Jack7
First Post
Synopsis: So what this thread is really about is this: regardless of what edition of the game you play, how "pure" are you in insisting that the edition you are playing be free of influences from other editions, games, systems, elements, events, rulesets, etc.
I've seen a lot of recent arguments over edition of game (primarily D&D) lately (the 5th Edition and 4th Edition and older editions and so on), which I'll be honest, I find both somewhat amusing and befuddling, for reasons I'll cite in a moment.
Now let me say before this thread becomes another useless argument about edition that this is not what this thread is about (which edition is superior or inferior). I'm using that edition-centric idea as a backdrop to express another and a different point. I want to veer away from the edition fights, per se, which I don't think go anywhere productive anyways most of the time and instead swing towards the edition of the game as a sort of expression of edition purity versus edition innovation.
Now personally I can’t imagine getting exorcised or even exercised over one particular edition or another. That is I can't imagine caring about one edition or another as a “fighting matter.” I do enjoy arguments and debates about specific design differences or ideals involved with or within one edition or another. But it's hard for me to imagine caring enough to get angry or upset or emotionally involved in opinions about this edition or another of a particular game (any game, including D&D). Maybe that's my age showing, or maybe that's pretty much always been my way of looking at games (or most other things for that matter). To me a game is either useful and enjoyable (in that normal order of importance) or it is not. Editions kind of split or specialize that general ranking of importance to me. D&D is the most important RPG to me personally for a number of reasons; the various editions thereafter divide and differentiate my opinion about D&D (the overall fantasy game itself) in various ways. For instance, to me AD&D is the single greatest edition of the D&D game overall, but 4th edition has the most interesting and often useful, if sometimes overly complicated, ideas and structures regarding character classes. But in either case I'm not about to name my children after Gary Gygax or James Wyatt, it's just not that important a matter in the big scheme of things. I also can't imagine getting into a real and bitter slap fight (“I hate you mister,” or “I’ma carrying a grudge for a long time over this feud,” or “I better not see you after sundown without your gunbelt on kid”) about the edition of a game (though I can and have enjoyed debates and criticisms and arguments about specific points of game design), where I get all fired up as if I have a personal stake in the outcome of the fight. To me gaming arguments are analytical and critical affairs, designed to promote interesting considerations about elemental and practical usefulness, not guerilla warfare and voodoo curses you wage against your nemesis.
So that led me, after reading some of the other threads here and elsewhere about various game related fights, to wonder, what exactly is being fought about? And to what end? (I've often seen fights waged, sometimes over a long period of time, over seemingly immensely unimportant matters to me, only to discover later on that it wasn't the apparent articles or details being argued that mattered, but that something else lay in the background of the fight, rarely discussed or openly mentioned, which was the real target issue of the fight.)
Now I don't know that I can discover the background fight (if there is one, or even if there is just one) because I just don't spend that much time on these issues. Yes, I like gaming matters, especially useful ones, and I reckon I have far more knowledge than most (compared to the general public) about many gaming matters, but I admit to having almost no real knowledge or even interest in highly specialized or technical matters related to D&D or RPGs. Games to me serve a function but they are not an occupation in and of themselves. (Though I can easily see why people who are involved in games as an occupation, either directly or indirectly, would develop and need specialized knowledge about detail and errata and even opinions I'd consider non-sequitur or useless to fight over). In this sense you can consider me an "outsider looking in" as I suspect many of us are, including both those who comment from time to time, and those who patrol sites like this but never or only rarely comment.
Still the various arguments, usually though not always centered around edition, have made me think about some of the “lurking in the background arguments” that may be some of the real bases of these disputes. One background idea that did occur to me was "purity."
Now I admit I have never been a real and pronounced purist, not as regards many things in life, but especially not in regards to games. To me far more important than the status quo is practical and real and pragmatic value. To me the established way of doing something is only really valuable as a starting point to innovate and move towards something better. The establishment isn’t the future; it’s only the present as a result of the past. Early on in playing any game, but especially RPGs (because RPGs are naturally conducive to "open modification" because they are, after all, about role play) it struck me that any game could be improved by modification. I never, ever played AD&D, or any other edition of D&D, earlier or later, as a purist rules-based exercise. Instead, almost as soon as learning the game I began modifying the game with house rules, creations and innovations of my own, adopting rules or systems from other games, etc. None of my players, past or present, have ever insisted on a "pure edition" or even ruleset of the game, and when I played I never insisted on such a thing with whoever was doing the DM deed with or to us.
I expected and enjoyed a wide range of rules, systems, games, events, historical devices, styles, elements and so forth to influence me either as a DM and setting creator, or as a player operating under another DM. However it seems to me that this may no longer be the case, or to be more accurate that this is assumed to no longer be the case in many of the internet arguments regarding the various editions. (And I think that this "purity assumption" may indeed be in actual fact little more than a somewhat baseless assumption or a canard when it comes to actual games and their practices for most people. That is to say the purity argument, and this is an assumption on my part regarding the background elements of these arguments, as opposed to what is apparently being argued, is not a, or the, real argument. We'll find out though through the poll, as far as an internet poll can be reflective of any actual reality.)
So what this thread is really about (the rest being background and prelude) is this: regardless of what edition of the game you play, how "pure" are you in insisting that the edition you are playing be free of influences from other games, systems, edition elements, events, rulesets, etc.
To me personally the answer is I am completely bastardized (the adjective, not the verb) when it comes to gaming. What is important to me is my stetting, not the edition of the game. In fact I guess you could say when it comes to my fantasy setting that I've created my own form of D&D which is a mixture of various elements of different editions of the game, different rulesets from other games and fantasy RPGs, houserules and innovations of my own, and so forth and so on. I simply cannot imagine it being important playing this or that “pure edition of D&D,” or any game, (to the exclusion of others) when I could and do take and adapt and adapt the best elements from various sources to create my own and more efficient and useful game compound. That being the case then editions be damned to me, they are useful only to the extent that they give me a general gaming background and to the extent that the various elements they contain are actually useful to me. I still consider it (the game variation and setting I’ve created) D&D (because that is the main and original source material and background from my fantasy role play gaming) but it is as far from "pure" as the United States is from being a nation of a single peoples. (Nevertheless, like the US, the [ad]mixture often works far better, in the aggregate, than any single element or source could by operating entirely independently.)
So to me what is of paramount importance in RPGing is my setting, and my fantasy setting and game is an amalgamation (still with a primarily D&D centered culture and background, though far from pure) of many elements, including things liberally taken from various D&D editions as well as different components borrowed from other games and sources. So to me the very idea of arguing vociferously and heatedly and angrily about various editions and the assumed purity-value of those editions (as opposed to the value of particular elements of games that people find most useful) makes to me about as much sense as arguing about which is the best sport to play, and once you figure that out then eliminate all the other sports from your competitive repertoire. (I personally like and play a wide variety of sports.)
So vote in the poll if you wish and discuss this issue if you wish, and give your opinion on what you think is important, or most important in debates like this, edition purity or edition innovation (in the sense of personal modification of the game to fit your own situation). I personally suspect that most folks are like me, their games are about as edition pure as the driven snow after being flushed through the streetplows of Detroit. But I could be wrong, and on occasion I have been, and so that's why I put up the poll.
Say what you gotta say folks…
I said my piece.
I've seen a lot of recent arguments over edition of game (primarily D&D) lately (the 5th Edition and 4th Edition and older editions and so on), which I'll be honest, I find both somewhat amusing and befuddling, for reasons I'll cite in a moment.
Now let me say before this thread becomes another useless argument about edition that this is not what this thread is about (which edition is superior or inferior). I'm using that edition-centric idea as a backdrop to express another and a different point. I want to veer away from the edition fights, per se, which I don't think go anywhere productive anyways most of the time and instead swing towards the edition of the game as a sort of expression of edition purity versus edition innovation.
Now personally I can’t imagine getting exorcised or even exercised over one particular edition or another. That is I can't imagine caring about one edition or another as a “fighting matter.” I do enjoy arguments and debates about specific design differences or ideals involved with or within one edition or another. But it's hard for me to imagine caring enough to get angry or upset or emotionally involved in opinions about this edition or another of a particular game (any game, including D&D). Maybe that's my age showing, or maybe that's pretty much always been my way of looking at games (or most other things for that matter). To me a game is either useful and enjoyable (in that normal order of importance) or it is not. Editions kind of split or specialize that general ranking of importance to me. D&D is the most important RPG to me personally for a number of reasons; the various editions thereafter divide and differentiate my opinion about D&D (the overall fantasy game itself) in various ways. For instance, to me AD&D is the single greatest edition of the D&D game overall, but 4th edition has the most interesting and often useful, if sometimes overly complicated, ideas and structures regarding character classes. But in either case I'm not about to name my children after Gary Gygax or James Wyatt, it's just not that important a matter in the big scheme of things. I also can't imagine getting into a real and bitter slap fight (“I hate you mister,” or “I’ma carrying a grudge for a long time over this feud,” or “I better not see you after sundown without your gunbelt on kid”) about the edition of a game (though I can and have enjoyed debates and criticisms and arguments about specific points of game design), where I get all fired up as if I have a personal stake in the outcome of the fight. To me gaming arguments are analytical and critical affairs, designed to promote interesting considerations about elemental and practical usefulness, not guerilla warfare and voodoo curses you wage against your nemesis.
So that led me, after reading some of the other threads here and elsewhere about various game related fights, to wonder, what exactly is being fought about? And to what end? (I've often seen fights waged, sometimes over a long period of time, over seemingly immensely unimportant matters to me, only to discover later on that it wasn't the apparent articles or details being argued that mattered, but that something else lay in the background of the fight, rarely discussed or openly mentioned, which was the real target issue of the fight.)
Now I don't know that I can discover the background fight (if there is one, or even if there is just one) because I just don't spend that much time on these issues. Yes, I like gaming matters, especially useful ones, and I reckon I have far more knowledge than most (compared to the general public) about many gaming matters, but I admit to having almost no real knowledge or even interest in highly specialized or technical matters related to D&D or RPGs. Games to me serve a function but they are not an occupation in and of themselves. (Though I can easily see why people who are involved in games as an occupation, either directly or indirectly, would develop and need specialized knowledge about detail and errata and even opinions I'd consider non-sequitur or useless to fight over). In this sense you can consider me an "outsider looking in" as I suspect many of us are, including both those who comment from time to time, and those who patrol sites like this but never or only rarely comment.
Still the various arguments, usually though not always centered around edition, have made me think about some of the “lurking in the background arguments” that may be some of the real bases of these disputes. One background idea that did occur to me was "purity."
Now I admit I have never been a real and pronounced purist, not as regards many things in life, but especially not in regards to games. To me far more important than the status quo is practical and real and pragmatic value. To me the established way of doing something is only really valuable as a starting point to innovate and move towards something better. The establishment isn’t the future; it’s only the present as a result of the past. Early on in playing any game, but especially RPGs (because RPGs are naturally conducive to "open modification" because they are, after all, about role play) it struck me that any game could be improved by modification. I never, ever played AD&D, or any other edition of D&D, earlier or later, as a purist rules-based exercise. Instead, almost as soon as learning the game I began modifying the game with house rules, creations and innovations of my own, adopting rules or systems from other games, etc. None of my players, past or present, have ever insisted on a "pure edition" or even ruleset of the game, and when I played I never insisted on such a thing with whoever was doing the DM deed with or to us.
I expected and enjoyed a wide range of rules, systems, games, events, historical devices, styles, elements and so forth to influence me either as a DM and setting creator, or as a player operating under another DM. However it seems to me that this may no longer be the case, or to be more accurate that this is assumed to no longer be the case in many of the internet arguments regarding the various editions. (And I think that this "purity assumption" may indeed be in actual fact little more than a somewhat baseless assumption or a canard when it comes to actual games and their practices for most people. That is to say the purity argument, and this is an assumption on my part regarding the background elements of these arguments, as opposed to what is apparently being argued, is not a, or the, real argument. We'll find out though through the poll, as far as an internet poll can be reflective of any actual reality.)
So what this thread is really about (the rest being background and prelude) is this: regardless of what edition of the game you play, how "pure" are you in insisting that the edition you are playing be free of influences from other games, systems, edition elements, events, rulesets, etc.
To me personally the answer is I am completely bastardized (the adjective, not the verb) when it comes to gaming. What is important to me is my stetting, not the edition of the game. In fact I guess you could say when it comes to my fantasy setting that I've created my own form of D&D which is a mixture of various elements of different editions of the game, different rulesets from other games and fantasy RPGs, houserules and innovations of my own, and so forth and so on. I simply cannot imagine it being important playing this or that “pure edition of D&D,” or any game, (to the exclusion of others) when I could and do take and adapt and adapt the best elements from various sources to create my own and more efficient and useful game compound. That being the case then editions be damned to me, they are useful only to the extent that they give me a general gaming background and to the extent that the various elements they contain are actually useful to me. I still consider it (the game variation and setting I’ve created) D&D (because that is the main and original source material and background from my fantasy role play gaming) but it is as far from "pure" as the United States is from being a nation of a single peoples. (Nevertheless, like the US, the [ad]mixture often works far better, in the aggregate, than any single element or source could by operating entirely independently.)
So to me what is of paramount importance in RPGing is my setting, and my fantasy setting and game is an amalgamation (still with a primarily D&D centered culture and background, though far from pure) of many elements, including things liberally taken from various D&D editions as well as different components borrowed from other games and sources. So to me the very idea of arguing vociferously and heatedly and angrily about various editions and the assumed purity-value of those editions (as opposed to the value of particular elements of games that people find most useful) makes to me about as much sense as arguing about which is the best sport to play, and once you figure that out then eliminate all the other sports from your competitive repertoire. (I personally like and play a wide variety of sports.)
So vote in the poll if you wish and discuss this issue if you wish, and give your opinion on what you think is important, or most important in debates like this, edition purity or edition innovation (in the sense of personal modification of the game to fit your own situation). I personally suspect that most folks are like me, their games are about as edition pure as the driven snow after being flushed through the streetplows of Detroit. But I could be wrong, and on occasion I have been, and so that's why I put up the poll.
Say what you gotta say folks…
I said my piece.
Last edited:
