What's really at stake in the Edition Wars
- Thread starter SpiderMonkey
- Start date
- Status
SpiderMonkey
Explorer
Hi, Umbran.
Thanks for your response! I think as a moderator you certainly have an insight into the arguing that I lack, but I disagree with your assertion about "measurable impact on the development of the game." Does internet talk directly affect it? Well, no, of course not. However, I think that enough of that talk (not its most egregious instances, to be sure) helps to create the conditions for change, even if it isn't necessarily going to affect the official iterations of the game (I'm thinking of the OSR, for example).
As for the winning and losing, I think that's a valuable way to look at it, and I think I'm going to consider it more. What do you all of you think? Is there something to be won or lost? I know it's easy to say "everybody loses" in these squabbles (and I'm certainly not inclined to disagree). 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.
Thanks!
Dan
P.S. Umbran, can I PM you to see about getting a gander at some of the more egregious instances to use as examples? If not, I understand. Thanks!
MrGrenadine
I Cast...Brainstorm!
As a fan of older editions, I could care less that someone likes the newest edition. 4e has not in any way cut into my enjoyment of the game, because it hasn't made it impossible for me to play the edition I like, or to find others who like the same edition that I do.
So anyone who wants to claim that 4e is better for them, godspeed. I would only mix it up with someone if they took the position that 4e is a better version of the game, period.
To me, the thing that make TTRPGs great is their looseness, their variety, the feeling that anything can happen, and as a participant, you can do anything you can think up. Their inclusivity, if you will.
And anyone who claims ownership of the game enough to claim that their preferred version is the right one, or anything that seeks to dismantle that inclusive spirit--well, that gets my goat.
Because the game doesn't belong to any one. Its all of ours.
(Now, I'm not claiming that my feelings on this subject are correct, or even rational. But thats how I feel about it. And yes, I know that WotC owns the brand--thats not what I'm talking about.)
So anyone who wants to claim that 4e is better for them, godspeed. I would only mix it up with someone if they took the position that 4e is a better version of the game, period.
To me, the thing that make TTRPGs great is their looseness, their variety, the feeling that anything can happen, and as a participant, you can do anything you can think up. Their inclusivity, if you will.
And anyone who claims ownership of the game enough to claim that their preferred version is the right one, or anything that seeks to dismantle that inclusive spirit--well, that gets my goat.
Because the game doesn't belong to any one. Its all of ours.
(Now, I'm not claiming that my feelings on this subject are correct, or even rational. But thats how I feel about it. And yes, I know that WotC owns the brand--thats not what I'm talking about.)
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
Raven Crowking
First Post
There is definitely some truth to this sort of answer, but I would caution you to avoid them. Specifically, this sort of answer is used to render the speaker's statments moot -- one ascribes the motive, and then one can dismiss the content.
"Reader bias" is a very large part of any Internet discussion, IMHO and IME. No matter how well-meaning one is, it is impossible to always avoid reading someone else's words on the basis of "If I wrote that, this would be the intended subtext" and responding to that perceived subtext.
A better rule of thumb might be: People get hot under the collar when they believe they -- or something they love -- is being attacked. In the rush to defend and counter-attack, rationality often goes out the window. Even in the most well-meaning, if the attack comes close to the heart. The faceless nature of Internet communication probably makes this worse, both because of "reader bias" and because people feel comfortably typing things they probably wouldn't say in person.
Add to this that you have people sitting on the sidelines, on other forums, dropping by to "stir up the pot" (troll).
Add to this that 4th Edition seems to offer some indications that WotC listens to Internet chatter, and takes it into account when making decisions. If this is true....or if it even seems to be true.....then it becomes a "smart" thing to petition for what you want in 5th Edition now. After all, the reasoning goes, when you were less vocal, the vocal guys got what they wanted in 4th Edition. From what I am told, revised skill challenges seem to have paid attention to the boards.
Finally -- and this gets drowned out a lot in the more general bickering -- the advent of 4th Edition generated some amazing discussion of what the game should look like in the future, and how it has been played by various groups in the past and present.
WotC opened up the discussion with "Here is problem X; we propose solution Y", which allowed folks to discuss what they believe are the root causes for X, and how Y will actually affect those root causes.
I don't know about other people, but those discussions were very valuable to me.
RC
Theo R Cwithin
I cast "Baconstorm!"
Personally, I think "edition warriors" just like to argue.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Aberzanzorax
Hero
A very interesting question, and I'd love to see your findings in the end.
In my opinion an important distinction is WHICH edition war? The 2e versus 3e saw a change in publishers but much of the game remained the same. The 3e to 4e changes remained with the same publisher but QUITE a few sacred cows were changed...and "sacred cows" may minimize how much these features mattered to people. For me, Vancian spellcasting was not a cow...it was prime rib, baby.
Similarly, if we're exclusively talking about the 3e to 4e edition war, I personally prefer 3e over 4e, but have no war against it. It makes me sad that third party publishers dried up along with most of the support for 3e...but I'm glad Pathfinder provides for the edition (more or less).
However, when 4e was released I had MANY gripes against WotC. (These included, but are not limited to: the dungeon and dragon magazines which were quite poor when originally released, and were not even monthly; the promises made and not kept - at least until forced- such as releasing 4e versions of 3e books like Elder Evils; their general interaction with customers; the GSL release including the late date and poor original GSL; and so on). I was frequently characterized as hating 4e without that being the case. Just a heads' up that this might be worth parsing out...the change of the direction of the company at the same time as the edition conflates some of the emotion and reasoning. For example, one thing I don't like about 4e that I loved about 3e is robust third party support. I HATE WotC adventures for BOTH editions. But for 4e there are few and far between 3pp adventures compared to 3e.... So, you might say that a drawback of 4e is that the adventures aren't as good. But that's only true from a situational/business standpoint, and not from the standpoint of the game itself. I love the Open Design adventures for 4e, for example.
That out of the way, in terms of edition wars, my overall stake is:
* I would like to promote an edition I prefer over one I do not with the hopes that elements of that edition are carried forward as the game continues to evolve.
* The degree of change. I personally don't think 4e and 3e play as if they are the same game. I think this was intentional on the part of the WotC developers. I think some prefer one, and some prefer the other, but I haven't yet met someone who thinks they're "essentially the same, but with a few tweaks". I'd argue that "essentially the same, but with a few tweaks" might be true for 2nd edition to 3rd edition. They've completely revamped the game, and, as such, have begun catering to a new set of people. If you change checkers so much that it becomes chess, different people will want to play.
*...Which leads to some of the more philosophic questions you want to ask. Is it the same game? (To some, yes...to others, no.) What defines "Dungeons and Dragons"? Is Pathfinder D&D? Castles and Crusades? What can be changed and what can't and how do we define it? Similar to Agammemmon's ship...how many old boards can you replace with new boards and still have the same ship...and what if you take the old boards and build a separate ship with THEM (similar to the games mentioned).
*These questions lead to "issues" when talking with other gamers. 4e has been out for quite some time, but (no joke, this really happened) yesterday I went to the carwash with D&D books in my car and the guy there noticed. "A fellow D&D player?" he asked. "Yes, 3rd edition, I answered." This is something new for me compared to the switch from 2nd to 3rd. I'd say "yep" without mentioning edition then. Again, the degree of change here has been so large that, at least to me, it feels like playing a different game. It is no longer sufficient for me to say I play D&D, or if I were invited to a random game, I'd want to know which edition to set my expectations (though I'd be no more likely to play one than the other, assuming I wanted to join the group).
*In my opinion, there could become an element of philosophic dishonesty if a game is changed to such a degree that it is no longer recognized. It's re-defining an identity, and in the case of D&D this may be an identity that is a subset of the gamer's own identity. I'm not necessarily claiming this is objectively true from the changes of 3e to 4e (it is for me subjectively). However, if D&D morphed in 5th edition to, say minis with microchips in them, and they fought each other with audio outputs (all the dice and rules are pre-established for you! No need for math or rolling!!!). It would not be the same game as in the late 70s. There comes a point (that is different for different people....and this itself leads to the edition wars...where 4e isn't D&D for me, it might very well be D&D to someone else) when a game is changed so much that it is no longer the same as when it started. For others this change may have been 2e to 3e.
*In the end, I conceptualize it as Agammemnon's ship. There is no clear answer as to what "is" or "isn't" the ship. For each person there are emotional and logical preconceptions and rules that define where such breaking points fall. This is especially true when the changes are "better" to some people or "worse" to others. I wonder if I liked 4e more than 3e if I might be more charitable in conceptualizing them as "The same game". Similarly, if I was less irritated at WotC, I wonder if my overall perspective on 4e would be different. It's my opinion that the edition wars are very individualized and personal for each individual, and that you'll rarely see people, even people on the same "side" of the wars agreeing, as, in the end, it all comes down to the personal relationship you have with the game.
EDIT: AH, it's been a while. Not Agammemnon's ship. Theseus's ship. D'OH!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_and_change#The_Ship_of_Theseus
*If someone took the gearshift off my first car (an 86 Toyota Celica), put in in a Porsche, and told me it was my first car, I'd sure as heck want to drive it. If someone did the same thing with a rusty 72 Fiat....well, I wouldn't want to drive it. It'd be a lot easier getting me to call the Porshe "my first car" than the Fiat. BUT 4e isn't better than 3e...and it isn't worse. It's better to some and worse to others. For some it's don't call that fiat my trusty, beloved Celica! And for others it's "Dude, I'm driving a porshe...This totally brings back the fun memories of doing donughts in my school parking lot. Maybe I'll do one for old times sake."
In my opinion an important distinction is WHICH edition war? The 2e versus 3e saw a change in publishers but much of the game remained the same. The 3e to 4e changes remained with the same publisher but QUITE a few sacred cows were changed...and "sacred cows" may minimize how much these features mattered to people. For me, Vancian spellcasting was not a cow...it was prime rib, baby.
Similarly, if we're exclusively talking about the 3e to 4e edition war, I personally prefer 3e over 4e, but have no war against it. It makes me sad that third party publishers dried up along with most of the support for 3e...but I'm glad Pathfinder provides for the edition (more or less).
However, when 4e was released I had MANY gripes against WotC. (These included, but are not limited to: the dungeon and dragon magazines which were quite poor when originally released, and were not even monthly; the promises made and not kept - at least until forced- such as releasing 4e versions of 3e books like Elder Evils; their general interaction with customers; the GSL release including the late date and poor original GSL; and so on). I was frequently characterized as hating 4e without that being the case. Just a heads' up that this might be worth parsing out...the change of the direction of the company at the same time as the edition conflates some of the emotion and reasoning. For example, one thing I don't like about 4e that I loved about 3e is robust third party support. I HATE WotC adventures for BOTH editions. But for 4e there are few and far between 3pp adventures compared to 3e.... So, you might say that a drawback of 4e is that the adventures aren't as good. But that's only true from a situational/business standpoint, and not from the standpoint of the game itself. I love the Open Design adventures for 4e, for example.
That out of the way, in terms of edition wars, my overall stake is:
* I would like to promote an edition I prefer over one I do not with the hopes that elements of that edition are carried forward as the game continues to evolve.
* The degree of change. I personally don't think 4e and 3e play as if they are the same game. I think this was intentional on the part of the WotC developers. I think some prefer one, and some prefer the other, but I haven't yet met someone who thinks they're "essentially the same, but with a few tweaks". I'd argue that "essentially the same, but with a few tweaks" might be true for 2nd edition to 3rd edition. They've completely revamped the game, and, as such, have begun catering to a new set of people. If you change checkers so much that it becomes chess, different people will want to play.
*...Which leads to some of the more philosophic questions you want to ask. Is it the same game? (To some, yes...to others, no.) What defines "Dungeons and Dragons"? Is Pathfinder D&D? Castles and Crusades? What can be changed and what can't and how do we define it? Similar to Agammemmon's ship...how many old boards can you replace with new boards and still have the same ship...and what if you take the old boards and build a separate ship with THEM (similar to the games mentioned).
*These questions lead to "issues" when talking with other gamers. 4e has been out for quite some time, but (no joke, this really happened) yesterday I went to the carwash with D&D books in my car and the guy there noticed. "A fellow D&D player?" he asked. "Yes, 3rd edition, I answered." This is something new for me compared to the switch from 2nd to 3rd. I'd say "yep" without mentioning edition then. Again, the degree of change here has been so large that, at least to me, it feels like playing a different game. It is no longer sufficient for me to say I play D&D, or if I were invited to a random game, I'd want to know which edition to set my expectations (though I'd be no more likely to play one than the other, assuming I wanted to join the group).
*In my opinion, there could become an element of philosophic dishonesty if a game is changed to such a degree that it is no longer recognized. It's re-defining an identity, and in the case of D&D this may be an identity that is a subset of the gamer's own identity. I'm not necessarily claiming this is objectively true from the changes of 3e to 4e (it is for me subjectively). However, if D&D morphed in 5th edition to, say minis with microchips in them, and they fought each other with audio outputs (all the dice and rules are pre-established for you! No need for math or rolling!!!). It would not be the same game as in the late 70s. There comes a point (that is different for different people....and this itself leads to the edition wars...where 4e isn't D&D for me, it might very well be D&D to someone else) when a game is changed so much that it is no longer the same as when it started. For others this change may have been 2e to 3e.
*In the end, I conceptualize it as Agammemnon's ship. There is no clear answer as to what "is" or "isn't" the ship. For each person there are emotional and logical preconceptions and rules that define where such breaking points fall. This is especially true when the changes are "better" to some people or "worse" to others. I wonder if I liked 4e more than 3e if I might be more charitable in conceptualizing them as "The same game". Similarly, if I was less irritated at WotC, I wonder if my overall perspective on 4e would be different. It's my opinion that the edition wars are very individualized and personal for each individual, and that you'll rarely see people, even people on the same "side" of the wars agreeing, as, in the end, it all comes down to the personal relationship you have with the game.
EDIT: AH, it's been a while. Not Agammemnon's ship. Theseus's ship. D'OH!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_and_change#The_Ship_of_Theseus
*If someone took the gearshift off my first car (an 86 Toyota Celica), put in in a Porsche, and told me it was my first car, I'd sure as heck want to drive it. If someone did the same thing with a rusty 72 Fiat....well, I wouldn't want to drive it. It'd be a lot easier getting me to call the Porshe "my first car" than the Fiat. BUT 4e isn't better than 3e...and it isn't worse. It's better to some and worse to others. For some it's don't call that fiat my trusty, beloved Celica! And for others it's "Dude, I'm driving a porshe...This totally brings back the fun memories of doing donughts in my school parking lot. Maybe I'll do one for old times sake."
Last edited:
SpiderMonkey
Explorer
Wow. Thanks to everyone for the prompt replies. In the next day or so, I'll be responding to individual entries to ask you to expand on some of what you've mentioned.
I really appreciate the responses and the community!
I really appreciate the responses and the community!
- Status
Similar Threads
