D&D General Edition Experience - Updated Survey Results, Jan 2021 (All Surveys)

[Campbell]

That's the way it goes, it seems. Someone makes a broad generalization about the game, which somehow upsets someone enough to make broad generalizations about the person making the broad generalization, and down the toilet we all go. I don't know why it happens so much more often with 4th Edition than any of the other editions, or how it got to be so extremely polarizing. But here we are.

"I think that 4th Edition was..."
"OH YEAH? Well people who think that are..."

I bet if we could stick to the first line of thought and avoid the second, we could have some really cool discussions.

From my perspective it way always shame that we could never do deep dives of the game outside of the context of it being an edition of Dungeons and Dragons. Most of the nasty fights in my experience come from a sense that someone is questioning the legitimacy of the game - it's right to exist. There was a sense I personally got at that time that it would be better if it was never published. That if fans of game never received something they loved so much.

In general that questioning the legitimacy of something is where most of the nasty fights in our hobby come up. It happens with indie games. It happened with the World of Darkness. There's even an element of that in some of the discussions around here when it came to Pathfinder Second Edition. I see it in the OSR community when it comes to more experimental stuff.

In general I think embracing the diversity in the hobby helps a good deal to avoiding conflicts getting out of hand.

 

[CleverNickName]

That's really good insight, @Campbell.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

From my perspective it way always shame that we could never do deep dives of the game outside of the context of it being an edition of Dungeons and Dragons. Most of the nasty fights in my experience come from a sense that someone is questioning the legitimacy of the game - it's right to exist. There was a sense I personally got at that time that it would be better if it was never published. That if fans of game never received something they loved so much.

In general that questioning the legitimacy of something is where most of the nasty fights in our hobby come up. It happens with indie games. It happened with the World of Darkness. There's even an element of that in some of the discussions around here when it came to Pathfinder Second Edition. I see it in the OSR community when it comes to more experimental stuff.

In general I think embracing the diversity in the hobby helps a good deal to avoiding conflicts getting out of hand.

That's only part of the story, from what I've seen.

Think of a slightly different context. There are people that like Apple products. And the people that like Android products. Many people don't care a great deal about the difference. Many people do recognize the difference and are able to have rational conversations about it. But on-line, that doesn't happen very often. Instead, you have people shouting at each other (Sheeple, Fandrioids, etc.) about something that just doesn't matter a whole lot. Because it's not really about the products; it's about an identity. There is a whole constellation of beliefs and thoughts and identifications that go into it. It's ... well, it's tribal, at a certain level.

It's similar to sports. To someone who doesn't know, or doesn't care, about sports ... fandom seems weird, doesn't it? Why does a fan of the Yankees hate the Red Sox (and vice versa)? It's just different colored laundry ... and it's not like the people even played for those teams! It's identification. It's tribal.

It's the same thing here. But it's not just one side; it's the vociferous people on both sides. For the people that partake the most in the conversations, the fight is the thing; often, the "side" you line up is an identification of other markers as well.

This isn't some grand debate about diversity of play. This is pure tribalism, expressed in a different way. IMO, etc.

 

[Campbell]

That's only part of the story, from what I've seen.

Think of a slightly different context. There are people that like Apple products. And the people that like Android products. Many people don't care a great deal about the difference. Many people do recognize the difference and are able to have rational conversations about it. But on-line, that doesn't happen very often. Instead, you have people shouting at each other (Sheeple, Fandrioids, etc.) about something that just doesn't matter a whole lot. Because it's not really about the products; it's about an identity. There is a whole constellation of beliefs and thoughts and identifications that go into it. It's ... well, it's tribal, at a certain level.

It's similar to sports. To someone who doesn't know, or doesn't care, about sports ... fandom seems weird, doesn't it? Why does a fan of the Yankees hate the Red Sox (and vice versa)? It's just different colored laundry ... and it's not like the people even played for those teams! It's identification. It's tribal.

It's the same thing here. But it's not just one side; it's the vociferous people on both sides. For the people that partake the most in the conversations, the fight is the thing; often, the "side" you line up is an identification of other markers as well.

This isn't some grand debate about diversity of play. This is pure tribalism, expressed in a different way. IMO, etc.

There's definitely more to it. Increasing tribalism and virtue signaling is a big deal culturally. None of us are really immune to it.

There's also that fact that online culture and the culture of message boards in particular are deeply seated in a type of debate club mentality. Rhetoric in the sense of providing a superior argument is substantially overvalued. Some recent studies have shown that these types of exchanges are more likely to calcify viewpoints than to get people to consider new perspectives regardless of the strength of the arguments. This point and counterpoint online culture encourages a sense of sides and opposition even though people usually do not really fall under clear ideological lines. The sense of being responsible for commentary made by people who have the same overall position on a given topic, but differ dramatically in their reasoning and overall preferences sure does not help.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's only part of the story, from what I've seen.

Think of a slightly different context. There are people that like Apple products. And the people that like Android products. Many people don't care a great deal about the difference. Many people do recognize the difference and are able to have rational conversations about it. But on-line, that doesn't happen very often. Instead, you have people shouting at each other (Sheeple, Fandrioids, etc.) about something that just doesn't matter a whole lot. Because it's not really about the products; it's about an identity. There is a whole constellation of beliefs and thoughts and identifications that go into it. It's ... well, it's tribal, at a certain level.

It's similar to sports. To someone who doesn't know, or doesn't care, about sports ... fandom seems weird, doesn't it? Why does a fan of the Yankees hate the Red Sox (and vice versa)? It's just different colored laundry ... and it's not like the people even played for those teams! It's identification. It's tribal.

It's the same thing here. But it's not just one side; it's the vociferous people on both sides. For the people that partake the most in the conversations, the fight is the thing; often, the "side" you line up is an identification of other markers as well.

This isn't some grand debate about diversity of play. This is pure tribalism, expressed in a different way. IMO, etc.

There's definitely more to it. Increasing tribalism and virtue signaling is a big deal culturally. None of us are really immune to it.

There's also that fact that online culture and the culture of message boards in particular are deeply seated in a type of debate club mentality. Rhetoric in the sense of providing a superior argument is substantially overvalued. Some recent studies have shown that these types of exchanges are more likely to calcify viewpoints than to get people to consider new perspectives regardless of the strength of the arguments. This point and counterpoint online culture encourages a sense of sides and opposition even though people usually do not really fall under clear ideological lines. The sense of being responsible for commentary made by people who have the same overall position on a given topic, but differ dramatically in their reasoning and overall preferences sure does not help.

I thinks these things are definitely part of it. With 4e, I think it's amplified a bit because it was the most recent edition replaced.

But yeah, tribalism of fanbases is a big part. I mean, 4e is a legitimate edition of D&D as much as every other edition. It was an officially published edition by the owners of the D&D IP. So objectively, that's true. But as you say, tribalism comes in and people get a bit crazy about it. It's the difference between "4e doesn't feel like the D&D game I like and know" and "4e isn't a real D&D game." The former is OK, the latter is not. And also like you say Campell, online we seem to feel like we have to have entrenched positions on things. Weird.

The point I was trying to make earlier was not to rehash edition wars, but to point out how 4e isn't the only picked on edition, as every edition has has people make negative comments about it, both legit criticism, as well as unhelpful hyperbolic attacks. And that criticism doesn't not automatically mean edition warring or you're a hater. And comments like "the hate for 4e is real" are just as unhelpful as "4e isn't real D&D" because the criticism leveled at 4e is the same in tone as every other edition has had. Every edition has haters. There's nothing special about 4e in that regard other than it being the most recently replaced. When there is another edition, it will move down the chain just like 3e is now, and there will probably be fans of 5e that feel like any criticism is "the hate for 5e is real".

I lived through the changes of each edition, and when 2e came out, the same vitriol was made*. Same with 3e (at that time, in 2000, I just ignored 3e discussion as well as 4e discussion in 2008 because neither edition appealed to me and I didn't see the value in being in discussions for something I didn't like, but I imagine the same thing happened to 3e fans when 4e came out).

* the same type of person (in some cases literally the same person) who has said 4e is just an MMO are the ones who said 2e ruined the game by being too PC by getting rid of half orcs, assassins, and renaming demons and devils (and isn't real old school D&D ). It just is what it is and it's better to just ignore that stuff.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

fan of the Yankees hate the Red Sox (and vice versa)?

Yes on the vice versa

 

[Thunderfoot]

I would point out that Morrus's numbers aren't about the forum, they're about the news site. I'm pretty sure Morrus has said that the large majority of site visitors do not post to the forum at all.

I'm pretty sure that the forum regulars skew older and grumpier than the average site visitor.

Damn skippy!!! Lol

 

[Thunderfoot]

Yes on the vice versa

And real baseball fans hate both.

 

[Thunderfoot]

So trying to stay on Umbran's good side (love ya man). Having played literally every iteration at one point... The break down of editions is really OD&D was a stand alone concept game, it set the stage for all that was to come and though fun, was eclipsed by all that followed. Think of at as 'the wheel' of RPGs, without it nothing follows, almost everything since incorporates it but by itself...its just a wheel.
Though there is a lot of time line overlap there were really two camps that followed...Basic, B/X, BECMI, RC and AD&D (1st and 2nd).
Separating them into two categories makes as much sense as multiple because of some very interesting facts. You could use the rules of any of the others without much fuss. While B, B/X, BECMI, RC were all different they were also very much the same, expanded, cleaned-up, cataloged, etc. but at the end of the day, if four players sat down with different editions with one DM and rolled level 1 characters, it could work.
Same with 1st and 2nd. The biggest changes were cosmetic due to the 'Satanic panic' and a re-worked spell system (dice caps) and THACO chart. (1st repeated 20 5 times before advancing to 21, don't believe me, DMG pgs 74 and 75. I'm looking at it as I type) But again a group with both books could play together, especially in the age of DM fiat. (I know, we did it Germany when I was stationed there)
3e/3.5 was a paradigm shift. New company, new blood, new rules, new problems. No one could foresee the OLG level bloat problem when it dropped. It re-introduced gamers to the table that had left and that was good for the hobby, period. So regardless of the flaws it was a great moment in the history of the game because it saw the re-introduction and revitalization of the fan base.
4e...ah 4e. Well, there were a lot of...interesting ideas. It was an attempt to streamline the system, make it more convention/gathering friendly, add collectability and ultimately, failed miserably and divided and fractured a fan base that had just reunited and grown. Did it sell, yes; was it innovative, yes most definately; was it broken, incredibly. Barring the MMO not MMO argument, the restructuring of every action and removal of Vancian magic broke the D&D game and made it ... something else. At the time, I can't remember who said it, but here on ENWorld somebody posted 'the game isn't bad, but it isn't D&D. If they would have named it something else, none of this would be an issue.' And to this day, I agree.
5th kind of brought us back to the beginning but kept concepts that worked in 4e but covered them up with a coat of shoe polish so people wouldn't scream. It's still got flaws, all systems do, but it's probably the one edition where anyone from any time period in D&D can sit down and find at least 'something' that floats their boat.
When 6e drops, eventually, it will have its own warts, deformities and issues as well as its own diamonds. And all this will begin again.

So let it be written.... So let it be done.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, I've never seen "broken" used with that definition before. But, I do understand the sentiment I suppose.

Funny thing though. You really, really couldn't play 2e and 1e together without a LOT of work. 2e characters were SO much more powerful than 1e characters. I remember running 1e modules in 2e and having to use modules two, three or four levels higher than the group just to keep up. So, your 2e 5th and 6th level characters were waltzing through Against the Giants and making absolute mincemeat out of it.

I always have to laugh a little when people talk about how compatible 1e and 2e were. They really, really weren't.