What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Windjammer]

And more are on the way! Goodman - a 4E supporter - is now (reportedly) going to release *their* version of D&D in an RPG. Reportedly a hybrid of 3.5 and 1E.

THANKS! That's absolutely great to know. I loved the simplified 3.5. char' sheets Goodman did for his Dungeon Crawl Classics.* Always wanted a 'lite' version of 3.5. without changing system (too much, anyway), so here's hoping that's what he's been up to.

* And yes, I'm aware that he also did a couple of 1E DCCs, so in a sense, I'm not utterly surprised by the news.

 

[Desdichado]

Thus, in a lot of ways it was complete happenstance that the OSR was really hitting full stride when 4e was released.

That's only true if you assume that the direction late 3.5 was going, the rumors that were thick at the time of later 3.5 and Star Wars SAGA products as "dry runs" for a new edition, and then the announcement of 4e itself with its attendant previews, wasn't a strong contributor to that feeling of disenfranchisement.

Like I said, I can't prove that, but I don't believe that for a minute.

 

[I'm A Banana]

the reason discussions between fans/players become so heated about edition changes is not due to quibbles about rules; rather they are tied to issues regarding creative control, the means of production over a shared narrative, and how sense is made in both the game and real worlds.

I know it is very fashionable on the internet to fight the battle of "who can care less," to argue that everything basically boils down to personal ego and guys who take things too seriously, to characterize any discussion as heated "wars," to condescend, and act above it all...

...but I think yer onto something.

Discussions about the changes editions bring (whether or not you want to use the term "Edition Wars," with its negative connotations, to describe all of these, or just the subset of them that become overly passionate) are, I'd agree, about what it means to make the game your own.

It's not a problem unique to D&D, but I think in D&D it is especially distinct, because the game encourages you, from the get-go, to make the game your own. The DM and the players all come up with their own world, characters, and adventures, and this fosters a powerful sense of ownership over the game. You don't just see the rule as a rule, you are invested in the rule, it becomes a cornerstone of your world, or your characters, a cause of a lot of the fun you've had in adventures.

And then someone comes down "from on high" and tells you that the rule, and hundreds of other rules, were no good, were wrong, were in need of revision.

And it becomes very easy to get defensive about it, for a lot of players. For them, this isn't The D&D Game, this is my personal D&D game, that people who don't know me, who don't know my table, are suddenly telling me, is not good enough to continue to support.

It feels like outside interference of the worst sort.

For me personally, the only thing really at stake in any edition discussion is the principles behind certain rule choices, and how they reflect the game that I personally want to play. For instance, I am a fan of the earlier editions' choice to have the dungeon be the basic challenge in play, and I am not so much a fan of the recent editions' choice to have the encounter be the basic challenge in play. I like to get at the actual cause and effect of certain rules choices, to see what they were meant to achieve, what they do achieve, and which ones I would like to use in my own games.

Edition discussions, especially heated ones, reflect much more than the personality defects of those who participate in them. I think that dismissing the "edition wars" as the work of trolls and fanboys is disingenuous.

It's a little like telling a little girl who is upset over her dead puppy that the only reason she's upset is because she cares too much about some dumb animal.

There's something different going on there.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Wanted to give you XP for:


"It's a little like telling a little girl who is upset over her dead puppy that the only reason she's upset is because she cares too much about some dumb animal. "


But! It appears I must spread some more love first.


Well said.

 

[BryonD]

I actually enjoy debating a topic that is important enough to me that I care (my gaming hobby that I spend a lot of time on), but isn't something I care so much about that the debate stops being fun (for ex, politics).

It is just fun.

Of course, even though I'm often labeled a big time "edition warrior", people who have known me for the past near decade know that I don't argue with any more energy now than I did before I ever heard of 4E. It is just that 4E is now the low hanging fruit.

I'll still go at it just as strong over 3X issues, given a good platform. Just ask Wulf Ratbane.

So "nothing" is at stake. I just say what I believe because I believe it and enjoy saying it.

 

[jaerdaph]

Personally, I think the Old School movement taking off like it did had more to do with our community's loss of Gary Gygax (and later Dave Arneson, as well as Judge's Guild's Bob Bledsaw) then it did the release of 4e. It was the end of an era, and for many (myself included) nostalgia is a way to hold on to those fond memories of our gaming past. Note I said "take off", not "cause" or "start", and not everyone is attracted to the old school movement because of nostalgia or nostalgia alone (some, in fact, never even "left" old school gaming).

Just my 2 coppers.

 

[Umbran]

Not to me. I think the prevailing opinion 'round here is unusual in that regard, and has more to do with the moderators and the posting climate in general. Edition wars don't have to be bad.

Well, maybe we have a bit of a difference on what we are calling an "Edition War". Amongst us moderating staff, it's edition warring when people step beyond mere debate and discussion about the edition, and move on to being hurtful to each other.

It is fine and dandy to be passionate about a game, and the hobby. Spirited debate is great. It isn't fine at all to care more about your debate than the human being with whom you're debating - that's the point when the dialog ceases to have any constructive merit.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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

No they don't.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I think (and hope) that the OP is using "edition war" in the non pejorative sense...that is...."heated and sometimes angry debate about the editions, that may, and even often, become overblown"

as opposed to:

"edition war" in the sense of "nothing of sense is being said.....this is flames and pain and angst and vitriol and moderation on good sites...YUCK.


Because in the former, there's something to study. In the latter, it's rubbernecking at a car crash.




And I do realize that the OP wants examples of the horrors of the edition war................but I HOPE that these are to be introductory as to how bad it CAN be, along with the majority of the empahsis of his work presenting where the real crux of the issue rests....

...because the crux of an issue never lies at the edges...it's in the middle.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, maybe we have a bit of a difference on what we are calling an "Edition War". Amongst us moderating staff, it's edition warring when people step beyond mere debate and discussion about the edition, and move on to being hurtful to each other.

Quite possibly. I do think that edition wars are an unintended side effect of the way ENW is moderated, though.

I mean, I know that ENW is what it is, and most of the time that's a good thing, so I'm not trying to knock it. But other forums that are more self-moderated in style tend to have little patience for the worst aspects of edition warriors, and tend to eliminate them (not literally!) through more naturalistic social cues.

I dunno; maybe I'm being naive, but in my experience, edition wars, and the reaction to them as well, are a specifically ENW phenomena. Other places, they tend not to rage nearly as hotly nor as long, nor do they simmer in a "cold war" state like they do here.