What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[UniversalMonster]

Your memory is very different to mine. Certainly, there was a lot of animosity toward 4E, but I think a lot of it is now being written off as meaningless spite when there was, in fact, a great deal of considered, informed and accurate criticism posted.

I never saw anything resembling informed opinion from the haters.

 

[Hairfoot]

"Haters".

I suggest you may not interested in informed opinion.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'll stick with Hairfoot. I think your "mostly" claim is not at all accurate.

And to offer a mirror observation, when I offered concern after concern before 4E was released I was constantly blown off as simply making assumptions without seeing the whole game in context. In the last few months before release that became the mantra for any critical comment. It didn't actually address the complaint, it just stood in for "you are wrong, but I can't explain how".

Think back. What were your complaints? How did you describe them? Would you say it gives someone a way to answer to them and recognize them as true or wrong, or true or wrong under a certain perspective/play style/star formation?

In other words, did you say things like:
- The game is dumbed down
- It is videogamey
- It is broken
- It is not D&D

or did you say things like:
- I don't like (daily) powers for non-magical characters.
- I don't like wizards and fighters staying balanced forever.
- I don't like the removal of skill points and find the concept of trained vs untrained to binary.
- I don't like that roles are proscribed for a class instead of something naturally emerging from play or choices from character creation.
- I don't like that they do not use one of the traditional D&D settings with the Great Wheel.

These are opinions. There are ways to talk about them. Some of them can't be answered without having the actual game, of course, though one can try to hint at possibilities how it might work that would actually be fine with you. Whether that's how the game works or whether it actually is acceptable for you is another matter.

I remember that we (not you and me, "we" EN Worlders) had a lot of discussion about the entire encounter power/balance paradigm 4E highlighted. It was interesting and enlightening in many ways, but I still wonder how much we got "wrong" due to our lack of knowledge of the actual system.

For example, did we estimate the "power level" of daily powers in that context corretly? I definitely was still thinking of a daily power something like 3E Fireball, dealing 5d6 to 10d6 points of damage vs a weapon attack dealing 2d6+5 damage. But daily powers actually turned to be up a lot less "decisive" in the pure damage department.

Also, I don't think the concept of the "miniatures" game aspect of the combat system was really understood then - all those pushes, pulls, slides create a very different dynamic dynamic. The concept of "spamming powers" for example is not really a problem, because you are not just trying to deal xWy+z damage, but you often want to change the battlefield or enable yourself or others certain options and negate others. Sure, you use the same power as last round, but this time you might have a different goal with it then the last time.

Neither did we really understand - and maybe we don't even understand it now - how much more important dynamic and exciting combat encounters are than "winning" a combat encounter, e.g. whether people really chose to play in a 15 minute adventure day style because they wanted the most "oomph" the most decisive victory and to play it safe, or because they did it because it lead to more interesting things happening, with everyone slinging spells as if their was no tomorrow...

Or did we really understand what it meant that there we no longer any long-term buffs? Do we now?

 

[UniversalMonster]

"Haters".

I suggest you may not interested in informed opinion.

I'm just not interested in hearing anyone howling at the moon in anguish. I'm here for D&D.

To put it another way: I fully accept and understand that there are some people out there who for whatever reason (hey, ANY reason at all- good or not) don't want to play 4E. That's totally fine. But I simply don't care. The haters have literally nothing to offer here. They should talk about things they do like, so I can talk about things I like, and in some cases, maybe those things will intersect or in some cases maybe they won't..but in the end we'll still be talking about gaming rather than our tragic loss of identity and tiefling resentment.

I hope that didn't come out too harsh.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I never saw anything resembling informed opinion from the haters.

"Haters".

I suggest you may not interested in informed opinion.

Indeed.

I fully accept and understand that there are some people out there who for whatever reason (hey, ANY reason at all- good or not) don't want to play 4E. That's totally fine. But I simply don't care.

That explains why you don't feel a need to respond, or to characterize people negatively.

Gotcha.


RC

 

[UniversalMonster]

The edition wars from the beginning have been pointlessly bitter.

It's a game. It has certain features. Some people like it one way, some people like it another way. This rule works like this, but it used to work like that... It used to be X, now it's Y. Things change, yadda yadda.. life goes on.

Except there's still this tiny minority of people that only seem to be able to talk about things they don't like, and don't play, and they have gone out of their way for the last two years to let us know all about it, in the hopes of what? Turning back the clock?

The clock is never, ever, ever turning backwards. Nope, 5E is not coming out next year. or the year after that. (And when it does come out --as eventually it will--it will not be a replica edition that you recalled from your youth, and you yourself will not be 12 again.

So what is the point in telling people over and over how much they resent 4th edition?

The question of this discussion, "what is really at stake?" perplexes me, because I see people getting hung up on the rhetoric and not seeing the end result. The real thing is at stake is the minority group of haters (and if there's a less negative way of characterizing these people I wish I knew what it was) puts itself in an isolated box that will just continue to shrink over time.

They are in effect, kicking themselves out of the hobby. They don't see it, yet. But think about it.

Are they here to talk about D&D? Or are they here to talk about (pick any of the following) their feelings, the company that makes D&D, the games they used to play, how different it is now, the industry, the Hasbro conference call, etc..)

Theyv'e become spectators. Outsiders.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The edition wars from the beginning have been pointlessly bitter.

There we agree.

But if you imagine people who don't go to 4e are kicking themselves out of the hobby, or becoming spectators, you are seriously fooling yourself.

If you imagine that the only reason people prefer an earlier edition over 4e is nostaligia (because they were 12), you are seriously fooling yourself.

If you imagine that 5e, or 6e, or 7e, cannot reject the path that 4e has forged, and appear to be closer to the original game in concept and/or rules, you are seriously fooling yourself.

If you are imagining that the hobby, at its core, cannot be enjoyed without WotC -- that WotC determines the course of the hobby, rather than those who play the games -- you are even more seriously fooling yourself.



RC

 

[Garthanos]

My problem with the term is that I consider 4e the least videogamey version of AD&D ever.

You don't run round picking up health packs (healing potions). You don't have an arcane magic system that makes absolutely no sense other than as a mechanical formulation (Vancian). You don't have really weird healing rules by which an almost dead 1st level wizard can be restored to back on his feet and in full fighting trim by a spell that wouldn't do much at all to a tenth level fighter (Cure Light Wounds). You don't have people that can keep going all day as long as the healing magics flow, or people who recover back to their full health readily and repeatedly (Healing Surges are part of that full health). Now to me that's all very videogamey so I get confused the other way.

Instead you have a group of action heroes with some default moves (At Wills), some signature moves (Encounter Attacks), and a bit they can do when pulling out all the stops (Dailies, Action Points). They get hurt, they draw on their reserves to keep them going, but the damage doesn't actually go away (they've now used the healing surges). Healing is based on the target's hit points. This is all genre emulation to me on a scene (or encounter) based cinematic game.

So I get confused by video-gamey used as a dig against 4e.

There are certainly elements which resemble action movies on purpose. (and applies to hit points and surges but not the core argument regarding video gaminess. Which is why I suggested it was a different apple on the tree entirely and why it being theer was evidence of orange and apple trees both being called - videogamy)

Here is my take the problem I see is there is a player role vs dm role ...and a perspective disconnect.

Video games have explicitly defined limited sets of actions.
And table top role playing games have explicit limited set of mechanics which are used to govern/under-pine the nearly infinite actions a character chooses to take.

In 4e the player is encouraged to visualize the infinite choices the character can take in terms of that more finite set of mechanics and differentiate them narratively...Character says I can sing thousands of songs but the Player looks at the character sheet which only lists ... "Rock Blues" and "Hot Dance". . The character may want to do something plausible like do a romantic dance it isnt in the characters specialties but seems obvious to the player and DM it is plausible. So the DM excercises her job..and uses page 42 to extend the games mechanics ie to stretch or take off the lid

... he has less job than he used to involving converting from narrative to simple mechanics a lot of those have been given to the player, but his job of being an enabler for going beyond the explicit rules is now even more important. And there are actual guidelines for it.. Page 42 is used as a short cut reference for this but it is not limited to being expressed on pages 42/43, that say "yes, but.." philosophy applies directly to the idea of opening up the mechanics .. and DMG guidelines encourage doing it in a controlled sort of way.

Somebody reading the players perspective and ignoring the dms (whose job always has been enabling going beyond the rules), may see more restrictions than there are.

 

[UniversalMonster]

But if you imagine people who don't go to 4e are kicking themselves out of the hobby, or becoming spectators, you are seriously fooling yourself.

Don't misunderstand me. Before 4E there were plenty of people who only played earlier editions and other games. But they also didn't spend all their time obsessing on their resentment of the current edition of D&D. So that's the real issue.

If you imagine that the only reason people prefer an earlier edition over 4e is nostaligia (because they were 12), you are seriously fooling yourself.

I never said this, but I do think that once people start to get upset over nitpicks of how things used to be, versus how they are-- (ie magic missile resentment) then there's a good chance the real issue isn't a game at all, but anguish over a memory.

If you imagine that 5e, or 6e, or 7e, cannot reject the path that 4e has forged, and appear to be closer to the original game in concept and/or rules, you are seriously fooling yourself.

The clock is never turning back. It will never be the 1970s or the 1980s again. Retro editions certainly have their appeal, but that is based on them being retro in the first place.

If you are imagining that the hobby, at its core, cannot be enjoyed without WotC -- that WotC determines the course of the hobby, rather than those who play the games -- you are even more seriously fooling yourself.

Well, you are right, but perhaps you just don't understand how huge 4th edition is? How many fans there are? How much this massive community of fans are pleased by the way things are and how little they care about how things used to be? So yes, it is the fans who determine the way things are going. The fans have spoken. The fans are enjoying themselves. The fans like D&D4e just fine.

Yes, I realize that doesn't include everyone. But most of those people who don't like 4E have fallen into the trap of thinking that resentment will get them what they want, rather than simply labeled as self-identified non-participants. THAT is what is happening.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

There is no objective meaning for any word or term; all meaning is inherently subjective.

Careful not to get sucked in to that wormhole you're creating, because according to you Objective is Subjective.

I get the point you're making and realize your putting some humor into it. But the point is that everyone (who understands English at least) can agree upon what a chair is and what a table is. Not everyone can agree on what "too videogamey" means. You have to obstensively take the tack you are taking to make an issue about agreed upon words. And doing it at this point just to be contrary since upthread you agree with me that honest discussion "only requires that I know what you mean, and that you know what I mean." The only way to do that is to expound beyond two word catch phrases.