Why is there a rush to define vintage gaming?

[Umbran]

If this is your belief or what you see, I have an honest question: Is there any way to have a discussion on various aspects of an earlier edition of D&D without it being seen as an edition war?

That is an excellent question! In short, I believe the answer is, "Yes, if you stop trying to draw lines in the sand."

The question deserves a much more in-depth answer. I don't have the time this instant to do it justice. I hope you'll be patient with me as I find time in spare moments to write it up and post it a little later.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Careful though, there could be Godwin accusations forthcoming.

I think they're going after the lights.

 

[Bullgrit]

That is an excellent question! In short, I believe the answer is, "Yes, if you stop trying to draw lines in the sand."

Usually the phrase "draw a line in the sand" suggest the line drawer is establishing a "with me or against me" kind of demarkation (friend vs. foe). Is this how you mean it? If so, I'm interested to know where/how I've given the impression that I'm doing this. Me, personally, not someone who may post in a thread I start.

Surely you don't hold dungeondelver responsible for the Nazi reference in this thread?

The question deserves a much more in-depth answer. I don't have the time this instant to do it justice. I hope you'll be patient with me as I find time in spare moments to write it up and post it a little later.

Sure. But if you have examples of me, personally, saying something that sounds edition-wary, please point it out.

I tend to go on and on about my favorite editions of D&D (raving, ranting, comparing, contrasting), but I rarely (if ever) comment on an edition I don't like or don't care about. So I don't see how I could be accused of making or propegating an edition war.

Bullgrit

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

When I see a OD&D/1e/2e thread started by Bullgrit (or Quasqueton), I expect a sort of "mythbusters" question or observation. Perhaps that's the kind of line drawing that Umbran means: quantification of details that subsequently get argued about (or at least, the analysis of the details gets argued about).

 

[Gentlegamer]

Jason, you're a mind reader - I was just about to comment on the "mythbusters" style that some discussions engender and how that is probably what can make someone put on his conspiracy hat.

 

[Bullgrit]

I expect a sort of "mythbusters" question or observation

OK. I can understand this take on my stuff. Is this a bad thing? Is the discussion provoked a bad thing?

Bullgrit

 

[GravyFingerz]

When I see a OD&D/1e/2e thread started by Bullgrit (or Quasqueton), I expect a sort of "mythbusters" question or observation. Perhaps that's the kind of line drawing that Umbran means: quantification of details that subsequently get argued about (or at least, the analysis of the details gets argued about).

Adam: So Jamie, I head there is a movement in gaming called the Old School Renaissance.

Jamie: That's right Adam. It seems that the main community involved in playing various editions of this game called Dungeons & Dragons, are attempted to classify two classifications of gaming school of thought: new school and old school.

Adam: Right, well today, guess what we are going to do. Wrong again; we're going to encase a player's handbook from each edition in ballistics gel, and then we will fire an entire clip of .357 magnum ammunition.

Jamie: That may work, as I've heard heresay that the 1st edition Player's Handbook is unusually sturdy.

Adam: Exactly! Whichever book sustains the most damage, is obviously new school, while the books that sustain the least, must be old school. And then we will take a 1,000 count pile of the three original booklets and set it up the bomb with twenty pounds of C4.

Jamie: Twenty?

Adam: You're right, better make it one-hundred.

 

[Umbran]

Usually the phrase "draw a line in the sand" suggest the line drawer is establishing a "with me or against me" kind of demarkation (friend vs. foe). Is this how you mean it?

To a large extent, yes.

If so, I'm interested to know where/how I've given the impression that I'm doing this. Me, personally, not someone who may post in a thread I start.

You don't post in a vacuum. You post in the context of an entire community and its history. Terms and forms of discussion can become poisoned by prior abuse. If you recall, for a while we had to put a kibosh on pretty much all comparisons between 3e and 4e. We knew darned well that many folks wanted to have calm, civil discussions about the differences, but too many people had been rubbed too raw, and a cool-down was necessary.

The OS/NS thing isn't as bad as that, but you did ask why folks seemed to immediately take umbrage to your questioning. I see much the same dynamic here. Whether you intend it nor not, to the folks around and about it looks like more of the same old partisanship.

Surely you don't hold dungeondelver responsible for the Nazi reference in this thread?

Certainly not. I blame the one who made the comment. It was an example of what has rubbed people raw.

Now, let me see if I can address your earlier question in another post...

 

[thedungeondelver]

Adam: So Jamie, I head there is a movement in gaming called the Old School Renaissance.

Jamie: That's right Adam. It seems that the main community involved in playing various editions of this game called Dungeons & Dragons, are attempted to classify two classifications of gaming school of thought: new school and old school.

Adam: Right, well today, guess what we are going to do. Wrong again; we're going to encase a player's handbook from each edition in ballistics gel, and then we will fire an entire clip of .357 magnum ammunition.

Jamie: That may work, as I've heard heresay that the 1st edition Player's Handbook is unusually sturdy.

Adam: Exactly! Whichever book sustains the most damage, is obviously new school, while the books that sustain the least, must be old school. And then we will take a 1,000 count pile of the three original booklets and set it up the bomb with twenty pounds of C4.

Jamie: Twenty?

Adam: You're right, better make it one-hundred.

This is when I switch channels and watch R. Lee Ermey on MAIL CALL demonstrate a WWII flame-thrower on a pile of rare DDMs...

 

[Umbran]

If this is your belief or what you see, I have an honest question: Is there any way to have a discussion on various aspects of an earlier edition of D&D without it being seen as an edition war?

Okay, let me see if I can address this...

First off, as I noted earlier - all posts are made in the context of the boards and their history. That history as an effect upon perceptions. In drawing distinctions based on time, you're implicitly (for some folks explicitly) drawing distinctions based upon editions. There has been so much edition warring here recently, that anything that looks like the duck is going to be seen as the duck right quick. You can't really blame anyone for that now. You are going to have to live with it.

Thus, the way to discuss the various aspects of the earlier editions is, in fact, to not worry so much about it having been part of an earlier edition.

You can say, "I like gaming where the GM isn't worried so much about logical consistency or ecology, and is more interested in putting interesting tactical combinations in the dungeon" without setting off any edition-war based alarms, because the discussion isn't about editions. It is about adventure design. What edition or year the adventure design was done in is irrelevant to the discussion. I can do that kind of adventure design in any edition!

The same applies for each of the various things people try to put under the NS/OS umbrellas - adventure design, GM/Player interaction style, mechanical structure, and roleplaying style. Ultimately, the age of the element is not nearly so important as the element itself, right?

If you must classify, don't classify based on time, but instead based on what you're doing in the game. You can have classes of adventure design, and mechanical structure, that you can then mix and match. Go for classification based on structure and intended function, rather than history, and you are unlikely to set off the same alarms.

On a personal note - so many people have 'fessed up to using so many supposedly "new school" elements back in the 1970s that the historical classification seems outright false, to me - that is the basis of my "false dichotomy" statements.