is "implied pejorative." It's pretty easy to tell from context whether the comparison is intended to be pejorative or not.

Not liking something is fine, but people fixate on using those comparative statements to imply that the game is something it isn't - a video-game, WoW, or "not really D&D." Someone who disagrees on what constitutes similarity to a video game (or WoW, or older editions of D&D) isn't going to concur with one person's assessment that a particular edition is one of those things. And again, a fight starts.

Clearly, _Dungeons & Dragons_ 4e is neither _World of Warcraft_ nor any other video game. It's a roleplaying game, and it's as much D&D as _any other edition_ of the game (except arguably, the original - and I mean the 1974 white box here). Fourth Edition's similarity (or lack thereof) to WoW, a video game, or earlier editions of D&D is largely a matter of OPINION.

Now, has it drawn on some of the developments in game design (RPG and otherwise) over the last 35 years for its changes? I dearly hope so. Do those changes make it "video-gamey?"Not in my opinion. In someone else's, perhaps, but they need to recognize that I (and many others) will take that comparison just as pejoratively as they intend it.

Nobody who likes 4e that I've seen ever gets mad at positive comparisons such as (egregious over-simplification) "D&D 4e has well-defined roles just like WoW - about time!"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 4, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Make sense?




Sure, but I think there is an equal reader bias involved.  "It wasn't what it was" implies, perhaps, that the speaker *liked* what it was, and doesn't like what it has become.

But that is a fair opinion to hold, and doesn't imply that people who dislike something are wrongbad.

******

As an interesting side to this discussion, has anyone else read the interview in The Escapist about 4e design?  There's a thread discussing it here:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/272911-truth-about-4th-edition.html


RC


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 4, 2010)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> "limited," "overly complicated," "boring," "slow," or "old-fashioned."




These are also all in the eyes of the beholder, but "overly complicated" and "boring" are certainly negative. (Yes, imagine that! People use _negative_ terms to describe what they don't like -- and _positive_ ones to express like. Funny how that works.)

One man's "overly complicated" can be another's "not robust enough". Heck, one man's "overly complicated" can even be another man's, "You must be joking! You consider _more_ time spent crunching _more_ numbers to apply _more_ rules _less _complicated?!". 

Opinions may likewise differ on which game is more "limited", quite apart from whether limitation is inherently bad.

Is 4e "boring and slow", or "fascinating and fast-paced"? That seems to depend in part on whether 10 minutes or 50 spent on a typical fight better suits one's taste.

"Old-fashioned" may be a negative to people who place a high value on being "up to date" -- but it is probably not so to self-styled members of an "old school"!


----------



## billd91 (Mar 4, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Not liking something is fine, but people fixate on using those comparative statements to imply that the game is something it isn't - a video-game, WoW, or "not really D&D." Someone who disagrees on what constitutes similarity to a video game (or WoW, or older editions of D&D) isn't going to concur with one person's assessment that a particular edition is one of those things. And again, a fight starts.
> 
> Clearly, _Dungeons & Dragons_ 4e is neither _World of Warcraft_ nor any other video game. It's a roleplaying game, and it's as much D&D as _any other edition_ of the game (except arguably, the original - and I mean the 1974 white box here). Fourth Edition's similarity (or lack thereof) to WoW, a video game, or earlier editions of D&D is largely a matter of OPINION.




But *why* does the fight have to start because someone posted their subjective views of the game? The answer is: it doesn't. If I feel that, after 20 years of playing the game through 3 differen editions, 4e isn't really the same game any more, I don't see why that has to start a fight. But it has been my experience that someone will pick a fight based on that statement no matter how I couch it in subjective terms. I will be told by someone that my opinion is wrong. Which, of course, it is not.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 4, 2010)

Of course it's a fair opinion to hold, but would you not agree that it's less confrontational to simply say "I prefer the game the way it used to be" than to say "the game isn't what it once was."

I, for one, play Fourth Edition. I don't want to go back to 3e (or 2e, 1e or Basic D&D) for all sorts of reasons, and no amount of arguing is going to change my mind. Similarly, I accept that some people prefer those editions and aren't going to play 4e.

What I take issue with is people who refuse to give 4e a chance, or cast aspersions on it _without playing it._ I had my issues with, for example, _Castles & Crusades_, but I gave it an honest try. I don't want to try _Pathfinder_ because it is, by everyone's account, largely a modified 3e. And since I don't want to go back to 3e, I don't want to try _Pathfinder_. However, those are, on my part, informed decisions. I'm operating from a space of knowledge and experience - not supposition.

Anyone who gives 4e an honest try and then says "nope, sorry, not my cup of tea" earns my respect. I may still agree to disagree with things they like or dislike about the game, but they're entitled to their opinion. I enjoy, and even look forward to, an honest back and forth about the relative merits of different editions with such a person. And all the while I recognize that we may perceive the same issue from different perspectives.

I realize that not all fans of 4e are as tolerant. But given the amount of vitriol many (most?) _Pathfinder_ and other older edition players toss their way, I hardly find it surprising.

Play what you like. It's when people go about trying to justify "why" they play what they do that someone gets insulted, and a fight usually starts.

Again, my two cents.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 4, 2010)

billd91 said:


> But *why* does the fight have to start because someone posted their subjective views of the game? The answer is: it doesn't. If I feel that, after 20 years of playing the game through 3 differen editions, 4e isn't really the same game any more, I don't see why that has to start a fight. But it has been my experience that someone will pick a fight based on that statement no matter how I couch it in subjective terms. I will be told by someone that my opinion is wrong. Which, of course, it is not.




"4E isn't really the same game any more" is a subjective opinion that carries less implied baggage, IMO. "4E is not D&D" carries an implication to many readers that one is claiming ownership over what is and is not D&D and that they seek to throw out 4E players from the "D&D clubhouse."


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 4, 2010)

_Dungeons & Dragons_ is "videogamey" and "WoWish" to the extent that those other games are *D&D-ish* -- which seems to me quite a bit for the simple reason that they were inspired or influenced by it. The spell list in *Telengard* sure didn't come from _RuneQuest_. Imitation is the highest form of flattery!



> It's a roleplaying game, and it's as much D&D as _any other edition_ of the game.



Says you, and of course you can appeal to your own authority to convince yourself that you are right.

If it is "not really D&D", then it is as little an "edition of D&D" as is _Tunnels & Trolls_.

Is *Labyrinth Lord* "an edition of D&D"? Do you really expect the people who have fun playing it to give a pile of flying figs what your answer may be?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 4, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> "4E isn't really the same game any more" is a subjective opinion that carries less implied baggage, IMO. "4E is not D&D" carries an implication to many readers that one is claiming ownership over what is and is not D&D and that they seek to throw out 4E players from the "D&D clubhouse."




It is, nevertheless, what I mean - though I'd probably qualify that further by saying it's not in the AD&D line anymore, while 3e pretty much was despite WotC dropping the "Advanced". 

As far as throwing people out of the clubhouse, see how that turns around? For those of us who don't feel 4e is the same game, it occurs to us that WotC has thrown us out of the D&D clubhouse by changing the game to something that no longer appeals to us.


----------



## rounser (Mar 4, 2010)

> For those of us who don't feel 4e  is the same game, it occurs to us that WotC has thrown us out of the D&D clubhouse by changing the game to something that no longer appeals to us.



It'll be interesting to see in time if WOTC have thrown themselves out.  They can keep the name, and can put it on a packet of crisps if they like, but have already ceded much of the D&D territory.  E.g. Unless you chuck out lots of stuff that's assumed to be there by default, 4E is not what I'd consider a generic fantasy construction kit.  Pathfinder or a retroclone are a better choice for that.  Thus 4E retreats from what should be a core competency for D&D.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 4, 2010)

> I don't want to try _Pathfinder_ because it is, by everyone's account, largely a modified 3e.



Don't believe those lies! It's _totally_ new and improved, just the thing for someone who disliked D&D so much he almost left the hobby before discovering _Vampire: the Masquerade_!

It's still _the same game_, though, so if you loved the game the Vampire fan hated then you've got to love _Pathfinder_ even more!

Do you like 4E? _Pathfinder_ is the same, only better!

Do you not like 4E? _Pathfinder_ is so much different!

Just glancing at an advertisement can be enough to prove that it's the best RPG since *Tales of the Floating Vagabond*. However, you absolutely have to play for at least 300 hours before you can say that you don't like it, because obviously that requires thorough investigation of all the nuances of every build including the upcoming ones from PHB4.

Well, either that or the announcement of the next edition, which of course will instantly demonstrate that this one is a piece of Anti-fun "designed" by fume-addled hacks.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 4, 2010)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Nobody who likes 4e that I've seen ever gets mad at positive comparisons such as (egregious over-simplification) "D&D 4e has well-defined roles just like WoW - about time!"



No kidding.

It's not "like WoW" that bothers you.

That someone happens not to like 4e is what you can't abide.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Says you, and of course you can appeal to your own authority to convince yourself that you are right.
> 
> If it is "not really D&D", then it is as little an "edition of D&D" as is _Tunnels & Trolls_.




Actually, I don't say that Fourth Edition D&D is D&D. The NAME on the cover of the books says that. That, and only that, is the definition of whether a game is "D&D" or isn't. We can argue, if you'd like, about whether homages/ripoffs with a different title (such as _Castles & Crusades_ or _Swords & Wizardry_) ought to count as "variant editions" of D&D. Personally, I count them. Most of them would, I think, happily claim the title.

It's clear to me that you, for whatever reasons, are not content with simply saying you "don't like" 4e. Clearly, you feel some need to denigrate it as being somehow "less" than the game you play so you can...what? So you can feel good about your choice? Whatever.

Play whatever you want. Don't play whatever you want. I don't honestly care if you hate 4e and think it's the worst game since Candyland.

But when you try to kick 4e players off "D&D island" because you don't personally enjoy the edition of _Dungeons & Dragons_ that they prefer, you're being a jerk.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> What videogames use Healing Surges?




Yoshimitsu in Tekken, for one, and that's enough.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> No kidding.
> 
> It's not "like WoW" that bothers you.
> 
> That someone happens not to like 4e is what you can't abide.




Nonsense. What I can't abide is someone saying:

"There's nothing insulting about saying the game is 'like WoW.' I play WoW, I enjoy WoW, and if I want that game experience I'll play WoW. But I don't want that experience in my D&D game."

Guess what? That sentence was a roundabout way of saying 4e was "like WoW," in a way that the statement is a putdown of 4e. Again, I don't care if you like 4e or not. Just be aware that when you express your dislike by drawing a comparison to something 4e isn't (a video game), you're inviting an argument.

And "Not D&D" really is the worst attack you can make. _Nobody_ should be surprised when people who play that edition get offended or royally pissed off.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yoshimitsu in Tekken, for one, and that's enough.



I would call that video game realistic and cinematic both and rather un-video-game like.(no constantly dropped healing potions or slave healer no everybody with regeneration? that is sacrilege)

Shrug, second Wind is a verified medical phenomena (which I have experienced myself) as well as a strong action movie trope. And "healing" usually meaning something similar to faith healing where poets, priests and politician enable and inspire there heroic allies to access in born deeper resources of energy and morale (read the definition of hit points Gygax said from the beginning next none of hit points represent wounds).  And I love healing being proportionate.

A higher hit point character taking more resources to heal... well thats just WoW on wheels dude... totally videogamey


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> I would call that video game realistic and cinematic both and rather un-video-game like.




And yet, its a video game.

Its one I LOVE, but its a video game, ergo, my comparison.  Heck, that's even the character I play 99.99% of the time (that, and in some incarnations, the Yoshimitsu clone, Kunimitsu).

And despite all that love, I have *no desire to play D&D with healing surges.*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Nonsense. What I can't abide is someone saying:
> 
> "There's nothing insulting about saying the game is 'like WoW.' I play WoW, I enjoy WoW, and if I want that game experience I'll play WoW. But I don't want that experience in my D&D game."
> 
> ...




Ladies and Gentlemen, here we have Exhibit A of the kind of stuff I've been talking about for pages.

Person A: "I don't like 4Ed because its videogamey."
Person B: "Videogamey how?"
Person A: "Its like WoW.  I like WoW, but I don't want it in my D&D."
Person B: "Well now you're just tickin' me off!"

The critical statement can't be abided by the person asking for clarification, lighting the fuse.  Person B already knew from the first sentence that 4Ed was being criticized by comparison.  Once the exact comparison became defined- a comparison to WoW- Person B had everything they needed to become indignant as if it were a personal attack and not _merely a critique of the game_ based on someone else's gaming preferences.

Apparently, it has become impossible to criticize the game without criticizing the gamer.  There is an inability or unwillingness on the parts of some people to accept a statement like "I like WoW, but I don't want it in my D&D." or my similar statement about Healing Surges & Tekken at face value.  To them, the words are merely a facade to an ad hominem attack.

What purpose did asking for clarification serve?  It lit the fuse, and that's it.

And, FWIW, MMMORPGs were among the many sources from which the 4Ed team drew inspiration, so one can hardly claim that those who critique the game on that basis- rejecting those elements- are being trollish.

The Escapist : The Truth About 4th Edition: Part One of Our Exclusive Interview with Wizards of the Coast


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And yet, its a video game.
> 
> Its one I LOVE, but its a video game, ergo, my comparison.  Heck, that's even the character I play 99.99% of the time (that, and in some incarnations, the Yoshimitsu clone, Kunimitsu).
> 
> And despite all that love, I have *no desire to play D&D with healing surges.*




And given that there are something like 10 editions of D&D (1) that don't have them, you _can_. I, for one, like the healing surge mechanic, as it's presented in 4e.

Mostly, I see "healing surges" in 4e as just a way of unifying the multitude of healing mechanics in the game. Other than that, each character gets 1 heal per combat encounter that's under his own control (his "Second Wind"), but very little else has, in fact, changed. Unless we're back to attrition-based gaming again. In which case, there's still 10 older editions that follow that model.



1. By my count, there's _Dungeons & Dragons_ (1974), 2 versions of Basic/Expert D&D, 1e AD&D, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e (& 3.5), _Castles & Crusades, Pathfinder,_ and _Swords & Wizardry_. That's 10. And that's without counting any of the variant versions of 3e as separate games (like _Arcana Unearthed/Evolved_ or _Iron Heroes_).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> And given that there are something like 10 editions of D&D (1) that don't have them, you _can_.




And I do.

That truth, however, does not negate the fact that this is a valid critique of 4Ed, as is a similar critique of the game being "too WoW-like"

Just as we can happily enjoy other editions of D&D free of Healing Surges and certain MMORPG elements, you're free to do the same with the edition that includes them.

Just don't overreact when someone critiques the game- not _YOU_- on the basis of including those elements.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Apparently, it has become impossible to criticize the game without criticizing the gamer.  There is an inability or unwillingness on the parts of some people to accept a statement like "I like WoW, but I don't want it in my D&D." or my similar statement about Healing Surges & Tekken at face value.  To them, the words are merely a facade to an ad hominem attack.
> 
> What purpose did asking for clarification serve?  It lit the fuse, and that's it.




The problem, as I see it, is that for many people, their attack on the game carries with it an implicit criticism of the gamers who like it. Can we agree that however you feel about any edition of D&D, it is insulting and rude to claim that your version is for "smarter," "more serious," or "better" gamers?

That's the basis of my responses above. It's why I feel so strongly about the "It's not D&D" attack. Because, bluntly, the assertion is terribly rude. You don't have to like the game, or play it, but you have to know you're starting a fight if you make that assertion. Because to some people, it IS D&D. That argument (which can't even be called a discussion) can only play out like this (highly abbreviated):

Old-timer: "Fourth Edition isn't D&D (because of X)."
4e player: "Yes it is!"
OT: "No, it's not."
4e: "Yes, it is."
OT: "Is not!"
4e: "Is too!"
OT: "Is not!"

Played out ad infinitum. Does that sound childish to anyone else? The "because of X" doesn't matter, because it's the first statement that starts the fight. Obviously, it would be the same if some new player said that the old-timer's game of choice "wasn't D&D," but that just doesn't happen. The above does - frequently. And "videogamey," "WoW-like," and others are frequently nothing but a less overt version of the same line of attack. By comparing 4e to something that isn't an RPG, the implication is that 4e isn't really an RPG. And therefore, since D&D IS an RPG, 4e isn't _really_ D&D. This is not a hard, difficult to follow, or even irrational response to predict. And it fundamentally boils down to a "badwrongfun" attack.

Look, I get it. I played the older editions. I liked them. However, I happen to like the new edition as well. And I get ticked when some cranky jerk tells me that the edition I'm playing "isn't D&D" or that it has been "dumbed down."

I have no problem with someone saying: "I don't like it." I have no problem with "4e is too simple for me," (I feel the same way about _Castles & Crusades_) or "I prefer the nuances of selecting skill points over how 4e handles it," or "I prefer the 3e magic system," or even "I like that 3e has more options in character creation." All of those are valid opinions, expressed in a non-confrontational fashion, for someone to hold. So is, for the record, "I don't like the way 4e handles healing - the surge mechanic doesn't work for me."

Where it gets rude is "D&D shouldn't have a healing surge mechanic. 4e is dead to me (not D&D, or some other similar hyperbole)."

See the difference?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And, FWIW, MMMORPGs were among the many sources from which the 4Ed team drew inspiration, so one can hardly claim that those who critique the game on that basis- rejecting those elements- are being trollish.




Sure, but it's definitely trollish to assert the presence of those elements in a way that you are fully aware is an attack not just on the game, but on the taste of the people who play it.

I freely admit 4e borrowed stuff from WoW. I also know (since I know one of the guys who was responsible for creating it) that WoW borrowed liberally from D&D _in the first place_. That doesn't make 4e "videogamey." One mechanic does not a system make. I fully expect games to borrow mechanics from other games (as D&D borrowed dice in the first place), both in genre and out. That's simply smart design - trying to learn from what has gone before.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And yet, its a video game.



Like I said sounds like an incredibly unique thing for it to have so utterly unlike other video games. Calling healing surges videogame like seems very ignorant of the vast majority of video games and of action cinema and even of medical reality.  

Like I said the features of healing in earlier versions of D&D were not in sync with the definition of hit points. .. Nor do they seem to be anything but the mechanisms in most video game healing (but you know the reason is they copied D&D). So even though I could call the earlier versions of D&D videogamey I wont be spamming the forum with it... any time soon.

Bloody useless term only a troll would like.  ~ don't call people trolls unless you want to be threadbanned: Admin ~


----------



## Nifft (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> The problem, as I see it, is that for many people, their attack on the game carries with it an implicit criticism of the gamers who like it. Can we agree that however you feel about any edition of D&D, it is insulting and rude to claim that your version is for "smarter," "more serious," or "better" gamers?



 i.e.: "Just because you enjoy a game which is designed to be enjoyed by drooling morons, that's not insulting you! To each his own!"  <-- _note safety emoticon: clearly I can't be banned for this humor, which is totally not a direct personal insult_

- - -

My actual answer:

What's at stake in the edition wars is *sneering rights*. Such things are not really worth having, and certainly not worth protecting.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Paradox (Mar 5, 2010)

A very long time ago, I went through "D&D is the ONLY RPG" phase that many go through. I had a friend bring me to her friend's game where they were playing Arcarnum. (IIRC.) I tried it, and had a blast.

I've since tried other games, but what I've figured out was that stripped down, all RPGs are the same.

Yes, they have different mechanics. Yes, they have different settings. At the heart of it all, all RPGs come down to the DM describing the setting, and the players reacting to that setting, and the DM providing the results of the interactions. 

The only differences between RPGs are the ways they do things. 

In D&D, saving throws have changed and evolved over the editions. But they're still there. 

A common "gripe" about 4e is healing surges but they were always used in 3e- We called them wands of cure light wounds. For 315 gp, we'd have a wand with 50 charges. (And yes, we bought more than just one.) After every combat, many of us would need healing. So, one characeter would need to burn off 7 of those charges, another just needed 4. It would be stupid to go to the next encounter while not at full HP while the monsters were fresh. 

And it's not like we could go back to town to heal "naturally"- that would take way too long, and the bad guy would either have taken over the world or at least re-enforced his stronghold. 

So, healing surges aren't any more or less "realistic" than the wands. It's just a different way of handling the same situation.


----------



## outsider (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Nobody who likes 4e that I've seen ever gets mad at positive comparisons such as (egregious over-simplification) "D&D 4e has well-defined roles just like WoW - about time!"




Consider me the first then, because that statement annoys the heck out of me.  Class roles have been an important facet of almost every version of D&D.  Don't give WoW credit for this, as this isn't a case of D&D being like WoW, it's a case of WoW being like D&D.

Which is true of almost every single argument somebody makes about D&D copying WoW, no matter what side it comes from.


----------



## rounser (Mar 5, 2010)

> A common "gripe" about 4e  is healing surges but they were always used in 3e- We called them wands of cure light wounds. For 315 gp, we'd have a wand with 50 charges. (And yes, we bought more than just one.) After every combat, many of us would need healing. So, one characeter would need to burn off 7 of those charges, another just needed 4. It would be stupid to go to the next encounter while not at full HP while the monsters were fresh.



You've missed the point.  A wand curing a wound doesn't redefine hit points and challenge suspension of disbelief, whereas 4E's healing surges do, being as conceptually ridiculous as the "she turned me into a newt!....I got better" joke in Holy Grail to some of us.  Even the term "healing surge" IMO completely sucks, bringing to mind wounds healing over through regaining confidence or a second wind some other such bollocks....???


----------



## outsider (Mar 5, 2010)

rounser said:


> You've missed the point.  A wand curing a wound doesn't redefine hit points and challenge suspension of disbelief, whereas 4E's healing surges do




The HP system present in any version of D&D requires massive suspension of disbelief.  Healing surges are no different.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 5, 2010)

quote=rounser;5109331]   bringing to mind wounds healing over through regaining confidence or a second wind some other such bollocks....???[/quote]

Read the definition of hp(any edition) or the longer Gygaxian diatribe about hit points not being wounds.... and how it was ridiculous to think of them that way (the man was often insulting - but gets glorified).  I dont have a link to it but I bet a 1e or 2e fan can find it. 

Wow you think your character is a walking pin cushion with 100 plus hit points  gee that makes me glad hit points actual are about spending energy and luck and even a touch of magic and losing morale ...in other words a buffer of resources all abstract used avoiding taking real wounds.

My imagination just couldn't hold up to your definition, maybe you would like RuneQuest more?

You might even check out medical studies on second wind or if you would rather ...Here is a less um emotional reaction.

"Realistic" second wind should only be something that happens when you were nearly out of hit points (fatigued and pushing it) and only as a daily effect once per encounter is movie hero zone, but it actually involves cellular level healing and clearing fatigue poisons.  Even more realistically it might be something that happens after extended high intensity stuff like a chase scene. (been there done that - it feels awesome )

A 4e house rule to make second wind less cinematic would have it fire off only during the spending of an action point... I know kind of weird attaching it to another cinematic element.. but it brings it more inline frequency wise and effect wise (bursts of speed are very definitely a direct impact of a second wind, they were the first noticed effect).

A related phenomena:
"A surge of adrenaline coursed through him bringing him back from the dark edge". Adrenaline surges are the body kicking itself in gear  the med techs are artificially doing something with a syringe that the body already has and does, so when they wake somebody dying on the table? its very like giving somebody extra death saves.

Faith healing aka Inspirational healing is both bolstering of morale and tweaking the psyche of the target to do its own thing ie kick the targets own immune system in to action. Believing you can/will heal accelerates healing and I heard a study once where they hypnotized somebody so they would heal a skin cancer.(sounds like bullocks to me too but the body doesn't recognize cancer as being the enemy and we have psychosomatic responses to things all the time... so well shrug ) 

It never made a whole lot of sense based on there definition for hit points to take days to recover.. and everyone had a cleric and later a wand of healing so that irrationality was probably rarely front and center. The person who should be the most hearty and have fewer hit points whose loss "might" be interpreted as wounds always took way more stuff to heal... one cure light wounds healed a near dead wizard to full hit points and you would have to poor a bucket load down the throat of the heartier higher level warrior ... did that make sense? 

Or did players just put on their blinders and hmmm real loud when people said it was stupid.

Abstract hit points have problems ... saving throws were invented partially because you couldnt tell if a hit actually meant the target was even scratched.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> The problem, as I see it, is that for many people, their attack on the game carries with it an implicit criticism of the gamers who like it.




Then the problem is in those people who cannot separate game criticism from personal criticism.



> Can we agree that however you feel about any edition of D&D, it is insulting and rude to claim that your version is for "smarter," "more serious," or "better" gamers?




I've stated as much in both threads.



> It's why I feel so strongly about the "It's not D&D" attack.




IME, I and every other single person who has stated "Its not D&D" has followed that assertion up with "to me", either in the same sentence or elsewhere in that thread.

I'm not saying you haven't seen it, but I sure haven't.



> Because, bluntly, the assertion is terribly rude. You don't have to like the game, or play it, but you have to know you're starting a fight if you make that assertion. Because to some people, it IS D&D. That argument (which can't even be called a discussion) can only play out like this (highly abbreviated):
> 
> Old-timer: "Fourth Edition isn't D&D (because of X)."
> 4e player: "Yes it is!"
> ...




I think its a valid critique, if strongly stated...except for the last bit.  I hate intellectual death spirals.



> And "videogamey," "WoW-like," and others are frequently nothing but a less overt version of the same line of attack.




IME, the vast majority of persons using "videogamey" or WoW-like" are making valid critical comparisons that have ZERO to do with a game's "RPG-ness."



> By comparing 4e to something that isn't an RPG, the implication is that 4e isn't really an RPG.




That has no rhetorical validity- that something is compared to another thing of a different nature is NOT an inherently an implication that the former is somehow less of itself.



> Where it gets rude is "D&D shouldn't have a healing surge mechanic. 4e is dead to me (not D&D, or some other similar hyperbole)."
> 
> See the difference?




IMO, its a strong critique of the game, but it isn't rude.



> Sure, but it's definitely trollish to assert the presence of those elements in a way that you are fully aware is an attack not just on the game, but on the taste of the people who play it.




I counter-assert that the mere phrase "4Ed is vidogamey (or WoW-like)" is NOT inherently such, and doesn't rise to the level of an insult unless and until someone actually asks for further clarification.

For most people, its simply an assertion of taste.  For the true troll, its bait in a trap.  And if the person is the latter, by asking for that clarification, you've fed the troll.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2010)

rounser said:


> You've missed the point.  A wand curing a wound doesn't redefine hit points and challenge suspension of disbelief, whereas 4E's healing surges do, being as conceptually ridiculous as the "she turned me into a newt!....I got better" joke in Holy Grail to some of us.  Even the term "healing surge" IMO completely sucks, bringing to mind wounds healing over through regaining confidence or a second wind some other such bollocks....???




I could reply that nothing has changed, because abstract hit points have always been part of the game of D&D. I admit that Monte Cook held the opinion going into 3e that hit points represented "real physical resistance to injury." The absurdity of that was shown, paradoxically, by Andy Collins in the _Epic Level Handbook_, where they talked about epic-level PCs _swimming through lava._

That view of hit points as physical resilience was, largely, confined to 3rd Edition. And even 3e waffled a fair bit (the _Epic Level Handbook_ aside). I've quoted Gygax's discussion of the subject from the 1e DMG many times. Gary was clearly of the opinion that hit points weren't purely physical. I admit he also argued (IMO, somewhat paradoxically) that it would take weeks of recovery for a PC to reach their "physical and metaphysical peak" without magical healing. But let's get real. If you're arguing that hit points do NOT represent physical injury (as Gygax did WAY back in 1e), then the amount of time it takes the PC to recover his "luck" is entirely a matter of subjective opinion, and "realism" doesn't enter into it in the slightest.

Yes, the Second Wind mechanic is cinematic, rather than realistic. Whether you like that or not is largely a matter of what kind of "feel" you want in your RPG. Obviously, not everyone likes the one that 4e uses, and again, that's okay.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> IMO, its a strong critique of the game, but it isn't rude.




"Your game isn't D&D because it's not MY D&D" isn't rude? Didn't you agree earlier that the statement that your version was for "better" gamers was rude? 

I find it amazing that you can believe that it's possible to brand a particular edition of the game as "not really D&D" without that critique being "my version is (objectively) BETTER than yours." How does that work, exactly? Technically, I suppose, it's "your version is inferior to all others," but still.

And you don't see the hypocrisy?


----------



## Paradox (Mar 5, 2010)

rounser said:


> You've missed the point.  A wand curing a wound doesn't redefine hit points and challenge suspension of disbelief, whereas 4E's healing surges do, being as conceptually ridiculous as the "she turned me into a newt!....I got better" joke in Holy Grail to some of us.  Even the term "healing surge" IMO completely sucks, bringing to mind wounds healing over through regaining confidence or a second wind some other such bollocks....???




I don't think so. Hit points have always been abstract. They weren't redefined. 

A character with 30 starting HP currently has 10 HP. That means he needs 20 to get back to his full HP. It doesn't matter which mechanic you use- burn some charges from a wand, get healed by a cleric or use healing surges. Your character is going to get himself up to 30 HP. It's all the same in the end.



And that's my point. The basics of all RPGs is to get together with friends and roll some dice. The mechanics aren't as important as some would like to believe. That's when you get people browbeating and lording over other players. "You MUST play my way."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> I could reply that nothing has changed...




And you'd be dead wrong.

The poster said that "suspension of disbelief" had been altered.  That's a personal reaction between the person's inner states and the mechanics of the game.

By telling them "nothing has changed", you're telling them that they misinterpreted their own reactions to the game.  _THAT _is rude.



> I admit that Monte Cook held the opinion going into 3e that hit points represented "real physical resistance to injury." The absurdity of that was shown, paradoxically, by Andy Collins in the Epic Level Handbook, where they talked about epic-level PCs swimming through lava.




This is the single way in which Kevin Siembieda, the creator of RIFTS, actually demonstrated a better mechanical design instinct than many other game designers who also worked on games with abstract HP systems.

When KS was told that some players would try to intimidate NPCs by having their PCs take unreasonable risks- like shooting themselves in the head with a weapon capable of doing lethal damage to them (IOW, an MD PC "eating" a shot from a MD weapon)- he actually wrote a letter to the fans in one of his RIFTER magazines saying that this was a misunderstanding of the system.  A PC who does such a thing, he said, is dead: HP represent a wide variety of ways PCs avoided death (including both physical resilience and turning lethal hits into glancing blows), and by doing such a thing, you circumvent them all.

IOW, no chewing on your gun, no swimming in lava, just because of having a lot of HP.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> I
> "Your game isn't D&D because it's not MY D&D" isn't rude? Didn't you agree earlier that the statement that your version was for "better" gamers was rude?
> 
> I find it amazing that you can believe that it's possible to brand a particular edition of the game as "not really D&D" without that critique being "my version is (objectively) BETTER than yours." How does that work, exactly? Technically, I suppose, it's "your version is inferior to all others," but still.
> ...




That isn't what you said, neither literally nor rhetorically.

Your second statement bears no semblance to the one we were discussing.  The first one expressed a dislike of a specific mechanism.  The latter is either a goad or a frustrated response to a goad.

Stop moving the goalposts.

Your statement was



> *JohnSnow*"D&D shouldn't have a healing surge mechanic. 4e is dead to me (not D&D, or some other similar hyperbole)."




Which means that it isn't D&D for that person.  They hate _it_.

There was no mention of "better."

YOU aren't mentioned at all, not literally, not implicitly.

You're reading into the statement things that aren't there.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 5, 2010)

Another thing that, for me is, at stake in the edition wars - is 4e the same game or a different game?

In my view it's a different game.

3E is obviously different in many points of detail from AD&D, but I think it's fair to say that (or, at least to me, it seems to be the case that) the ways in which it differs reflect general trends in mainstream post-AD&D fantasy RPGs eg Runequest, Rolemaster. Thus, it has better-defined and more robust skill mechanics, more coherent combat mechanics for a wide range of manoeuvres, etc. It still has some D&D quirks, such as hit points (which are clearly physical in Runequest and Rolemaster, but are in 3E still some sort of strange mix of the physical and the metaphysical).

So, in the same way that for many players in the 80s and early 90s Runequest or Rolemaster was "D&D done right", so 3E is (in my view) apt to be experienced in the same way.

4e seems to me very obviously to turn its back on this approach to game mechanics, and while it keeps some of the same tropes (elves, dwarves etc) and some of the same mechanical elements (classes, races, hit points) the way it puts them together and expects them to be used is very different. It is influenced by indie RPGs, for example, in a way that 3E clearly is not.

So I'm not surprised that a significant number of players - especially those who played D&D very seriously, and thus have well-developed tastes for how a fantasy RPG should ideally work - don't like 4e. It is not the sort of game that they want and expect to play.



rounser said:


> Unless you chuck out lots of stuff that's assumed to be there by default, 4E is not what I'd consider a generic fantasy construction kit.  Pathfinder or a retroclone are a better choice for that.  Thus 4E retreats from what should be a core competency for D&D.



Given the above, I don't fully agree with this - I don't think that D&D has ever been a generic fantasy construction kit (eg you can't really do Ars Magica with it, let alone HeroQuest or The Dying Earth).

But I do agree it's a mechanically different play experience from earlier editions.



JohnSnow said:


> What I take issue with is people who refuse to give 4e a chance, or cast aspersions on it _without playing it._
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Anyone who gives 4e an honest try and then says "nope, sorry, not my cup of tea" earns my respect.



I don't agree with this. If someone reads the rules of 4e, forms a view as to how it's likely to play, and decides not to play it, fair enough. Not everyone wants to play that sort of RPG.

I find the videogamey thing a bit irritating for reasons I stated upthread, that I think it misses the point a bit about what is really distinct about 4e compared to earlier editions. But that's not a reason why those who don't like what they see should have to try it out before posting that they don't like what they see.



JohnSnow said:


> Can we agree that however you feel about any edition of D&D, it is insulting and rude to claim that your version is for "smarter," "more serious," or "better" gamers?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And "videogamey," "WoW-like," and others are frequently nothing but a less overt version of the same line of attack. By comparing 4e to something that isn't an RPG, the implication is that 4e isn't really an RPG.



Now this I agree with. I think these comments are generally based on an unfamiliarity with the range of RPGs and approaches to RPGing that now exist (and hence the way that, as far as I can tell, 4e is intended to be played). Afterall, the notion that a game like HeroQuest is not "serious RPGing" is too silly for words.



Paradox said:


> what I've figured out was that stripped down, all RPGs are the same.
> 
> Yes, they have different mechanics. Yes, they have different settings. At the heart of it all, all RPGs come down to the DM describing the setting, and the players reacting to that setting, and the DM providing the results of the interactions.



And this I emphatically disagree with. Just for starters - the 4e skill challenge mechanics assumes (i) that players as well as the GM have a role in describing the setting, and (ii) that the players as well as the GM have a role in providing the results of PC interactions with that setting.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That isn't what you said, neither literally nor rhetorically.
> 
> Your second statement bears no semblance to the one we were discussing.  The first one expressed a dislike of a specific mechanism.  The latter is either a goad or a frustrated response to a goad.
> 
> ...




God, you are a lawyer. You're focusing on part 1 of the phrase and ignoring the second half entirely. Where I take issue is the hyperbolic "therefore."

The truth is that the phrase I quoted had 3 versions:

1. "<criticism of 4e> ergo 4e is dead to me."


2. "<criticism of 4e> ergo 4e is not D&D."

or (most broadly)

3. "<criticism of 4e> ergo <hyperbolic statement about the nature of 4e>"

I specifically addressed statement 2 (the "ergo 4e isn't D&D" attack), not some new comment. You stated you felt that the basic statement, which included all 3 versions, was "strong but not rude." I specifically addressed part 2, but I think hyperbolic statements in general are rude.

There's plenty of legitimate ground for criticism that falls short of hyperbolic "X is dead to me" (or "X isn't D&D" or similar) statements and is, IMO, not rude. I was purposely addressing hyperbolic overstatements. And yes, I think those are rude - whatever specific form they take. 

I ask again - do you disagree? Because you sure seem to be parsing it awfully fine. Is it because you feel that your argument is somehow less valid without those statements?


----------



## Paradox (Mar 5, 2010)

pemerton said:


> And this I emphatically disagree with. Just for starters - the 4e skill challenge mechanics assumes (i) that players as well as the GM have a role in describing the setting, and (ii) that the players as well as the GM have a role in providing the results of PC interactions with that setting.




That's why I said strip out the mechanics. 

Player: "I take the lead and kick in the door." 

DM: "The door slams open with a loud bang, and you see four humanoid creatures reach for their weapons."

Which game system and/or D&D edition is that from? 

The answer is it can be from any/every game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> God, you are a lawyer. You're focusing on part 1 of the phrase and ignoring the second half entirely. Where I take issue is the hyperbolic "therefore."




I am a lawyer, and I'm not ignoring the second half.



> The truth is that the phrase I quoted had 3 versions:




I can only respond to the one you posted.  I'm not in the business of discussing statements I haven't seen.



> 1. "<criticism of 4e> ergo 4e is dead to me."
> 2. "<criticism of 4e> ergo 4e is not D&D."
> 3. "<criticism of 4e> ergo <hyperbolic statement about the nature of 4e>"





Not a single one of those is intrinsically an attack on you as a person.



> I think hyperbolic statements in general are rude.
> 
> There's pleny of critical ground short of hyperbolic "X is dead to me" (or "X isn't D&D") statements that isn't rude. I was purposely addressing hyperbolic overstatements. Which, yes, I think are rude - whatever specific form they take.




I can think of millions of hyperbolic statements that are not rude.

You need a lot more than mere hyperbole to make a rude statement- you need intent, you need a target.  In certain circumstances, you need to go beyond a certain pre-agreed (implicit or explicit) level of civility.

I don't see any of that in "D&D is dead to me", "Its not D&D to me" and similar statements.  The most you can say about those statements without fear of contradiction is that they are indicative of extreme displeasure with D&D in some way.  Without more, you can't say it was intended to be rude.  Without more, you can't say that you were the target- indeed, no person is even implied in the statements.

Strongly worded?  Without a doubt.

Rude?  I don't think so.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> For most people, its simply an assertion of taste.  For the true troll, its bait in a trap.  And if the person is the latter, by asking for that clarification, you've fed the troll.




The first comment I remember you made - I interpreted  to be the above statement.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 5, 2010)

Paradox said:


> That's why I said strip out the mechanics.
> 
> Player: "I take the lead and kick in the door."
> 
> ...



Sure. Without much adjustment, it could also be from a game of 10-year olds playing make believe.

But what causes edition wars isn't a debate about whether or not this sort of stuff happens at the gaming table - it's the debate about the mechanical means whereby this stuff is determined.

For example, it makes a huge difference if the GM gives the response in your example is a result of the GM unilaterally writing the world description and determining the adversaries, or if the players (through formal or informal mechanical means) have played a role in that (as per some of the ideas in DMG2).

It makes a huge difference if the difficulty of the roll to kick in the door is a function of the stuff the door is made of as recorded in the adventure description (eg adamantine door = DC 30) or is a function of the previous pattern of skill check successes and failures on the part of the players, with the narrative then adjusted to make sense of this (as per HeroQuest, and some of the ideas in DMG2).

It makes a huge difference if the capacity of the humanoids to respond with their drawn weapons depends soleley upon their initiative stat and an initiative roll (as per Rolemaster, Runequest, Traveller, all prior editions of D&D, etc) or depends, at least in part, upon whether or not the player has some sort of "no action" ability that results in her PC receiving a surprise round (which is a theoretical possibility in 4e, and which might be narrated in a number of ways - the PC having preternatural speed, or the monsters hesitating in shock, or the steely glance of the PC resulting in them hesitating as they try to draw their swords, etc).

It is these sorts of mechanical differences that I feel to be at stake in the edition wars.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 5, 2010)

Paradox said:


> That's why I said strip out the mechanics.
> 
> Player: "I take the lead and kick in the door."
> 
> ...



Absolutely!

Where the debates arise is what dice are rolled (if any) to determine whether the door in fact slammed open at all or whether Thundertoes merely just gave himself a sore foot; and if so by what game mechanics can that sore foot be healed; or whether the guys behind the door are ready and waiting or just lounging around; and how quickly can Thundertoes react to their presence; etc., etc.  And there's people out there (I game with one or two) who can and will debate such minutae into the ground if given the chance.

Lan-"the four humanoid creatures are the other player characters"-efan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 5, 2010)

Paradox said:


> That's why I said strip out the mechanics.
> 
> Player: "I take the lead and kick in the door."
> 
> ...




That probably doesn't happen in most games of TOON!, Call of Cthulhu, or Paranoia...but beyond that?


----------



## rounser (Mar 5, 2010)

> I could reply that nothing has changed, because abstract hit points have always been part of the game of D&D.



And you've all missed the point too.  

The problem is not with the term "hit points" (which _is_ abstract).  

The problem is with the IMO very poorly chosen term "healing surge", which is _very_ specific.  

What gets _healed_, by most people's estimation?  Wounds.  Or maybe, disease, but what gets healed as a result of the aftermath of D&D combat usually means wounds.  They're swinging swords and burning each other with magic, generally.  Not much room for movement on that one guys.  

It detracts from the abstract intention that the designers seem to say it is supposed to stand for, undermining itself.  If it were a "luck boost" or an "adrenaline rush" or a "hero surge" or a "second wind" (don't particularly like any of these terms either btw) you might have an argument, but as it stands, I don't agree.  Healing generally = healing of wounds.  

So the problem is with "healing surge", not "hit points", and therefore with 4E in particular, unrelated to hit points being abstract in D&D's past.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 5, 2010)

rounser said:


> And you've all missed the point too.
> 
> The problem is not with the term "hit points" (which _is_ abstract).  The problem is with the very poorly chosen term "healing surge", which is very specific.




Real world language use ..Spiritual healing is largely about morale and similar things... no impact on wounds but guess what it is called HEALING in real life. Faith healing "lets be kind" and call it inspiring them emotionally and via the power of suggestion to get there natural immunities to do there darnedest  ... making both an abstraction called healing. Psychiatrists are members of a healing profession trust me... mental healing abstract enough for you? Healing doesnt even necessarily imply wounds in real life. And since hit points are not real wound the act of recouping them is not a variety of healing affecting wounds. You are circling around your self.

Spells recovering hit points all the way back were called curing light/heavy wounds even though the people doing the naming said hp were almost never about wounds and were ridiculous if assumed to be wounds. And many things in 4e still have naming conventions based on tradition and hit points are a perfect example.. Why HIT POINTS implies that it tells you something about whether you have been "hit" or not but it is such an abstraction that it doesnt do this in the slightest.(the reason saving throws were invented you cant tell if you scratched him and infected him with disease or poison even because doing x damage may mean you depleted his luck or made him tired while he desperately lurches out of the way.)

Damage is another game mechanic term it means losing hit points... not being wounded

I think I might prefer the term Heroic Reserves.(directly replacing healing surges) 
and Hero Points for hit points it gives them a direct connection to one another that way.​
Quite honestly the 4e Powers for recovering that sloppy abstraction called hit points never mention wounds and frequently dont refer to healing either in there names (except in the mechanical description) for instance Inspiring Word and Majestic Word and the Second Wind.  These are the part the characters instead of the players interact with. (not entirely true these can be named and described differently at player choice),... the cleric ability just like the real life priest calls what he does Healing.

The term bloodied while sounding problematic has various visualizations mentioned ranging from sweaty, shaken, winded or actually you just had your first hit and they have first blood... for a true tough guy barbarian this might include numerous superficial wounds or wounds of no real consequence that will heal on there own. Picture it based on your character.


----------



## rounser (Mar 5, 2010)

> Healing surges are abstract deep hitpoints...which by the way is a crappy name and we are only being forgiving because it is familiar as hell they could have called them hero points.



Nuh uh, attacking the old stuff to distract from the problem with the new stuff will not work.  HP = abstract name.  HS = distractingly and misleadingly specific name which doesn't convey intention or "game reality", and challenges suspension of disbelief.  In other words, the specific yet misleading term "healing surge" is a poorer design than even the abstract "hit points".  It's even more difficult to envision than hit points, which don't ask you to think about them except when damaged or healed.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 5, 2010)

rounser said:


> Nuh uh, attacking the old stuff to distract from the problem with the new stuff will not work.  HP = abstract name.



Both are describing abstract things... how in hell one describes a deeper reserve of the other. Perhaps hit reserve. 

The way in which healing surges are typically used or present... is a sudden burst of renewed... vigor. Ther is another better term which could have been used in place of hit points. 

Which deserves the attack because it does imply something which it doesnt do... it implies it tells you something about hitting and it doesnt have anything to do with it.

Hit points and healing surges are intertwined ... at some level represented being fatigued you could loose a healing surge or smaller quantities hit points.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 5, 2010)

And preists refer to spiritual healing all the time effectively meaning restoring morale (a component mentioned in our little abstraction) when real language is used in that way you are blowing smoke.
 If you want healing to be heal wound.. you would call it heal wound.. if you want a "general" abstract heal you call it healing when it typically and normally occurs in a burst like a surge of vigor calling it a healing surge seems to work fine.


----------



## rounser (Mar 5, 2010)

> And preists refer to spiritual healing all the time effectively meaning restoring morale



Oh please.  You're reeeeeaaaaaaaalllly stretching here.  I think that speaks for itself.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Actually, I don't say that Fourth Edition D&D is D&D. The NAME on the cover of the books says that. That, and only that, is the definition of whether a game is "D&D" or isn't.





The trademark is owned by WotC, but the identity of that trademark is not.

The trademark is valuable to WotC because it represents some meaning in the minds of consumers.  When someone says "X is not D&D", they are not saying that the trademark has not been applied; they are saying it no longer falls within the meaning that the trademark previously represented.

Slapping "D&D" on something is not enough to make it "D&D".  

Perception of the represented meaning is, of course, highly subjective.  When one uses the term "D&D", they are really being no less vague than when they use the term "videogamey".  

-----> WARNING!  ATTEMPT TO BE FUNNY!  MAY FALL FLAT! <---------

You should really be saying "D&D Trademarked Games of the 4th Edition" if you don't want to confuse people, and if you don't want anyone to be insulted by your characterization of the represented meaning of "D&D".

Otherwise, you might be mistaken for a troll.


----------



## ST (Mar 5, 2010)

The idea of Healing Surges or Second Winds represents the idea that someone may be physically battered, bruised, and worn down, but can come back "from behind" and win a fight. It's present in pretty much any situation in a TV or movie where someone's losing a fight and comes from behind. In older editions of D&D, you might have modeled that same situation as one where someone was rolling poorly and then suddenly got a few crits. Either's a valid interpretation of this common situation.

Hit Points are a fundamentally unrealistic way to model injury. In real life, someone might pull through after a horrific injury, someone else might bleed out and die from a relatively small cut, or die horribly of an infection. We don't really make it a high priority to model injury realistically; people just look for vermilisitude. And people are so used to Hit Points, we typically don't even see them, they're just sorta there. 

(I remember a 3.0 game where every single character was bald and had no body hair by the second session. We got hit by a lot of _fireballs_ and lost a lot of HP; by the GM's description we had all been horribly burned, but pulled through because of healing spells. Healing spells don't grow your hair back, so we all looked like naked mole rats. There was no suspension of disbelief -- it was just plain dumb -- but because HP were being described as physical injury in that campaign, we were stuck with it.)

But when someone says something like "Healing surges ruin suspension of disbelief because human beings can't close cuts with their mind", it's a profound misinterpretation of how the rules about healing surges are written. They're described as specifically not being that in the book. 

Everyone has the right to make their own minds up about what is a dealbreaker for them in terms of creative buy-in to a system. I get that such a system may feel unrealistic for you. But again, saying it is unrealistic, for everyone, is presuming other people's preferences for them.

Edit: Yeah, I think it's just a difficult topic because people like stuff for different reasons, and I know for myself, I might give a particular reason why I prefer X over Y, but there's more to it than that. So it's like, am I discussing this one particular rule? Or is it wrapped up in my feelings about things associated with that rule? It makes it dicey to talk about without appearing confontational or defensive.


----------



## DanFor (Mar 5, 2010)

ST said:


> But when someone says something like "Healing surges ruin suspension of disbelief because human beings can't close cuts with their mind", it's a profound misinterpretation of how the rules about healing surges are written. They're described as specifically not being that in the book.




I have never played 4E, but I have no problem--in game terms--with the second-wind/healing surge mechanic (as I understand it). But, I must say that it is easier to suspend disbelief with the rest-or-magic method of restoring hit points vs. the healing surge mechanic. Of course, the healing surge mechanic was created to fix the 15-minute day adventure problem. I personally think there are better ways to do that, but apparently a lot of other people don't find the assumptions behind the healing surge mechanic to be a problem. Which is fine and dandy with me. That doesn't mean that the people who do have a problem with it should be summarily dismissed as trolls because they describe the mechanic as "videogamey" (i.e. artificial).



ST said:


> Everyone has the right to make their own minds up about what is a dealbreaker for them in terms of creative buy-in to a system. I get that such a system may feel unrealistic for you. But again, saying it is unrealistic, for everyone, is presuming other people's preferences for them.




I don't think one side is presuming the other side's preferences. I think both sides are being dismissive of the other.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 5, 2010)

Looks like we might be getting close to the point where we might as well close this thread, as it has drifted a long, long way from its original premise.

Unless you guys can demonstrate that it is worth keeping open?

Thanks


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Slapping "D&D" on something is not enough to make it "D&D".
> 
> Perception of the represented meaning is, of course, highly subjective.  When one uses the term "D&D", they are really being no less vague than when they use the term "videogamey".




Since you seem to agree that the "represented meaning" is highly subjective, isn't each person then the final arbiter of what constitutes "D&D" to them? Would you therefore agree that trying to impose one's own definition on others is arrogant, presumptuous, and rude?

Personally, I feel the least confrontational position to take (i.e. the "don't be a jerk" position) is: "any game which says it's _Dungeons & Dragons_ IS."

In the end: my argument comes down to this. What problem do people have with _Dungeons & Dragons_ existing under a big tent where everyone's edition is included?

After careful consideration of this topic, I think whoever said it earlier is correct. In the end, Edition Wars are all about bragging rights. I imagine someone who was motivated could come up with a psychology Ph.D. thesis out of sussing out all the motivations involved. I have my theories, but as they're bound to offend someone, I'll keep them to myself. Maybe I'll use them if I ever decide to write that thesis myself.

So, after going round and round, we're back where we started. As usual.

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Dandu (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> I imagine someone who was motivated could come up with a psychology Ph.D. thesis out of sussing out all the motivations involved.



Their parents didn't love them enough.

Yours, 
Dr. Solo, Ph.D


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Since you seem to agree that the "represented meaning" is highly subjective, isn't each person then the final arbiter of what constitutes "D&D" to them? Would you therefore agree that trying to impose one's own definition on others is arrogant, presumptuous, and rude?




Absolutely!

But, if I thought "4e isn't D&D" was an attempt to "impose one's own definition on others", I would certainly not think that "any game which says it's _Dungeons & Dragons_ IS." is any less so.  Indeed, the "emphasis" might make it more so.

You can argue for a "big tent", but how big is that tent really if it doesn't include Pathfinder, RCFG, Basic Fantasy, Champions, and Traveller as "D&D"?

In the end: my argument comes down to this.  Everyone's tent is a different size.  What problem do you have with the size of tent other people have?  What possible difference does it make to you if I think _Dungeons & Dragons_ is a big tent where everyone's edition is included, or a small tent where only one my home game is on alternate Tuesdays?  

If the second opinion seems wacky to you, why wouldn't you simply consider the source, and let it alone?  Because you can be certain that the "big tent" view is just as wacky to someone else.  Especially if the "big tent" is big enough to include Battletech, Rifts, and FASA Doctor Who.



> So, after going round and round, we're back where we started. As usual.
> 
> Can't we all just get along?




One wonders, if edition wars are about bragging rights, exactly who do you brag to?  If the usual is going round and round to where you started, what do you brag about?

My take is this:

(1)  Person A posts opinion.

(2)  Person B is offended that person A holds said opinion.

(3)  Person B posts counter-opinion.

(4)  Person A is offended that person B holds said counter-opinion.

(5)  Edition War begins.  

(6)  Edition war largely boils down to (A) "You shouldn't hold that opinion", (B) "You think your opinions are facts", (C) "My opinions are facts", (D) "Your terminology/opinion is too vague/broad to be useful, and therefore should not be used" -- IOW, _*it is ultimately not the wording, but the existence and posting of the opinion that is considered offensive*_.

(7)  Both Person A and Person B view themselves as "defenders" and view the other person as "agressors" or "trolls".

The easiest way to "get along" is to stop being offended that other people hold (and publicly hold) opinions diametrically opposed to your own.  It is also, apparently, one of the hardest things for folks to do.


RC


----------



## MrGrenadine (Mar 5, 2010)

Not sure if the answer to this is hiding upthread, but I haven't seen anything, so I have to ask:  

SpiderMonkey--did the panel happen yet?  And if so, how did it go?

Would love to hear if your presentation led to any good discussions, or led to you any conclusions that you'd like to share.


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> But, if I thought "4e isn't D&D" was an attempt to "impose one's own definition on others", I would certainly not think that "any game which says it's _Dungeons & Dragons_ IS." is any less so.  Indeed, the "emphasis" might make it more so.
> 
> ...




I think the difference is that I feel the "big tent" argument is more _inclusive_, rather than _exclusive_. Personally, I'd rather have an intelligent discussion about system trade-offs than a pissing match over who's playing "the right version."

For the record, my (subjective) assessment of "what counts as D&D" would be any game that derives from OD&D rules and self-identifies as such _or would like to_. So, by MY definition, RCFG counts if you want to say it does. As a continuation of 3e, _Pathfinder_ counts. As an OGL recut of AD&D 1e, _Castles & Crusades_ counts. As an OGL rewrite of OD&D, _Swords & Wizardry_ counts. Obviously, every game that bears the title _Dungeons & Dragons_ (Advanced or otherwise) counts. As variant PHBs for 3e, _Arcana Evolved_ and _Iron Heroes_ count. Hell, _Hackmaster_ counts! If they weren't so generic, I'd count _True 20_ and _d20 Modern._ And I'm sure I'm missing some. Basically, as long as the game follows the basic tenets of the 1974 D&D ruleset, it counts.

Over the years, I've played "D&D" with people who have altered just about everything (how AC is counted, or even whether it's used, how damage is handled, how saves work, WHICH classes, the magic system(s), magic items, parry mechanics, multiclassing, et cetera, etc.). So what defines "D&D" for me? Let me see...

1. It's a Medieval Fantasy Roleplaying Game.
2. It uses the 6 attributes of Str, Int, Dex, Con, Cha, and Wis.
3. It uses a Fantasy-based class system, with levels.
4. It uses a d20 for combat resolution.

Those are my sacred cows. When they kill one of those, I'll agree it "isn't D&D." Everything else is negotiable. Even the "medieval" is negotiable - to a point. Perhaps the forthcoming _Gamma World_ "setting" goes too far, but you could certainly play a stone-age, bronze-age, renaissance, restoration, or victorian-era game and have it still be recognizably _Dungeons & Dragons_. And I do recall people thinking of, and referring to, _Urban Arcana_ as "D&D Modern."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Personally, I'd rather have an intelligent discussion about system trade-offs than a pissing match over who's playing "the right version."




Again, then, what difference does it make whether or not my opinion is the more _inclusive_ big tent or the far more _exclusive_ only-every-second-Tuesdays-on-alternate-months-and-only-in-Joe's-kitchen tent?

If you'd rather talk about system trade-offs, what difference does it make whether I call the system D&D or not?

I mean, I don't think you call Traveller "D&D", but I am pretty sure that you and I could carry on an intelligent discussion about the system trade-offs between, say, classic Traveller and 3e?  

IOW, worrying about what I think is D&D has nothing to do with your stated objective.  If your real objective is to converse about system trade-offs, and you and I both know what systems we are talking about, what difference can it possibly make whether System X is in my "D&D tent" or not?



RC


----------



## JohnSnow (Mar 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I mean, I don't think you call Traveller "D&D", but I am pretty sure that you and I could carry on an intelligent discussion about the system trade-offs between, say, classic Traveller and 3e?




Umm...probably not, as I've never played Traveller. 

But otherwise, I suppose you're correct.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IOW, worrying about what I think is D&D has nothing to do with your stated objective.  If your real objective is to converse about system trade-offs, and you and I both know what systems we are talking about, what difference can it possibly make whether System X is in my "D&D tent" or not?




I suppose you're right. But I guess I'm also trying to understand (and you seem like a reasonable guy, so I'm asking you) what the value is in publicly being "exclusive" about what counts as D&D. The way I see it, you're taking what you must know is a confrontational stance for no apparent reason. It's the EXACT same attitude (albeit with a different bias) as:

1. "If you're not playing by the rules as written, you're not really playing D&D." (the "badwrongfun" argument - blatantly rude.)

2. "If you're not playing the newest version, you're not really playing D&D."

I think we're all aware that statements like that WILL (no bones about) start a fight. So why is the converse of the latter considered okay by so many? Is it that people feel they can make the statement somehow "neutral" by attacking only the system directly and the people who like it only be inference?

There's nothing wrong with an intelligent critique that addresses a particular point. However, when someone makes a statement like "4e is dumbed-down," they're implying that the people who like it are themselves dumb. Aren't they?

I just don't get how that statement can be read any other way. I can see how an exclusive attitude will cause hurt feelings. I don't see it that way when it comes to inclusion.

But maybe that's me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> But I guess I'm also trying to understand (and you seem like a reasonable guy, so I'm asking you) what the value is in publicly being "exclusive" about what counts as D&D.




The value is the same as that of being publicly "inclusive":  it lets people know where you stand, it gives you the (perhaps vain, if you are exclusive to the absurd degree of second-Tuesdays-etc) opportunity to find and/or develop a community of like-minded individuals, and (for some) it is an opening to calmly discuss (and possibly change) an opinion.  

(Note, though, that this last is not an invitation to attack the person, nor does it mandate that the person must bow to your argument or be considered obstinant, a hater, or a troll.)

Notice that everything you objected to is a projection of the poster's subjective perception of quality onto what is happening at your table.  Most of the time, this is the same as trying to force someone to like X/agree that X is (or is not) D&D/stop using term Y/etc.  Again, the problem is not the opinion, but taking offense that others do not share it.  It happens in both directions.

The exception, IMHO, is when a poster claims to have Z problem with the game, where the problem is an artifact of the system/method of using the system.  I would think that it is then valid to say "That is because of the system/how you are using the system", especially if you can suggest alternatives.

In the "quantum wounding" discussion of 4e's healing surges, it was this sort of reply that gave me (at least) a working model to at least consider healing surges to be acceptably plausible to enjoy playing the game.  For me, both the initial complaint, and the refusal to accept answers that made no sense to me, allowed me to eventually change my mind (and say so in the thread).

IOW, if you want to play the game, and you are having a problem that you don't want to have, it follows that either the game or you are doing something wrong (and by wrong, I mean, in a way that makes the problem arise) if other people can do it without having the same problem.

The problem is, not being offended that other people hold (and publicly hold) opinions diametrically opposed to your own really seems to be one of the hardest things for folks to do.

We are all guilty of being offended when we should not be, IMHO.  The only solution I can see is just letting it go.


RC


----------



## Nifft (Mar 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The value is the same as that of being publicly "inclusive":  it lets people know where you stand, it gives you the (perhaps vain, if you are exclusive to the absurd degree of second-Tuesdays-etc) opportunity to find and/or develop a community of like-minded individuals, and (for some) it is an opening to calmly discuss (and possibly change) an opinion.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...



 So wait, you'd be cool with everyone calling the game you're working on *VaPID* ("Vanity Project In Development"), instead of the title you came up with?

And with people saying that your game is not "really" Fantasy?

- - -

I'm sure you know that having one's tastes insulted is, in fact, insulting.
I'm sure you know that having one's taste dismissed as "not real" is also insulting.

I'm not sure why you think your brand of insult should be tolerated.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 1. By my count, there's _Dungeons & Dragons_ (1974), 2 versions of Basic/Expert D&D, 1e AD&D, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e (& 3.5), _Castles & Crusades, Pathfinder,_ and _Swords & Wizardry_. That's 10. And that's without counting any of the variant versions of 3e as separate games (like _Arcana Unearthed/Evolved_ or _Iron Heroes_).



How about the Holmes (first "basic") edition? Why not BFRPG, Labyrinth Lord or OSRIC?

Why C&C, Pathfinder, and S&W?


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't say that Fourth Edition D&D is D&D. The NAME on the cover of the books says that. That, and only that, is the definition of whether a game is "D&D" or isn't.




Fine. If you're serious about that, then cut the baloney you demonstrated in that list. Then get used to the fact that all it means is people must find some other way to say, "As far as I'm concerned, this is not D&D."

They'll still _mean_ the same thing. It's just that "D&D" will have lost its meaning in terms of having anything to do with the game itself.

What use such a vague brand? Maybe it will just wither as terms with more consistent references, such as *"Old School"*, take over much of its practical utility.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 5, 2010)

What the heck does this line of discussion have to do with what is really at stake in the Edition Wars?


----------



## Nifft (Mar 5, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> What the heck does this line of discussion have to do with what is really at stake in the Edition Wars?



 Edition wars are about sneering rights.

Claiming illegitimacy of any given edition is a form of sneering.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## NN (Mar 5, 2010)

Because there isnt anything at stake in the edition wars. We might as well debate ice cream recipes or uzbekistan politics instead.

Here you go:

Different rpgs  - and versions of rpgs  - suit different tastes.

Because of D&Ds dominant position, some people get more offended than they really should when a new version of D&D comes out. They feel that Their Way Of Playing is being criticised (and it also wont be supported). 

And some who like the new version, then get more offended than they should by the criticism of the new version, as they feel Their Way is also being criticised.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 6, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> What the heck does this line of discussion have to do with what is really at stake in the Edition Wars?




Exactly the problem.

Thread closed.


----------

