What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[jmucchiello]

No smoke without fire. No flames without fuel.

To categorize it - possibly entirely correctly - as just a flame war doesn't explain why it's an sustainable flame war. That takes us back the the initial question in a different form rather than negating it.

By definition, Flame Wars are without end. If a flame war could reach a conclusion, it would merely be a heated discussion. Any topic on which people disagree can be a flame war. What makes you think RPGs are special in this regard?

Are you saying there are topics that do not lend themselves to flame wars? What are they? They aren't religion, politics, best/favorite sports teams, best/favorite actor/actress, etc. Heck, if you started a "blue" website, I'm sure flame wars about red being better than blue would break out.

 

[Mallus]

With D&D, you have a game with a very strong identity, and a rather large and loyal audience. Regardless of motivation of the owners of the D&D trademark for the changes from 3e to 4e, they unleased more radical changes than any previous edition to date. So, we have a strong brand with a loyal audience that changed.

My take is kinda the opposite. I'd say D&D has really strong brand recognition, but not a strong, singular brand identity. In my view, edition changes and the ensuing Edition Wars only highlight disagreements over the character of the game that had been going on among hobbyists playing the same edition/game.

Which is kinda why I participate in Edition War threads. What they might lack in cordiality, they often more than make up for in insights into how other people play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Interesting take, Mallus.

 

[Umbran]

Heck, if you started a "blue" website, I'm sure flame wars about red being better than blue would break out.

"Better dead than red!"

By definition, Flame Wars are without end. If a flame war could reach a conclusion, it would merely be a heated discussion.

I am not sure that is true. One argument may just be some flaming. Several arguments over a period make a war. The war does not have to be perpetual - eventually, it can burn out, and be thought of as a thing of the past.

 

[Anselyn]

By definition, Flame Wars are without end. If a flame war could reach a conclusion, it would merely be a heated discussion. Any topic on which people disagree can be a flame war. What makes you think RPGs are special in this regard?

Actually, I'm saying that RPGs are the same as the other topics you mention. People argue about religion/politics because the subject really matters to them. They don't - we assume - argue for purely the sake of it unless the sort of trolling contrarian that has been discussed above.

Are you saying there are topics that do not lend themselves to flame wars? What are they? They aren't religion, politics, best/favorite sports teams, best/favorite actor/actress, etc. Heck, if you started a "blue" website, I'm sure flame wars about red being better than blue would break out.

Well, I'm sure I could find a marginal opinion so inconsequential to most people that it wouldn't sustain a flame war[1]. I may be able to sustain a long argument with one other person,which may be defined as a flame war. However, we are mostly interested in real many-people-taking-sides flamewars if we want to discuss some more general communal sense of investment in the topic.

[1] e.g. It is clear to me that only platonic solids should be used as dice is RPGs. It is clearly totally wrongheaded and mathematically foolish to use any others. I'm sure all right-thinking gamers agree. (etc., etc )

 

[SpiderMonkey]

i'll try. i ain't very good with w3rds. also not meaning this as an attack or defense. just what i read at the time i was directed to this thread.

when i read your first 2 posts of this thread i got the impression you were saying that edition wars only exist because of remediation. if you are saying that then i am trying to say i disagree.

if it is the case you would be cutting me out of the conversation. i feel biased by your assumption.

i engage in the "edition wars" as the guy trying to recruit others to my cause.
i have but one cause in this whole war. OD&D(1974). a game i want back in print. i have been at this push since 1979.

Okay, I think some of the confusion is arising out of the term "remediation." I'm using the term as Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin use it. To paraphrase quite a bit, I am refering to a given rules set as a medium. According to them, a medium is "that which remediates. It is that which appropriates the techniques, forms, and social significance of other media and attempts to rival or refashion them in the name of the real" (65). Do I think subsequent editions make their predecessors obsolete? No, not at all. But what new media claims to do is to bring a more authentic experience of reality than its predecessor(s). An example that comes to mind (and that they use) is photographs as a remediation of oil painting. Now, the notion that photographs are somehow better than oil painting is ridiculous--each has its own merits.

What is interesting however, is the effect that the introduction of a new medium has: Although each medium promises to reform its predecessors...the promise of reform inevitably leads us to become aware of the new medium as a medium" (20). I think that a lot of the edition wars spring from this realization--that the medium is a medium (as obvious as it may sound), and that this medium does not capture my view of the real, or worse, carries some normative argument against it.

Does that make sense? I certainly don't want to make the claim that newer editions somehow "fixed" older editions. I got much OD&D love, mang.

 

[Merkuri]

I think it has to do with something that's very well loved being changed.

Even if it's not intended that way, a lot of people subconsciously see changes as a way of saying, "You were doing it wrong before, here's the right way." They might feel hurt or insulted. Even if nobody comes out and says it this way they might also see the changes as somebody trying to make them give up something they loved.

Changes to something always imply that something was wrong with the original, whether that was intended or not, and some people can't help but take it personally.

On the other hand, some people like new shiny things and jump at the chance to try out the changes. These people might not have been as emotionally invested in the old way, or they were emotionally invested but recognized that nothing is perfect and there were flaws in the system. Some will enjoy the changes so much that they can't fathom going back to the old way.

So you have one group of people that feels threatened and insulted by the new thing, and one group that thinks the other group is missing out or missing the point. Naturally you're going to have conflict between these groups.

The flame wars start when someone who is very emotionally attached to their version reads a comment as an insult against their version. It may have actually been an insult or it could have been been perfectly innocent and just badly phrased, but what's important is that the emotinally invested person interprets it as something that needs to be defended against, and they respond with venom.

This type of thing is really not unique to D&D or RPGs. Look at when Lucas released the new digitally remastered copies of the original Star Wars movies. Some people loved the additions and little details. Some hated it with a passion. I think there are still people that argue over whether Han shot first or not.

Any change to something people are emotionally invested in will cause flame wars.

 

[Herschel]

Personally, I think "edition warriors" just like to argue.

You're wrong.

That'll be five pounds, please.

People want to be "right" about things they like. The intenet is a generally anonymous place to defend or attack whatever one wants so people tend to go further down the line of antagonism than they would face-to-face.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, I'm saying that RPGs are the same as the other topics you mention. People argue about religion/politics because the subject really matters to them. They don't - we assume - argue for purely the sake of it unless the sort of trolling contrarian that has been discussed above.

People in Los Angeles can endlessly argue about the Los Angeles Lakers vs. the Los Angeles Clippers. It doesn't actually matter though. We argue about it because the argument itself is fun.

Heck, people argue about the Black Sox scandal to this day - and none of them were alive when it happened. People argue about all sorts of stuff, endlessly, that doesn't really matter to them.

 

[DanFor]

I'm mostly arguing from an ontological basis, that is, the rules determine and implicitly argue for ways of being in a game world. I'll also be talking about how the rules affect the "means of production" in terms of creative control of a shared narrative/imaginary universe.

I know these discussions don't get so heated based solely on these reasons, and that's why I'm asking you for your opinions.

Just prior to the announcement of 4E, the print versions of "Dragon" and "Dungeon" magazines were cancelled and replaced with digital versions. At the same time that 4e was announced, the fans were informed that the "Forgotten Realms" setting would be totally re-worked and that WotC would not be using the OGL with 4E. In my opinion, these developments angered many of the fans just as much as the announcement of the new edition. As far as the rules themselves, the compatibility issues and the apparent shift to a skirmish-focused (vs. roleplaying) rule set seem to be the major points of contention.

So...

...for you, what's really at stake?

Speaking as an "edition warrior" (aka enraged nerd)--and as already mentioned--investment and identity are what's at stake for me. I have been playing D&D since the 80's. I still play D&D with my best friend from high school. I play D&D with my grown children and look forward to playing it with my grandchildren some day. When the company that owns the D&D brand makes numerous decisions that I strongly disagree with, and when those decisions alienate me from the brand that I have grown so attached to, my perception is that the decision-makers are ruining something that I care a lot about. Necessarily, the fans who support and defend the "bad" decisions are helping to bring about the downfall of "my" game. And so, battle lines are drawn and an editions war ensues. In my opinion.