What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Raven Crowking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?"

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?

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.

(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]

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.

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]

Exactly. Just like Global Thermonuclear War and Tic-Tac-Toe the only way to win is not to play.

Nice reference to Wargames

 

[Mistwell]

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.

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]

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]

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