What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Aberzanzorax]

Knifiespoonie and Terradave bring up another interesting point...yes people will always quibble about small things, or large things, or really anything.

However, I'd also propose that the degree to which such a change (and of these...Chevy versus Ford, etc) matters is entirely dependent upon investment.

Investment, as I'm using it, can mean multiple things:
*Investment in terms of dollars spent (how many 3e books does one own).

*Investment in terms of how many dollars one even HAS relative to those spent (If uber rich, you might not miss $3,000 spend on out-of-edition D&D books).

*Investment in terms of career and perhaps career dreams (paid and unpaid, and realistic and unrealistic). E.G. If I write for 3e and don't like 4e, that's a big hit (or moderate ENworld and no longer like the current edition). If I even (however unrealistically) think I'll write for D&D in the future and the rules change to something new that I don't like/understand/feel I can't write for...then that's a blow.


And now the MORE important investments:

*Investment in D&D as time spent. D&D involves building up a character and story over many, many sessions...sometimes over years or even decades. To lose that investment, is to lose quite a bit.

*Investment in D&D as emotion spent. Maybe I love a specific character who "just wouldn't be the same" in a different edition. Maybe I love the ruleset for something it achieves that the new set doesn't (gamist versus simulationist rulesets for example). Maybe it IS just familiarity. Familiar is comfortable and a comfortable fun activity isn't often somethine people want to leave behind. Here, I'm thinking of "The Little Prince" where, and I may get this wrong, the prince comes to love a friend (maybe a fox?). It is just a fox (just as my dog is just a dog). However, the time spent and shared experiences create an emotional bond that makes that fox (my dog) special. Depending on people's experiences, a ruleset, a specific character, a campaign, or even a group (where some people want a given game and others don't) can become special. That's a lot of emotional investment to give up.


In the end, I wonder if people who state that "edition warriors" are just arguing about small things had as much "invested" as did the "Edition warriors" themselves. I don't deny there are some who like to "stir the pot" as trolls...or just like to argue. But, as you've astutely pointed out, there is something a bit more about D&D than, say, pepsi versus coke. I think to many who come back to these kinds of discussions again and again, they do not consider these to be small things.






Edit to add:
If you're looking for some particularly egregious instances, just go back to the locked threads here...especially those after the announcement of 4e and the release of 4e. Also, go to the WOTC forums. At the bottom of the page they (used to or may still) have the forum for the transition of the editions.

It might be particularly interesting data for you to read through these two time periods (the anticipatory change and then the actual release and reaction).

 

[Windjammer]

Your error is looking at the edition war as an isolated thing. It's one of countless "Tastes great! Less filling!" wars that happen every second of every day online, and previously in bars or the Water Buffalo's Lodge.

The DnD edition war is no different than any of these other great wars:

Mac vs. PC
Coke vs. Pepsi
Nikon vs. Canon
Edward vs. Jacob
my religion vs. your religion
Ford vs. Chevy
John Deere vs. Bobcat
Nike vs. Reebok
Democrat vs. Republican
Craftsman vs. Snap-On
sports team vs. other sports team
Beatles vs. Rolling Stones

This, a hundred times this. It's about self-validating a choice or (more often) an investment you already made, and to defend it in the face of countervailing factors (usually) brought up by people who've made a contrary investment. 'Contrary investment' here means having committed oneself to an alternative choice from a limited but jointly exhaustive range of options, all of them mutually exclusive. See, you only ever get one PC or only ever play one RPG at campaign length at any one point.

Now, the higher the investment - in both cost and time (time spent on both the product itself and on having defended it online on previous occasions) - the higher the fierceness of the defense. (Per exemplum, the fiercest defenders of 4E are LFR regulars high up in the administration chain, and among the worst people 'defending' Pathfinder RPG are people who dedicate 80% of their waking life to a website called paizo.com. Frankly, if it turns out for them that the game of their choice is utter trash they are up for the unpleasant realization that they've wasted a pretty substantial part of their life.)

And oh, the 'opposite party' is usually in the exact same position, except reversed. Which explains that the exchange can only escalate from here on as both sides heighten their investment in their own stakes. Which as stated, consists in self-validating their choices and de-validating others'.

There are the feeble sideliners who suggest that one's person choice need not be another's. Good point. Unfortunately, totally irrelevant. The whole question from the get go for anyone into self-validation isn't about someone else's choices, and how could it. Self-validation only ever cares for a choice you made, and casts a nagging doubt on whether you made the right choice to begin with, or whether you sank all that money, time, and effort into an inferior product.

The only way to liberate oneself from this madness is to not engage in self-validation - and simply enjoy what you've got. Self-validation is a downhill slope, so you better not push yourself over the edge in the first place. So frankly, who cares if Revenge of the Giants and the new Realms Campaign Guide are utter trash written by third rate hacks (as I believe they are) when I'm having a jolly good time with my players running either of them (as I do)?

 

[Umbran]

Although I obviously can't prove it, I suspect strongly that the migration to 4e by WotC greatly spurred the OSR movement like a shot of anabolic steroids.

Quite possibly. However, the migration to 4e and the Edition Wars are by no means the same thing.

Given the thesis in the OP, it seems to me the question would be: were people engaging in Edition Wars - taking on highly aggressive and even vitriolic stances - to try to drive creation of things like the OSR? Were such publications one of the stakes in the war?

I, personally, am not willing to attribute that kind of malice of forethought to the people involved. Do not attribute to a cunning plan that which can be explained by people behaving badly.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Some of it really is just XBox vs. PS2 / XBox 360 vs. PS3 / Intel vs. AMD / ATI vs. nVidia / sports team X vs. sports team Y / sect vs. sect, etc., etc. . . all over again.

Or, in other words, very bored individuals with (apparently) nothing better to do at the time. Not the most profound or compelling of 'motives', but there you go.

Otherwise, it's often simply gamers putting across their point of view (e.g., likes, dislikes, beliefs) in a manner considered inappropriate, according to the rules or guidelines of a particular site, and/or according to the perspective of one or more moderators at that moment.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I THINK, if I read you correctly, I agree with you Windjammer...to a point. You've well said some of the points I was more feebly trying to address.

However, I'm not sure about your characterization or minimization of people with the term "self validation".


What, exactly, are people "self validating?" Here I mean...ok, we both agree that an older edition had people of varying levels of investment. If I read you right, you seem to be claiming that the self validation occurs when people need to prove that their edition is somehow objectively better?

I guess I'm not sure how to read you. Don't take that as a strawman...it was conjecture, I'll admit. What exactly do you mean by "self validating"?

I mean, it's not like people are validating whether or not it was a good choice to buy a house in a given market...it's about fun and emotion...I equate editions more to friendships than stock markets....it's about enjoyment, not winning or "making a SMART investment".


Not sure what ya mean. Can you explain a bit more please?

 

[darjr]

Although I obviously can't prove it, I suspect strongly that the migration to 4e by WotC greatly spurred the OSR movement like a shot of anabolic steroids. You're right that it can't be a cause of the movement existing at all, but I don't think anyone can claim that it wasn't a contributing factor to the growth of the movement into what it is today; people who were dissatisfied with the direction 4e was taking (according to previews of the edition) were turned off and went looking for something else, finding the OSR and realizing that their tastes really were along those lines all along after all, etc.. The question becomes one of degree, and how much did it contribute, but in my opinion, it's not a question of did it contribute. I think the answer to that is definitely "yes."

First, I agree, and believe, that the large majority of those turning to old school D&D because of 4e were dissatisfied with 4e but there are those of us that play and enjoy 4e that also play and enjoy old school D&D. I know there a more than just a few of us who saw some of what they liked in the older games in 4e. I know because of all the waring that ensued around that kind of statement.

4e and the edition change got me interested in old school D&D again, because I liked 4e not in spite of it.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

<snip>
Or, in other words, very bored individuals with (apparently) nothing better to do at the time. Not the most profound or compelling of 'motives', but there you go.

Otherwise, it's often simply gamers putting across their point of view (e.g., likes, dislikes, beliefs) in a manner considered inappropriate <snip)

I don't get the impression of "boredom" from edition wars posts....I usually see "passion".

Are we to assume that all "edition warring" is inappropriate? Maybe it's polite disagreement when editions are discussed, but when the flames start burnin' the trolls, it's "edition warring"? I wasn't using the term this way, but it does seem that this is a negative label that might equate to this.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I don't get the impression of "boredom" from edition wars posts....I usually see "passion".

Are we to assume that all "edition warring" is inappropriate? Maybe it's polite disagreement when editions are discussed, but when the flames start burnin' the trolls, it's "edition warring"? I wasn't using the term this way, but it does seem that this is a negative label that might equate to this.

Really? As a rule, I tend to get the impression that there's more 'passion' in your average medical drama. (See? Taste in TV shows is not immune! )

But anyway, I thought edition warring was indeed a Bad Thing, yes. It's generally mentioned, when it's mentioned at all, in that light. Well, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[resistor]

I think Marius raised from very good points when he said it all boils down to pride. I'm doing to take a related tack and say it all boils down to identity.

We're not just talking about a hobby, we're talking about something that people sink vast amounts of time, money, and emotion into. It's practically a subculture. And because of this, people identify themselves as being D&D (or tabletop RPG, to be more general) players. The statement "I am a D&D player." is a strong statement about the kinds of cultural activities one enjoys, the kinds of people one is likely to be friends with, and the kinds of shared cultural background one has.

For people whose personal identity is heavily based on that statement, changing the definition of D&D is very threatening. If they don't like the new edition, they're suddenly no longer D&D players, and lose that strong statement of identity. "I'm a D&D play who doesn't play D&D." doesn't have the same strong identity. Ergo, they fight tooth and nail against the changed definition, under the subconscious belief that, if they can win everyone back to their definition, they'll be back in the group again.

 

[Cadfan]

I guess what I'm asking is "what specifically is intrinsic to D&D (or rpgs in general, if you like) that leads to this particular form of interaction.

1. Nothing. You can find the same interaction in other settings. Boardgamegeek.com, for example, doesn't have edition wars because boardgames generally do not have editions. But that site does have wars between excited fans of new games, and curmudgeons angered that something new is more popular than whatever old thing they prefer.

2. I think the fundamental error your thesis is making is in the assumption that edition wars are in any way honest. Its verboten on this forum to suggest that specific people are liars. But they are. Edition wars occur in significant part because some people derive pleasure from angering other people by telling lies designed to incense them. If forum moderators deleted every edition war post that included statements known to be factually wrong, or as-of-yet unprovable statements of alleged fact that the speaker has no particular reason to believe, half the content from the announcement of 4e to its release would vanish.