The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

[Stalker0]

an interesting take...and an interesting job!

[Harlekin]

Interesting, especially the 2 months timeline. How would you expect that an echo chamber for criticism and praise such as this board affects the changeover process? I would assume that communicating with like minds will reinforce perceived disadvantages of the new make individuals even more resistant to change?
And in the same vein would this echo chamber reinforce perceived advantages and make evangelical posters more evangelical?

[PIM68]

What surpises me this time around is the level and duration.

[Ydars]

The problem with the modern world is that much of the change is for its own sake rather than for any real improvement. It is often about each generation repeating the mistakes of the previous one because there is no good way to transmit wisdom in the way that we transmit information between generations. Alot of it comes about because those at the top of any organisation need to feel they are having an effect, not because something is wrong.

Take my own work situation; I work in a University and am a young (40ish) member of staff. We are changing from a school based system to a college based system and it is causing chaos. The centre are hailing this as a stroke of genius and a vast improvement. The problem is, I remember that we had a college based system 15 years ago when I was a student and I remember the school based system being hailed as the great new thing back then. It reminds me of the way dungeons have crept back into D&D after being jettisoned by many groups in the early 90s.

Does the truth change or just our perception of it? Or do we just need any change sometimes to freshen things up? In gaming you can certainly have too much of the same thing. Some resistance to change is not just about psycological adjustment though; it is because the thing you are changing to is just less fit for purpose. In gaming this is more complicated because we are each using the same edition to acheive different purposes.

[JohnRTroy]

I know the encounter. I along with others at my job finished a well-overdue redesign to our company's website. Most were happy with it, our old site was designed in 1999 and was a chaotic mess. But we did encounter resistance from a few of the sales people, who didn't like it, because it changed their sales pattern.

I can also say I've seen resistance to change in my own life. I still have not chosen to purchase digital music, preferring CDs I can then convert to MP3 for my Zune.

So I can see this as a valid criticism of some changes. But sometimes in many cases the change is not needed but rather just dictated to people. I once had a boss who insisted on using "Use Cases" for every web site project we did. Even though the types of clients we dealt with would have worked better with a standard functional specification, and that our applications weren't object oriented or of major complexity,he insisted on using the Use Case format. Sometimes change can be detrimental and be a business calculation.

I guess you not only need to be aware of the resistance to change, but also if the resistance is caused by any valid problems. This is more a fault of bosses or executives who don't listen to constructive feedback.

In the case of edition wars--I think the big questions on people's minds are will the changes make a better game and were they necessary. Since gaming is entertainment, not a workplace environment, a lot of things are subjective and very dependent on user opinion. So I'm not sure I can chalk up the resistance to change theory as even the primary reason for Edition Wars.

[El Mahdi]

Maybe we could all use some Edition War "Therapy".

I think there might be a good portion of ENWorld members with "Edition War" PTSD.

[S'mon]

Those who resist 4e just need counselling. Hmmm...

[Edena_of_Neith]

Change is painful. I mean, doesn't that really summarize things?
I'm being *really* serious. Change hurts. We age, for example. That's a change, and if that doesn't bring pain at times, I don't know what does!

However, may I point out, as I did in other threads, that it should be a matter of choice? It always should have been a matter of choice.

We should be thinking in terms of: How can we add 4E to what we already have, to make it all even better!
Not: We must discard all previous information, and embrace a whole new way.

The Edition Wars came from the shock of an attempt (by the CEOs of Hasbro, I believe (NOT the average Hasbro worker, much less anyone at WOTC!) to enforce the You Must Go To The New Way approach, instead of Let's Add 4E To Our Previous Collection approach.

And yes, obviously this would cause some friction.
There are countless examples in Real Life, of where technological/societal shifts occurred, and all out change was enforced. It is just in the nature of us, that we wish to preserve What Is. So yes, one would expect friction.

The older material is out there, and - frankly - I do not think it is going to go away. It will simply be preserved in the Digital World, accessible to anyone with an interest in it.
If Hasbro allows a re-issuing of material no longer supported, then perhaps some of these things will return in force. And this will be in addition to the newer material that is out there.
I can hope.

[Harlekin]

Originally Posted by PaulMaclean

What surpises me this time around is the level and duration.

I think the OP explains that pretty well. This time many people actually have something to loose, so their emotional reaction is stronger.

[Derren]

Originally Posted by Harlekin

I think the OP explains that pretty well. This time many people actually have something to loose, so their emotional reaction is stronger.

Or maybe 4E really is worse than 3E for a larger number of people?

[Truename]

Originally Posted by Harlekin

Interesting, especially the 2 months timeline. How would you expect that an echo chamber for criticism and praise such as this board affects the changeover process? I would assume that communicating with like minds will reinforce perceived disadvantages of the new make individuals even more resistant to change?
And in the same vein would this echo chamber reinforce perceived advantages and make evangelical posters more evangelical?

I have no idea. But, in my industry, we've been undergoing a major change in work styles for ten years and people are still arguing about it on Internet fora. Not as much now as they used to, fortunately.

Originally Posted by PaulMaclean

What surpises me this time around is the level and duration.

I suspect that there was just as much reaction to the 2e->3e change (and the 1e->2e change), but there are now more people online and in this forum, so you see more of the reaction than before. (I can't prove this at all, so take that guess for what it's worth--not much ).

Originally Posted by S'mon

Those who resist 4e just need counselling. Hmmm...

I hope that's not what you think I was saying. (The last thing I want to do is start yet another new edition war thread.)

Originally Posted by Edena_of_Neith

Change is painful. I mean, doesn't that really summarize things?

Yup.

The other major point to take away is that when people react negatively, they're generally reacting to what they're losing, not what's new. Witness all the complaints about 4e being incomplete, or the MM not having fluff, or the GSL shutting people out. I think if you look carefully, you'll see that most, maybe even all, anti-4e complaints are about loss.

Also, I'm not claiming that 4e is better than 3e. That's an individual decision: Do I get more than I'm losing?

Generally, if people get that "transforming idea" and embrace a change, it's because they figured out the answer to this question: "What are the core values that I don't want to lose in (current way), and how can I have those values in (new way)?" Those answers aren't specific decisions like "no healing surges" or "revised GSL" but underlying values like (for example) "a sense of realism and wonder" or "large variety of support material." And, as I said, the answers will be very personal.

[Plane Sailing]

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.

it is an interesting perspective. I don't know whether you may have glossed over one issue in order to simplify things, but I think a significant factor which you may have overlooked in this presentation is the 'early adopter' effect - there is rarely universal resistance to change, is there?

My understanding is that typically you have the early adopters (who like to try new things), then the main body of people (who are initially resistant to change but may change over time - the group you are largely talking about), and finally a group of people who are always remain resistant to change.

Personally I tend to come into the 'early adopter' strand. Evangelistic about trying out new things. Almost a neophile, if you will. Sometimes I'll try out something new and end up rejecting it however, if I weigh things up after a while and my assessment of it is that it isn't much good. One of the effects of this is that in the business world sometimes someone comes up with a 'new' idea and I find myself in the resister camp because I tried it and have supported it once before but it really, really didn't work out (employee of the month, I'm looking at you!)

Cheers

[Aus_Snow]

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, but I don't think it translates very well, sorry.

4e is a totally optional upgrade/downgrade/crossgrade (depending how one might view it) to a particular leisure activity. That is all.

Some people (like me and many people I know, and many I know of) simply find the game to be lacking, or in some cases to be truly awful. That is all. This is not 'resistance' to anything. Yeesh.

Srsly, d00d.

[Azgulor]

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Interesting, but I don't think it translates very well, sorry.

4e is a totally optional upgrade/downgrade/crossgrade (depending how one might view it) to a particular leisure activity. That is all.

Some people (like me and many people I know, and many I know of) simply find the game to be lacking, or in some cases to be truly awful. That is all. This is not 'resistance' to anything. Yeesh.

Srsly, d00d.

Seconded. My aversion to 4e has nothing to do with change. Over the course of my RPG fandom, I've probably sat on the GM side of the screen 80% of the time. I'm also the one suggesting changing settings, systems, or genres 90% of the time.

I've ran & played everything from Basic D&D to Star Frontiers, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Traveller, Star Wars (WEG), GURPS, 3.x, Rolemaster, Alternity, Trinity, Call of Cthulu, and a bevy of OGL games.

So from a gamer's and collector's perspectives, I had every reason to want to buy 4e. Two significant factors conspired against it but would not have prevented it:

1) Having firmly embraced the d20/OGL concepts, I can pretty much make the game/setting/genre of my choice using D&D, d20 Modern, or an OGL game as a baseline. The argument of System X doesn't do <genre> really didn't apply any longer, thereby reducing demand or perceived need to buy to run another genre.

2) Financial. As a long-time RPGer, I've got a lot invested in RPG material. However, the amount of 3.x/d20/OGL is by far the largest and is pretty easy to mix-n-match as desired. I couldn't justify "starting over" nor did I want to wait to "fill in the holes" when my current collection's holes were much, much, smaller.

However, the clincher for me was WotC's combined efforts of the 4e rollout, treatment of the d20 & OGL licenses, and the abomination that was the 4e GSL.

I still looked through the books at the local bookstore and visited sites like this one to read about 4e, to see if in fact I was missing something. My research has only strengthened that initial gut impulse - I'm not missing anything.

If 4e is the game for you, more power to you. But I don't think "resistance to change" is as big a factor in people not choosing or sticking with 4e as some believe.

[underthumb]

I hope you realize just how patronizing this thread is, despite your intentions.

I think that you're correct in your presumption that there is more to changing systems than the objective qualities of those systems. However, your ascription of these difficulties to a generalized "fear of change" lacks substance and support. Here's a question: what evidence would lead you to believe that resistance to 4e is mostly "rational" (that is, based on the qualities of 4e vs. some other edition) vs. "fear based". Describe how one might discover the truth of the matter in this specific instance.

[DaveMage]

As someone not going 4E, it was originally my intention to buy the core books and make a decision afterwards. Once I learned that what was "core" in 3.5 (PH, DMG, and MM) was not going to be in the first three books of 4E, I felt like WotC was gouging, and it's been downhill from there.

So, I was originally open to "testing the waters", but then I saw a shark.

And, since I've changed with every other AD&D edition change, I hardly think the reason I'm not changing is simply "resistance to change."

[Truename]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

it is an interesting perspective. I don't know whether you may have glossed over one issue in order to simplify things, but I think a significant factor which you may have overlooked in this presentation is the 'early adopter' effect - there is rarely universal resistance to change, is there?

My understanding is that typically you have the early adopters (who like to try new things), then the main body of people (who are initially resistant to change but may change over time - the group you are largely talking about), and finally a group of people who are always remain resistant to change.

What you're talking about here is the classic "diffusion of innovations" curve. Geoffrey Moore used this curve to divide people up into five categories:

• Innovators, who want to be on the bleeding edge at all costs
• Early adopters, who like to try new things
• (the chasm--a big gap between what the first two categories want and what everyone else wants)
• Early majority, who wait to see other people have success it
• Late majority, who wait to see most people succeeding with it
• Laggards, who think new-fangled gadgets (like television) are just a passing fad

These five categories form a bell curve, with most people being "early majority" or "late majority." It's a way of understanding the market for new products, and how to sell them to different people.

Change models like Virginia Satir's look at individual and small group reaction to change. (Satir specialized in family counseling.) Different people react to a given change differently. If you graphed all those people together, you'd probably see a bell curve a lot like Moore's.

So, yeah, I agree. But just because someone is an "early adopter" or "innovator" for one type of change, doesn't mean they will be as eager to adopt a different kind of change, even one that seems closely related on the surface. The population as a whole exhibits the bell curve, but individual reactions vary.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Interesting, but I don't think it translates very well, sorry.

4e is a totally optional upgrade/downgrade/crossgrade (depending how one might view it) to a particular leisure activity. That is all.

Some people (like me and many people I know, and many I know of) simply find the game to be lacking, or in some cases to be truly awful. That is all. This is not 'resistance' to anything. Yeesh.

Srsly, d00d.

Originally Posted by Azgulor

Seconded. My aversion to 4e has nothing to do with change. Over the course of my RPG fandom, I've probably sat on the GM side of the screen 80% of the time. I'm also the one suggesting changing settings, systems, or genres 90% of the time.

I've ran & played everything from Basic D&D to Star Frontiers, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Traveller, Star Wars (WEG), GURPS, 3.x, Rolemaster, Alternity, Trinity, Call of Cthulu, and a bevy of OGL games.

So from a gamer's and collector's perspectives, I had every reason to want to buy 4e. Two significant factors conspired against it but would not have prevented it:

1) Having firmly embraced the d20/OGL concepts, I can pretty much make the game/setting/genre of my choice using D&D, d20 Modern, or an OGL game as a baseline. The argument of System X doesn't do <genre> really didn't apply any longer, thereby reducing demand or perceived need to buy to run another genre.

2) Financial. As a long-time RPGer, I've got a lot invested in RPG material. However, the amount of 3.x/d20/OGL is by far the largest and is pretty easy to mix-n-match as desired. I couldn't justify "starting over" nor did I want to wait to "fill in the holes" when my current collection's holes were much, much, smaller.

However, the clincher for me was WotC's combined efforts of the 4e rollout, treatment of the d20 & OGL licenses, and the abomination that was the 4e GSL.

I still looked through the books at the local bookstore and visited sites like this one to read about 4e, to see if in fact I was missing something. My research has only strengthened that initial gut impulse - I'm not missing anything.

If 4e is the game for you, more power to you. But I don't think "resistance to change" is as big a factor in people not choosing or sticking with 4e as some believe.

Classic expressions of Denial. Would you two like to talk about this?

[Azgulor]

Artfully, played sir!