What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Dannyalcatraz]

I
"Your game isn't D&D because it's not MY D&D" isn't rude? Didn't you agree earlier that the statement that your version was for "better" gamers was rude?

I find it amazing that you can believe that it's possible to brand a particular edition of the game as "not really D&D" without that critique being "my version is (objectively) BETTER than yours." How does that work, exactly? Technically, I suppose, it's "your version is inferior to all others," but still.

And you don't see the hypocrisy?

That isn't what you said, neither literally nor rhetorically.

Your second statement bears no semblance to the one we were discussing. The first one expressed a dislike of a specific mechanism. The latter is either a goad or a frustrated response to a goad.

Stop moving the goalposts.

Your statement was

JohnSnow"D&D shouldn't have a healing surge mechanic. 4e is dead to me (not D&D, or some other similar hyperbole)."

Which means that it isn't D&D for that person. They hate it.

There was no mention of "better."

YOU aren't mentioned at all, not literally, not implicitly.

You're reading into the statement things that aren't there.

 

[pemerton]

Another thing that, for me is, at stake in the edition wars - is 4e the same game or a different game?

In my view it's a different game.

3E is obviously different in many points of detail from AD&D, but I think it's fair to say that (or, at least to me, it seems to be the case that) the ways in which it differs reflect general trends in mainstream post-AD&D fantasy RPGs eg Runequest, Rolemaster. Thus, it has better-defined and more robust skill mechanics, more coherent combat mechanics for a wide range of manoeuvres, etc. It still has some D&D quirks, such as hit points (which are clearly physical in Runequest and Rolemaster, but are in 3E still some sort of strange mix of the physical and the metaphysical).

So, in the same way that for many players in the 80s and early 90s Runequest or Rolemaster was "D&D done right", so 3E is (in my view) apt to be experienced in the same way.

4e seems to me very obviously to turn its back on this approach to game mechanics, and while it keeps some of the same tropes (elves, dwarves etc) and some of the same mechanical elements (classes, races, hit points) the way it puts them together and expects them to be used is very different. It is influenced by indie RPGs, for example, in a way that 3E clearly is not.

So I'm not surprised that a significant number of players - especially those who played D&D very seriously, and thus have well-developed tastes for how a fantasy RPG should ideally work - don't like 4e. It is not the sort of game that they want and expect to play.

Unless you chuck out lots of stuff that's assumed to be there by default, 4E is not what I'd consider a generic fantasy construction kit. Pathfinder or a retroclone are a better choice for that. Thus 4E retreats from what should be a core competency for D&D.

Given the above, I don't fully agree with this - I don't think that D&D has ever been a generic fantasy construction kit (eg you can't really do Ars Magica with it, let alone HeroQuest or The Dying Earth).

But I do agree it's a mechanically different play experience from earlier editions.

What I take issue with is people who refuse to give 4e a chance, or cast aspersions on it without playing it.

<snip>

Anyone who gives 4e an honest try and then says "nope, sorry, not my cup of tea" earns my respect.

I don't agree with this. If someone reads the rules of 4e, forms a view as to how it's likely to play, and decides not to play it, fair enough. Not everyone wants to play that sort of RPG.

I find the videogamey thing a bit irritating for reasons I stated upthread, that I think it misses the point a bit about what is really distinct about 4e compared to earlier editions. But that's not a reason why those who don't like what they see should have to try it out before posting that they don't like what they see.

Can we agree that however you feel about any edition of D&D, it is insulting and rude to claim that your version is for "smarter," "more serious," or "better" gamers?

<snip>

And "videogamey," "WoW-like," and others are frequently nothing but a less overt version of the same line of attack. By comparing 4e to something that isn't an RPG, the implication is that 4e isn't really an RPG.

Now this I agree with. I think these comments are generally based on an unfamiliarity with the range of RPGs and approaches to RPGing that now exist (and hence the way that, as far as I can tell, 4e is intended to be played). Afterall, the notion that a game like HeroQuest is not "serious RPGing" is too silly for words.

what I've figured out was that stripped down, all RPGs are the same.

Yes, they have different mechanics. Yes, they have different settings. At the heart of it all, all RPGs come down to the DM describing the setting, and the players reacting to that setting, and the DM providing the results of the interactions.

And this I emphatically disagree with. Just for starters - the 4e skill challenge mechanics assumes (i) that players as well as the GM have a role in describing the setting, and (ii) that the players as well as the GM have a role in providing the results of PC interactions with that setting.

 

[JohnSnow]

That isn't what you said, neither literally nor rhetorically.

Your second statement bears no semblance to the one we were discussing. The first one expressed a dislike of a specific mechanism. The latter is either a goad or a frustrated response to a goad.

Stop moving the goalposts.

Your statement was



Which means that it isn't D&D for that person. They hate it.

There was no mention of "better."

YOU aren't mentioned at all, not literally, not implicitly.

You're reading into the statement things that aren't there.

God, you are a lawyer. You're focusing on part 1 of the phrase and ignoring the second half entirely. Where I take issue is the hyperbolic "therefore."

The truth is that the phrase I quoted had 3 versions:

1. "<criticism of 4e> ergo 4e is dead to me."


2. "<criticism of 4e> ergo 4e is not D&D."

or (most broadly)

3. "<criticism of 4e> ergo <hyperbolic statement about the nature of 4e>"

I specifically addressed statement 2 (the "ergo 4e isn't D&D" attack), not some new comment. You stated you felt that the basic statement, which included all 3 versions, was "strong but not rude." I specifically addressed part 2, but I think hyperbolic statements in general are rude.

There's plenty of legitimate ground for criticism that falls short of hyperbolic "X is dead to me" (or "X isn't D&D" or similar) statements and is, IMO, not rude. I was purposely addressing hyperbolic overstatements. And yes, I think those are rude - whatever specific form they take.

I ask again - do you disagree? Because you sure seem to be parsing it awfully fine. Is it because you feel that your argument is somehow less valid without those statements?

 

[Paradox]

And this I emphatically disagree with. Just for starters - the 4e skill challenge mechanics assumes (i) that players as well as the GM have a role in describing the setting, and (ii) that the players as well as the GM have a role in providing the results of PC interactions with that setting.

That's why I said strip out the mechanics.

Player: "I take the lead and kick in the door."

DM: "The door slams open with a loud bang, and you see four humanoid creatures reach for their weapons."

Which game system and/or D&D edition is that from?

The answer is it can be from any/every game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

God, you are a lawyer. You're focusing on part 1 of the phrase and ignoring the second half entirely. Where I take issue is the hyperbolic "therefore."

I am a lawyer, and I'm not ignoring the second half.

The truth is that the phrase I quoted had 3 versions:

I can only respond to the one you posted. I'm not in the business of discussing statements I haven't seen.

1. "<criticism of 4e> ergo 4e is dead to me."
2. "<criticism of 4e> ergo 4e is not D&D."
3. "<criticism of 4e> ergo <hyperbolic statement about the nature of 4e>"

Not a single one of those is intrinsically an attack on you as a person.

I think hyperbolic statements in general are rude.

There's pleny of critical ground short of hyperbolic "X is dead to me" (or "X isn't D&D") statements that isn't rude. I was purposely addressing hyperbolic overstatements. Which, yes, I think are rude - whatever specific form they take.

I can think of millions of hyperbolic statements that are not rude.

You need a lot more than mere hyperbole to make a rude statement- you need intent, you need a target. In certain circumstances, you need to go beyond a certain pre-agreed (implicit or explicit) level of civility.

I don't see any of that in "D&D is dead to me", "Its not D&D to me" and similar statements. The most you can say about those statements without fear of contradiction is that they are indicative of extreme displeasure with D&D in some way. Without more, you can't say it was intended to be rude. Without more, you can't say that you were the target- indeed, no person is even implied in the statements.

Strongly worded? Without a doubt.

Rude? I don't think so.

 

[Garthanos]

For most people, its simply an assertion of taste. For the true troll, its bait in a trap. And if the person is the latter, by asking for that clarification, you've fed the troll.

The first comment I remember you made - I interpreted to be the above statement.

 

[pemerton]

That's why I said strip out the mechanics.

Player: "I take the lead and kick in the door."

DM: "The door slams open with a loud bang, and you see four humanoid creatures reach for their weapons."

Which game system and/or D&D edition is that from?

The answer is it can be from any/every game.

Sure. Without much adjustment, it could also be from a game of 10-year olds playing make believe.

But what causes edition wars isn't a debate about whether or not this sort of stuff happens at the gaming table - it's the debate about the mechanical means whereby this stuff is determined.

For example, it makes a huge difference if the GM gives the response in your example is a result of the GM unilaterally writing the world description and determining the adversaries, or if the players (through formal or informal mechanical means) have played a role in that (as per some of the ideas in DMG2).

It makes a huge difference if the difficulty of the roll to kick in the door is a function of the stuff the door is made of as recorded in the adventure description (eg adamantine door = DC 30) or is a function of the previous pattern of skill check successes and failures on the part of the players, with the narrative then adjusted to make sense of this (as per HeroQuest, and some of the ideas in DMG2).

It makes a huge difference if the capacity of the humanoids to respond with their drawn weapons depends soleley upon their initiative stat and an initiative roll (as per Rolemaster, Runequest, Traveller, all prior editions of D&D, etc) or depends, at least in part, upon whether or not the player has some sort of "no action" ability that results in her PC receiving a surprise round (which is a theoretical possibility in 4e, and which might be narrated in a number of ways - the PC having preternatural speed, or the monsters hesitating in shock, or the steely glance of the PC resulting in them hesitating as they try to draw their swords, etc).

It is these sorts of mechanical differences that I feel to be at stake in the edition wars.

 

[Lanefan]

That's why I said strip out the mechanics.

Player: "I take the lead and kick in the door."

DM: "The door slams open with a loud bang, and you see four humanoid creatures reach for their weapons."

Which game system and/or D&D edition is that from?

The answer is it can be from any/every game.

Absolutely!

Where the debates arise is what dice are rolled (if any) to determine whether the door in fact slammed open at all or whether Thundertoes merely just gave himself a sore foot; and if so by what game mechanics can that sore foot be healed; or whether the guys behind the door are ready and waiting or just lounging around; and how quickly can Thundertoes react to their presence; etc., etc. And there's people out there (I game with one or two) who can and will debate such minutae into the ground if given the chance.

Lan-"the four humanoid creatures are the other player characters"-efan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's why I said strip out the mechanics.

Player: "I take the lead and kick in the door."

DM: "The door slams open with a loud bang, and you see four humanoid creatures reach for their weapons."

Which game system and/or D&D edition is that from?

The answer is it can be from any/every game.

That probably doesn't happen in most games of TOON!, Call of Cthulhu, or Paranoia...but beyond that?

 

[rounser]

I could reply that nothing has changed, because abstract hit points have always been part of the game of D&D.

And you've all missed the point too.

The problem is not with the term "hit points" (which is abstract).

The problem is with the IMO very poorly chosen term "healing surge", which is very specific.

What gets healed, by most people's estimation? Wounds. Or maybe, disease, but what gets healed as a result of the aftermath of D&D combat usually means wounds. They're swinging swords and burning each other with magic, generally. Not much room for movement on that one guys.

It detracts from the abstract intention that the designers seem to say it is supposed to stand for, undermining itself. If it were a "luck boost" or an "adrenaline rush" or a "hero surge" or a "second wind" (don't particularly like any of these terms either btw) you might have an argument, but as it stands, I don't agree. Healing generally = healing of wounds.

So the problem is with "healing surge", not "hit points", and therefore with 4E in particular, unrelated to hit points being abstract in D&D's past.