The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Psion]

Originally Posted by Truename

Not at all, and I'm not in HR, although I can see why some people would think that. Change is hard, but once my teams get through it, they're generally happier (and still in the same job).

Sorry, I mis-typed. I meant "when resisting the change is unhealthy...". I.E. Substantially the same as what you have said here:

Originally Posted by Truename

the techniques I introduce are genuinely better for many (not all) teams. And I mean "better" in that they make the software better and they make team members' lives better (less overtime, more ownership, higher quality results, authority over schedules...).

So, unlike the situation of adapting to new tools, software engineering best practices (yeah, I'm a software engineer), etc., accepting the change to 4e is not implicitly in my best interest.

As a related back-analogy, I find that about the worst thing you can do in the software world is to accept a change just because a vendor promises it is better. One vendor assures me using java for embedded development is the way to go. Elsewhere, one vendor assures me that open source based software has inherent benefits (and thus I should be buying their product) and another tells me that there is no way I should risk that (and thus I should be buying their product).

[Truename]

At the risk of beating a dead horse...

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

Just to make sure I understand ... is the OP saying that the pattern of resistance to change is independent of the comparative quality of X and Y? That is, in changing from X to Y, and assuming that X can be objectively measured for quality against Y, would the same pattern of resistance apply if X is better than Y and if Y is better than X?

Almost. The pattern of reaction to "the introduction of a foreign element" (change) is consistent regardless of whether Y is better or worse. The whole cycle is about more than just resistance.

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

If yes, how in the world would people come around to the "transformative idea" that lets them accept the change to Y, if X is objectively better than Y? And, maybe more importantly, why would they?

The transforming idea is about how to integrate the "foreign element" (in this case, Wizards releasing 4e) into your life. Sometimes that means adopting it enthusiastically, but not necessarily.

Here's an example. It's a caricature, but it's the best I can do in 7 lines.

1. Late Status Quo: 3.5e
2. (introduction of foreign element: 4e released)
3. Resistance: "I read about 4e and didn't like it."
4. Chaos: "All the board conversations are about 4e. Will I be forced to use it? I hates it, my precious, hates it!"
5. (transforming idea): "Hey, I still have all my 3.5e books, and there's a lot of people who don't like 4e."
6. Integration: "I'm going to find some 3.5e players for my group, move to a 3.5e forum, and snag some cheap books off eBay."
7. New Status Quo: "I've got a healthy group, more books than I can use, and Paizo's putting out some awesome stuff."

And for the other side of the fence, also a caricature:

1. Late Status Quo: 4e excitement
2. (introduction of foreign element: people flaming 4e)
3. Resistance: "These people obviously don't understand 4e. They just need to try it!"
4. Chaos: "Why do people keep flaming 4e? Can't they see that all their arguments are straw-men? 4e is great! Isn't it? Isn't it? Why won't they just try it? Oh crap, this person tried it for 6 months and still hates it. What if it really does suck?"
5. (transforming idea): "Hmm... this rule kind of bothers me. Maybe 4e isn't perfect."
6. Integration: "The flames are getting boring, but there's definitely some problems with 4e. Let's talk about house rules and encounter design."
7. New Status Quo: "4e isn't as awesome as I thought it was, but with some house rules and a good DM, I'm having even more fun than before."

(Again, there's more details on the Satir change model here: Steven M Smith - The Satir Change Model)

[resistor]

Originally Posted by Truename

The transforming idea is about how to integrate the "foreign element" (in this case, Wizards releasing 4e) into your life. Sometimes that means adopting it enthusiastically, but not necessarily.

Here's an example. It's a caricature, but it's the best I can do in 7 lines.

1. Late Status Quo: 3.5e
2. (introduction of foreign element: 4e released)
3. Resistance: "I read about 4e and didn't like it."
4. Chaos: "All the board conversations are about 4e. Will I be forced to use it? I hates it, my precious, hates it!"
5. (transforming idea): "Hey, I still have all my 3.5e books, and there's a lot of people who don't like 4e."
6. Integration: "I'm going to find some 3.5e players for my group, move to a 3.5e forum, and snag some cheap books off eBay."
7. New Status Quo: "I've got a healthy group, more books than I can use, and Paizo's putting out some awesome stuff."

And for the other side of the fence, also a caricature:

1. Late Status Quo: 4e excitement
2. (introduction of foreign element: people flaming 4e)
3. Resistance: "These people obviously don't understand 4e. They just need to try it!"
4. Chaos: "Why do people keep flaming 4e? Can't they see that all their arguments are straw-men? 4e is great! Isn't it? Isn't it? Why won't they just try it? Oh crap, this person tried it for 6 months and still hates it. What if it really does suck?"
5. (transforming idea): "Hmm... this rule kind of bothers me. Maybe 4e isn't perfect."
6. Integration: "The flames are getting boring, but there's definitely some problems with 4e. Let's talk about house rules and encounter design."
7. New Status Quo: "4e isn't as awesome as I thought it was, but with some house rules and a good DM, I'm having even more fun than before."

How would you account for people whose opinions have flipped? I was initially really excited for 4e, until more details came out and I realized it wasn't what I wanted. And I'm sure there are other people who experienced the reverse: initially disinterested, then discovered they like it later.

[Roger]

Originally Posted by Truename

My day job is all about helping people make major changes to their work habits. I see the same types of reactions there that I'm seeing on this forum in regards to 4e, so I thought you might like to hear some of the things that I've learned about change.

Interesting post and interesting thread. I think the data and evidence fit the model fairly well, for the most part.

Regarding the virulence of this particular War, I think there's another factor that isn't usually present and that has yet to be raised.

Since your background is in work habits, let's say we have a situation in which there's a group of employees who have been using a particular brand of Day-Timer for years, but there's a push from management for everyone to migrate to some new brand. The parallels between this scenario and the real life situation are clear, I hope.

The tricky bit is that it's not just that the employees have been using their particular Day-Timers for years. It's that some of them, including some who are well-respected by their peers, have also been producing and selling accessories specific to that brand. A few on a large and profitable scale, many on a smaller and less-profitable scale. And the upcoming change threatens their economic ecosystem.

In that sort of situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see an unusual amount of effort being put into resistance to the change, and a high level of evangelism inherent in that resistance.

Have you run across this sort of situation in your professional experience? How did it work out?



Cheers,
Roger

[Stormtower]

Originally Posted by joethelawyer

My take on it is a little bit different. Workplace change is forced on someone usually. What we are dealing with here is nothing forced on us. Many of us were eager for the change. It got our juices flowing.

I think what you are seeing here is not resistance to change, but anger. Anger, because for many of us, for the first time in 20+ yrs of playing D&D, we are being left behind. We associated ourselves with an image. A Brand, you could say. A part of our identity was that we were playing D&D, the latest edition. We may be old timers, we may have cut our teeth on the game in 1984, but we also play the latest & greatest game they put out too. We may houserule it, but we are still part of a growing community of gamers. We buy the newest stuff, or at least check it out and steal from it for our games. When people publish a module, or a new spaltbook, it's for us, damnit! We are part of the next great thing. We are evolving and changing with the game. We are riding the wave of newness, freshness, the latest and greatest. And we loved that. It was part of who we were.

Part of our identity.

With 4e, many of us just felt we couldn't make the switch. It was too far from the game we played and loved.

The result of that, was we were no longer the cutting edge. I know I personally feel regret that I won't be able to go into Borders and sit down and read the latest D&D books. That's something I have been doing since 1984. It's basically like someone teling me that the car/computer/IPod that I have now will be the one I will have forever. There is no sense checking out new cars/computers/IPods, because I won't like it.

It's sad, sort of depressing. It makes me feel old and left behind. Out of touch. And that excitement that I have had in looking forward to the new thing from D&D, that I have felt since 1984, I will never have again.

From that comes anger. Anger at the people/company who took away a part of what I liked about my life, a part of myself. Something I identified with. Something that made me who I was. Anger is a natural reaction, along with the sadness. Eventually acceptance will come, or has come for many of us, and we will find something else to identify with.

I think that's why so many people have such high hopes for Pathfinder, and are calling it the real D&D 4e. That way they really didn't lose anything, they just re-associate that aspect of their identity with something else. Same with the people who are going with C&C, or other systems. It's no coincidence that people are picking up their heads out of the 3.x books, and looking at new and growing systems. They want to be a part of something they can identify with in the same way they used to identify with D&D. They want to be able to buy the new car/computer/IPod damnit! They want to be a part of something successful, new, that grows and evolves along with themselves and their gaming hobby. Just like they used to have.

It stands to reason that for the same identity issues, some, not al, but some people went to 4e because they didn't want to lose that part of their identity. I think most by far went because they loved the system, and it worked for them. But some went because of fear of losing part of themselves.

Edition wars arise because people basically don't want to be analyzed as to their psychological motivations, or reasons for doing something. Most think they are completely rational creatures. If you threaten their sense of self, or identity, they get angry. Their defending of their game system or true motivations is essentially stemming from their identification with the game they play. The more they identify with something, the more hostile they get when you try to take that source of identification away from them. Loss of the argument triggers fear of losing part of themselves. Back someone into a corner and th reaten to take something valuable from them, and watch how they react.


Just my 2 cents...

This. I was going to type a long post but joethelawyer, you covered it bro. The only addition I could make to his thoughts is the additional anger/stress that comes with the fracturing of social bonds as players and GMs diffuse away from the previous edition into "anything but" 4E.

Now, I'm not down on 4E, personally. I think the game is pretty doggone fun (it ain't my beloved 3.5, but it doesn't need to be) and has plenty of potential. But as a mid-80's D&D guy it's certainly demoralizing to see how this edition change in particular (more so, by my personal observation, than previous edition changes) has driven many gamers into other RPGs and away from D&D altogether. I've lost players and DMs from organized play, although they are still happy to sit at my 3.5 table. Long term, I have some serious reservations about how much the community will remain fractured, as well as how WotC/Hasbro truly intend to draw new gamers (and particularly, new DMs) into the hobby.

But it's not fear of change. I've happily adopted every previous edition of D&D before 4E, and I'm still on the fence, hedging my bets, seven months after its release. That's never happened before.

[Thistonius]

As someone has said, maybe the main reason is an economic one. I know one person who has refused to buy any 3E/3.5E books due to the amount of money he spent on 2E. I refused to buy 2E books from 1E simply because of the cost involved.

My move to 4E was a simple one for me. The rules seemed better, the combat quicker and the character creation easier. Why? Because my group has 3 people who wanted to roleplay and had never done it before. We started with 3.5 and they found all the rules, spells, etc etc very confusing, even after a group of us sat down with them and explained everything to them. This got me thinking about 3.5 in general.

When 4E arrived, we gave it a quick playtest, since I bought the 3 core books, and we found that we enjoyed it far more then 3.5. We introduced it to our new players and they loved it. They explained that the characters were more concise in what they wanted and didn't have to trawl to page after page of character generation and spells. When my older players came into the game, they said that it was a breath of fresh air, and when we finished our first fight in less than 10 mins, we were astonished.

So for me, and my group, it was a no-brainer to switch to 4E from 3.5E. Even our hardcore 3.5 splatbook master has made the switch completly because he enjoys the system more. He has even sold some of his 3.5 books so he can start buying 4E books instead.

But, at the end of the day, it comes down to what you like and how much you have spent on that 'like' and what you like to play. Simple as.

[lutecius]

When I read the OP my first thought was "hmmm, recent account… troll!!!" Now I’m sure it wasn’t Truename’s intention but if it were it would have a lot of potential. People involved in a debate just love being told "your arguments are irrelevant, you’re just being irrational and following some predictable pattern".

I adopted 3e immediately because I thought it was a huge improvement over previous editions. After a few years I was burned out and felt it needed a serious overhaul. I was really looking forward to a vastly different new edition even before it was announced. Then 4e came out and I realized it kept things I didn't like and I hated most of the changes...
OMG! I don’t fit either profile! I’m so unique and unpredictable!!!

…OR some people may dislike and not adopt 4e for a variety of perfectly valid reasons and edition wars happen because:
1- people tend to take sides and argue about many things (sports, politics, not just new situations)
2- surprisingly, gamers have strong opinions on rpgs.
3- anonymous online debates are often more heated
4- there is no objective way to prove either side right or wrong

Resistance to change may be a factor in edition wars but implying it's the main reason is just glib.

Originally Posted by Truename

the techniques I introduce are genuinely better for many

See? completely different situation here.

[Scott_Rouse]

I want to thank Truename for a great post and to everyone for a lively and respectful debate. This has been one of the best threads for me on the boards in a while.

I don't agree with everything said in the thread and I am not sure you can use a clinical explanation for the situation. Regardless it is still a terrific thread and generated a great discussion amongst my team on brand and marketing strategies.

[Truename]

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

I want to thank Truename for a great post and to everyone for a lively and respectful debate. This has been one of the best threads for me on the boards in a while.

I don't agree with everything said in the thread and I am not sure you can use a clinical explanation for the situation. Regardless it is still a terrific thread and generated a great discussion amongst my team on brand and marketing strategies.

Thanks! Introduce me to your DDI software team and then I can really do some good...

[RFisher]

Originally Posted by Truename

Yet I face this resistance to change from people on every team. It's human nature.

Well, with software engineers you’ve got much, much more than human nature in the way. You have every IT department who ever forced Notes as an e-mail system on people. You have every PHB who forced development practices that were meant to be a bad example but they weren’t smart enough to understand that. You have every pressed-T-shirt who decided to early adopt unproven practices because their only criterion is buzzword compliance.

Software development has been so badly managed so often.

[Truename]

Originally Posted by Roger

The tricky bit is that it's not just that the employees have been using their particular Day-Timers for years. It's that some of them, including some who are well-respected by their peers, have also been producing and selling accessories specific to that brand. A few on a large and profitable scale, many on a smaller and less-profitable scale. And the upcoming change threatens their economic ecosystem.

In that sort of situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see an unusual amount of effort being put into resistance to the change, and a high level of evangelism inherent in that resistance.

Have you run across this sort of situation in your professional experience? How did it work out?

Sort of, but not exactly. My field is called "software methodology" (literally, "the methods used to create software"). In some companies there are people who are responsible for defining the company's methods. Sometimes these people are called "architects" and sometimes they're part of a "project management office" (PMO). Although the software teams are the ones doing the work, the architects (or PMO) are "selling accessories"--they're taking established methods and customizing them to the company's needs. They do tend to resist a lot more.

Sometimes these folks are well respected, and sometimes they aren't. Regardless, I have to figure out who is well-respected, particularly the ones who also dislike the new system. People who are well-respected have disproportionate influence. If they accept the change (particularly if they really hated it to begin with), then it's easier for others to accept it, too.

Once I find these folks, I spend extra time helping them find that "transforming idea" in order for the larger change to be successful. So I talk with them and, without asking, try to get a sense of what they really care about. I don't look for details of how software is developed (analogy: HP & healing surges), but what they're truly passionate about. This often turns out to be rigor, reliability, quality, predictability, user satisfaction, sane work hours, career advancement, or something else (analogy: a realistic-seeming world).

Once I have this sense of understanding, I help those people discover how they can preserve those passions in the new system. I'll talk about how the system cares about rigor, or provides predictability, or can be adjusted on the fly to take advantage of user feedback. I'm not pushy about it, though, and I don't try to convince or persuade so much as to put myself in his (or her) shoes and show that I can see things from his perspective and that I value the same things he does. Then I use "did you know" to help him see that things aren't necessarily as bad as his preconceptions say. (Analogy: "suspension of disbelief is important to me too; I want the things that are happening to have some internal logic. It's hard for me to imagine what's happening otherwise. (pause) The way I deal with that in my game is to describe HP loss as 'getting winded' and taking shallow cuts. That way healing surges are cinematic surges of adrenaline rather than actual healing, except when magic is involved. What do you think of that approach?" ...If that quote sounds a bit forced, it is; it's easier in real conversation.)

This isn't as manipulative as it might sound. It's actually understanding his perspective and trying to show new possibilities. For this to work, I have to truly care about his success, and just show options rather than forcing. People can tell when you're being manipulative. It doesn't work if you are.

Anyway, these conversations don't really result in a "transforming idea," but they plant a seed. Usually that seed is enough to get people past the initial resistance and try the new system for a decent amount of time. At first it's chaos and disaster, but people work through it and eventually find that transforming idea that lets them make the new system work for them.

Umm... so, yeah. More than you wanted to know about introducing change. I'm not sure what you can take from this experience, but there you go.

[Galloglaich]

Originally Posted by underthumb

Truename-



Okay, but what you argued is that "resistance to change" is "completely independent of how much better or worse the 'new thing' is". Those are your words. You're saying that humans have a response to change which is content-neutral. More specifically, you're implying that the content of 4e is irrelevant to the responses observed, which reduces any resistance to a kind of psychological hiccup. You even described the irrational lengths that people would go to so that they might avoid "change", implying that normal attempts to reason with those who are anti-4e are bound to fail.

All of this effectively becomes a neat way of packing anti-4e sentiment into a self-help syndrome. Really. Your post even ends with a description of the "stages" of change, helpfully suggesting that "people get stuck at different stages in the process".

I agree 100%, and to be honest I find this kind of pschyo-marketing doctrine extremely creepy (even though it is the basis for a lot of very effective and very lucrative influence of public opinions ala Edward Bernays Madison Avenue) it reduces the human mind / spirit to mechanical processes, there is some cleverness in it's insights on human behavior, but it's more to do with manipulation than enlightenment. It's the iron hand of cynical rationalization masked in a warm fuzzy mitten of psychobabble.

G.

[The Shaman]

Originally Posted by RFisher

. . . buzzword compliance.

That's beautiful.

Thanks for adding that to my vocabulary.

[diaglo]

great thread.

but i'm not sure you'll convince me to play 4E.

i am against 1edADnD, 2edD&D, 3edD&D, 4edD&D, 2edADnD, 2000ed, 3.11ed for workgroups, and 4E.

not that i haven't tried and played all of them. i just find them not to my standards.

edit: diaglo "prefers the term luddite OD&Der" Ooi

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by lutecius

Resistance to change may be a factor in edition wars but implying it's the main reason is just glib.

Discarding it as a (or the) major reason out of hand is also glib. Do not throw out hypothesis that are consistent with the evidence out of hand. You don't need to be bound by them - just keep them in mind as possibilities.

I am not, personally, one who holds to most models that human reactions work in "stages". That does not mean the model does not hold some goodly wisdom you can extract, and use to your own benefit.

If nothing else, you can take away from this the idea that the person on the other end of the conversation isn't "just being a jerk" - there are generally reasons why people have reactions. Treat them as if they have a reason that you, and perhaps even they, do not know, and you can probably avoid warring in the first place...

[ExploderWizard]

The original post was a very interesting take on the edition wars phenomenon.

As I was reading it, a different message was playing in the back of my mind.

" I am the wellspring from which you flow." " What would your world be without me?"

Hearing that triggered an emotional response that I'm sure most gamers are familliar with.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Truename

My day job is all about helping people make major changes to their work habits. I see the same types of reactions there that I'm seeing on this forum in regards to 4e, so I thought you might like to hear some of the things that I've learned about change.

So you are one of those people who turns people's worlds upside down and then explain to them why they should be happy about it. I see.

I'm a big fan of, "If it ain't broke...."

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Scott_Rouse

I don't agree with everything said in the thread and I am not sure you can use a clinical explanation for the situation. Regardless it is still a terrific thread and generated a great discussion amongst my team on brand and marketing strategies.

"Don't sell the customers what they want, convince them that they want what you're selling."

Depressing.

[Wombat]

One observation I have is that the original posting could be applied to trying any other roleplaying game, rather than shifting from 3e to 4e.

Example: my gaming group became bored with 3e. We disliked the emphasis on combat, primarily, but there were other issues as well. So we moved to other systems entirely, rather than moving towards 4e.

(As an aside, we did get briefly involved in a 4e game -- three sessions worth. Admittedly we went in with a negative view, but we tried it, found that the aspects of D&D that we disliked were even more greatly emphasized, and opted out entirely. This was, admittedly, after we had already tried and found we enjoyed other systems.)

When the group first shifted to another system, there was a hard adjustment period, in that the players were still in "D&D mentality" (assume there are dungeons, assume illogical traps lurk in every room, assume that every encounter will be combat-oriented, looks for magical treasures, etc.). It took about four sessions (roughly two months for us gaming) to break totally out of the old habits and really adjust to the new (or more correctly for one player to complete the transition), but we were happy to be away from D&D.

We had not held onto the old. We had gone towards something new. We successfully made a deep transition in gaming.

Much more importantly, however, we did not need to shift. We did this from desire, from an interest in finding a game that better fit our style of sessions. Yes, the game system we shifted to came out after 3e was introduced; would that, then, make the shift necessary?

4e is optional. Just because someone played 3e does not mean that they will play 4e, have to like it, and give up earlier editions. Most people who play D&D have never played another rpg; is it required that they try another newer rpg when it comes out? The logic of this is on the level of saying, "We've always played Bridge, but someone has just invented Hearts -- we are all required to shift."

The logic here is faulty except from a "required" environment, such as work or removal of old technology. It sounds good, but under inspection it becomes questionable at best.

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by Truename

My day job is all about helping people make major changes to their work habits. I see the same types of reactions there that I'm seeing on this forum in regards to 4e, so I thought you might like to hear some of the things that I've learned about change.

(There's some generalizations in the stuff coming up. Individual reactions vary, of course.)

I will state upfront that I have a bias with anything that tries to attribute a general reason for human behavior. Usually, IMHO, it amounts to this might be why some people could be acting this way...

Originally Posted by Truename

First, it's human nature to resist change. It's not actually a dislike of new stuff that causes this resistance; it's that people get comfortable with the current way of doing things. The resistance comes from not wanting to lose stuff they already have and like. So the more mastery someone has over the existing way of doing things, the more likely they are to dislike a new way of doing things.

Bold Mine...I think this is a simplistic view when dealing with subjective things such as rpg's. This isn't a policy, procedure or chunk of code that can be measured in terms of productivity increases or efficiency. It is measured in a very subjective way...mainly fun. I think it would be more accurate in the case of 3e vs. 4e to assert that resistance comes from not wanting to lose stuff that achieves one's fun (however each individual ranks that). Thus I don't know if "mastery" is necessarily the correct reason either. Honestly I feel like I have a better understanding and "mastery of 4e than I do of 3e and it's myriad OGL counterparts...but I have more fun with 3e/OGL games and products.

I think this is moreso because I am continuously learning or discovering something new with my 3e and OGL games/books. I enjoy that plain and simple. Others do not and I can accept that.

Let's look at it a different way, I just purchased a 42" flat panel LCD TV, along with a HD cablebox & DVR. I wasn't resistant to this change in my television because in the end this tv helps me garner more enjoyment and more fun from using it (whether that is with my xbox 360, PS3, recording programs or picture quality.)... it has nothing to do with the mastery I had over my old TV and VCR which I knew how to use...while there was and still is a learning curve for my new stuff.

Originally Posted by Truename

This is completely independent of how much better or worse the "new thing" is. People will come up with all kinds of rationalizations, and engage in long, bitter arguments, but at their core these arguments come down to "I like what I have now. Please don't take it away from me." Such an argument can never be won (or lost). The more you try, the more entrenched people get in their positions.

Again emphasis mine...Why do you believe this? In a work environment, unless you are making the decisions, you often in the end have little choice but to go with the change... as an example, at my job we have just recently switched from RAD 6 to RAD 7 as a development environment. Regardless of which is "better" or "worse", I am paid to learn to use the current one in completing my assigned projects. Thus while I may appreciate how smooth my superiors try to make the transition... ultimately it is not my choice. Unless I don't want to get paid.

I am not paid to go with the current edition of D&D and thus I have an actual choice and freedom to determine, for me, whether it is a better product or not than what I already have.

Originally Posted by Truename

So, when people try to argue with me about a change, I don't argue about which way is better. Instead, I say: "It's worked for a bunch of people, and it might work for you, too. Give it a real try for two months and then decide. We'll set a concrete date for your group to make that decision, and it will be your decision to make, not mine."

This generally works, and people often find that they like the new way, even if they originally hated it. (Not always, though.)

Have you ever wondered if it's that most people actually come to "like" the new way... or that at a certain point they realize that it is inevitable... I mean unless they want to quit, be labeled as a "troublemaker" at their job, etc. Again this doesn't apply to something I have the freedom to judge as opposed to having no option in the end.

Originally Posted by Truename

It works because there's a predictable pattern to change. (Psychologist Virginia Satir explains it this way: Steven M Smith - The Satir Change Model) There's an initial period of resistance to making any change. When people try it, they experience chaos, low performance, and low morale as they discover that they no longer understand how they fit into to the system.

At some point, individuals discover a "transforming idea" that shows how the new way benefits them personally. They see how they can fit into the system and they start integrating it into their life. This happens at different times for different people. The nature of the "transforming idea" is highly personal, and some people never discover one.

(In my work, I've found that it takes about two months of full-time use to get through the chaos to the transforming idea. Hence the "try it for two months" argument. I doubt that timeframe applies to a 3e->4e change, though!)


After discovering the transforming idea, people can get very excited and evangelical. They can also overreact, expect too much, and become disappointed. Either way, they clash with people who are still resisting, and flame wars are born.


Over time, people perfect their understanding of the new system and reach a "new status quo." They see its strengths and weaknesses and the turbulence and arguments recede.

Unless of course one or both sides are unwilling to realize this is not an objective thing and totally subjective, again especially when talking about a leisure activity that is done for fun.

Originally Posted by Truename

People get stuck at different stages in this process. Some never get out of the "resistance" stage, and never try the new system. Some experience the "chaos" stage that occurs when you first try the new system, and conclude that the new system is broken. And some get to the "transforming idea" stage, but then set their expectations impossibly high and are disappointed.

What about those with no need to try (for a cost to themselves) this new system. What if they personally haven't experienced the problems... or said problems with the old system just don't affect them in a serious enough manner that the cost is worth it? As far as the "chaos stage" how about those who know themselves and what they want well enough that they recognize a certain thing is not for them. Or they get to the "transforming idea" stage and realize the old system accomplished their desires and wants better. You disregard the issue of better or worse, and in a subjective arena I feel this is where this whole argument falls apart. If you could show that the new system is objectively better in all aspects that every user wants, your ideas would be totally valid...but instead you disregard it as not relevant, when it is the most relevant thing in this particular situation.

Originally Posted by Truename

I'm not sure what this tells us, other than the obvious: "edition wars are inevitable," and "some people love 4e from the start (generally the ones who feel they have nothing to lose), others will grow to like it with time, some will try it and hate it, and some won't ever try it," and "edition wars have little to do with which system is actually better." The good news is that they'll pass with time.

Actually I think edition wars have everything to do with "which system is actually better"...for a particular user, and they will be inevitable because, like all fans, D&D players love to debate the merits and failings (as they perceive them) of their particular hobby, sport, movie, etc.

Originally Posted by Truename

Anyway, I hope this meander through the psychology of change was interesting.

Much as I don't agree with alot of it, yes it was a quite interesting read.