What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Desdichado]

Aren't we being a little too literal? This what you feel like you lost, not something you can prove you lost.

If I'm being too literal, you're being too melodramatic. If you claim you lost a laundry list of things, and even a casual glance shows that you didn't really lose them, that creates a big disconnect.

To say the least.

No one has anything to gain by edition wars if you truth.

That's a sigworthy comment.

The edition wars is all based on feeling. Alot of folks have been playing this game a long, long time across all the different editions. I don't know how big the percentage is, but WotC bitch slapped a good many of us in the face with 4E. Ripped the rug out and said "This is D&D now. Love it or leave it."

Again with the melodramatic language. I could say the same thing about when Microsoft quit supporting the original Xbox or Windows 98. I could say the same thing about when Ford updated the look of the F-150, or migrated to the retro Mustang designs. But I don't, because, well, it's just kinda silly to say stuff like that just because a company released a new edition of a product, and you liked the old one just fine.

That doesn't exactly feel good. It makes you pretty pissed off. It's all based on feeling, not logic. It's impossible to prove one game better than another or a truer form of D&D. All it does is wake you up to the fact that D&D is corporate owned and your only recourse is to stop buying product from that company if you don't like what they're doing. That's truth.

Of course it's truth. In fact, it's blindingly obvious truth that most people didn't need to have stated. Why that would make anyone pissed off, or make them angry is the whole point of this thread, because frankly, why would it? That kind of stuff happens every day all over the place. Why do some D&D customers expect otherwise in the first place?

Did anyone really expect this type of radical change to happen without some acrimony? I certainly hope WotC game designers were not that naive.

It would be naive, yes. I agree. That's a far cry from justifying edition wars, though.

 

[Garthanos]

Then tell them that you disagree and can't see that the changes are quite so significant. Don't redefine it for them and dismiss it. The former is getting involved in the discussion without being disrepectful, the latter is not.

As I said the analogy was an extension of that used as part of an ongoing sequence from a prior poster, the one who called a game a salad not a hamburger didn't think it was disrespectful ... as I said that is conversational language use... I first described how dramatically different even one relatively similar game was, then pulled in the ongoing analogy.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

As I said the analogy was an extension of that used as part of an ongoing sequence from a prior poster, the one who called a game a salad not a hamburger didn't think it was disrespectful ... as I said that is conversational language use... I first described how dramatically different even one relatively similar game was, then pulled in the ongoing analogy.

I was that poster. And it was not meant to be disrespectful. I stand by my claim that 4e is not remotely recognizable as D&D. That's the problem I have with it. It's not based on the quality of the game. Reverse the terms if you like, 4e can be the hamburger, and previous editions the salad. Much as I don't want salad when I order a hamburger, neither do I want a burger went I order a salad.

 

[Cadfan]

Is that something you see a lot of in edition discussions?

"4e has elder red dragon minions, therefore, it sucks?"

I selected that example specifically because there was a several month period during the run-up to the release of 4e, and then a short period afterwards, in which this argument was very popular. Several reasonable, interesting threads were turned into lengthy, useless swamps of bitterness by the same group of disingenuous trolls over precisely this issue. It began with their dishonesty simply involving boldly stating as factual matters which they had no reason to believe to be true, but then moved to their continuing to make factually incorrect statements after they had been conclusively proven not to be true.

There were several other similar issues, but that one sticks out in my mind because it involved behavior that was objectively lying. There were others that were less clear cut, but which, over time and with recollection of previous behavior by a particular forum participant, were conclusive evidence of dishonest.

Oh, and its worth noting that there's a massive, massive gap between saying that you refuse to conclude that others are trolling because that leads to less interesting conversation, and edition wars are genuinely not characterized by trolling. The first is either holding out hope in the human spirit, or else choosing to make-believe something as true because you like the results such a belief may yield. The latter is just false. Trolls exist even if your optimism or hopes for interesting conversation suggests to you that you should treat anyone you meet as if they are not a troll, no matter how hard they try to prove you wrong.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

With some weirdness...my 3e books are both more valuable and less valuable.

I like 3e. I have a ton of books. When 4e came out, I bought many more books because prices tanked. Now, I have EVEN more books. At this point, prices for most are low, but there are some that are hard to get, and so cost much more (including the 3.5 phb).

So in that sense, 4e was GREAT for my collecting of old books...making them more valuable to me (I bought up what I could). Note I'm talking personal value in "do I want to own these" not dollar value.



and on the other hand...



4e's changes, not only to rules but also to canon (the planes, forgotten realms, the underdark/feywild) mean that my old books no longer have forward compatability.

If I want to adventure in the planes I have two choices:
1. use all my old stuff and (if I want "new" material, but stuff from second edition.
or
2. Toss my old stuff out the window and go with their new material.


It is in that sense...the sense that if I want to play 4e, I can't use my 3e materials. However, if I want to play 3e, I can STILL (and do for Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Planescape) use 2e materials.


In this sense...all "new" material has been cut short OR I can get new material BUT that my old books are now "worthless".

 

[Celtavian]

If I'm being too literal, you're being too melodramatic. If you claim you lost a laundry list of things, and even a casual glance shows that you didn't really lose them, that creates a big disconnect.

To say the least.

That's a sigworthy comment.

Again with the melodramatic language. I could say the same thing about when Microsoft quit supporting the original Xbox or Windows 98. I could say the same thing about when Ford updated the look of the F-150, or migrated to the retro Mustang designs. But I don't, because, well, it's just kinda silly to say stuff like that just because a company released a new edition of a product, and you liked the old one just fine.

Of course it's truth. In fact, it's blindingly obvious truth that most people didn't need to have stated. Why that would make anyone pissed off, or make them angry is the whole point of this thread, because frankly, why would it? That kind of stuff happens every day all over the place. Why do some D&D customers expect otherwise in the first place?

It would be naive, yes. I agree. That's a far cry from justifying edition wars, though.

Maybe you're just a more laid back person than I am. I was pretty pissed and unhappy that D&D made such radical changes. I still to this day do not like Andy Collins because I consider him the primary driver of these changes on top of being the guy that screwed up polymorph, hold spells, death spells, darkness, and wrote a half-complete set of epic rules that needed alot more testing and polishing.

And as I said, I like my new books and new material to look forward to. If not for Paizo, I would still be unhappy. At this point I don't much engage in edition wars. I get my game fix from Paizo. And now I'm looking forward to their Advanced Player's Guide versus hating all things 4E.

But I tossed in my feelings on the matter and some of what I felt like when 4E first released since the OP asked.

 

[Garthanos]

I stand by my claim that 4e is not remotely recognizable as D&D. That's the problem I have with it. It's not based on the quality of the game.

Build91 has a point that maybe he didnt express or maybe he just brought up a point in my head with his comment... analogies sometimes just obsfucate ;-). I made a small laundry list of things comparing to Runequest. They are in most cases foir me established fundamentals of sameness that went all the way back from OD&D til now.

I played AD&D over 20 years ago and really no D&D in between then and 4e and I am used to games like Runequest / Stormbringer or Fuzion or Fantasy HERO or Fate or an improvisationally done diceless roleplay for that matter I am used to a "different" game being different and consider the Arcanum or Palladium to have been D&D with the numbers filed off.

D&D has fundamentals like niche protection (usually called being class based but that is not necessarily true and the explicitly defined roles in 4e are the same ... rumor has it some of this was being lost in 3e inspite of the classes easy multiclassing and high level easy utility magics can step on it). It is something well few games really have. If I dont want classes or the niche protection they can provide
... there are lots of different games that do that.

For instance if I dont have a level I cant look at the character and get an over all sense of advancement.. I get no sense of burst achievement and anticipation as I build up to it via those experience points. In some versions of D&D level really didnt give much if any clue as to how powerful the character is or what they might be capable of battling.(But I think it was meant to).
If I dont want a sense of how potent the character is or a build up and burst of improvement to my characters.. or ease of putting together an opposition to battle them.
... there are lots of different games that do that.

And so on.

But I think when folk are in edition war mode they dont want to talk about the similarities or how those are core and are indeed very uprooted when you walk away from the banner of D&D.

4e is the edition my son and nieces will remember as the first or second real D&D they played...

At some level I am finding myself less interested in discussing how different the editions are than how similar they are. Perhaps the Grognards for 4E group need a manifesto.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Aren't we being a little too literal? This what you feel like you lost, not something you can prove you lost.

That's what I felt like I lost. It did cause some acrimony in my group until we settled on Pathfinder. We tried 4E for about 4 to 6 months. 4 out of 5 us came to despise it. One guy liked it, but he had to tough out going to Pathfinder. He stayed. So we got it worked out.

No one has anything to gain by edition wars if you truth.

The edition wars is all based on feeling. Alot of folks have been playing this game a long, long time across all the different editions. I don't know how big the percentage is, but WotC bitch slapped a good many of us in the face with 4E. Ripped the rug out and said "This is D&D now. Love it or leave it."

25 years I've been a loyal customer going with every new edition, spending hundreds (possible thousands) of dollars on gaming merchandise to have WotC change the game to such a huge degree I no longer want to move to their new edition and have them basically tell me "They don't care".

That doesn't exactly feel good. It makes you pretty pissed off. It's all based on feeling, not logic. It's impossible to prove one game better than another or a truer form of D&D. All it does is wake you up to the fact that D&D is corporate owned and your only recourse is to stop buying product from that company if you don't like what they're doing. That's truth.

But the edition wars isn't based on truth. It's based on feeling. It's not rational, but it's passionate. It's not all based on ego or being right. It's also based on tradition, a tradition I've been following for 25 years. And WotC tossed it all out the window this time. The current game doesn't look a damn thing like the previous games. It doesn't play like the previous games. It's not comparable to any edition. It is a complete and radical change with a different overriding philosophy driving it.

Did anyone really expect this type of radical change to happen without some acrimony? I certainly hope WotC game designers were not that naive.

And as with every radical change that a company attempts, there is another company waiting in the wings to capitalize. This time it is Paizo. I hope they prosper so I can have new material for a game I enjoy.

But the edition wars isn't based on truth. It's based on feeling. It's not rational, but it's passionate.

If it is about emotion... Some people seem to be able to keep their emotions in check. Use them, when they can help, control them when they don't.

My sisters are kinda notorious for getting into a bad mood about something and then getting angry about any type of "infraction" or perceived slight. Despite them being now 24 years old, they haven't managed to control that. I don't know why. When I am emotional about something, I recognize it usually and try to stay on top of them.

So, the question someone that is emotional or passionate about an issue would be: Does it help my cause to act on it? Does it help someone else? Or do I cause more hurt and anger? Do I create merely conflict, or can I achieve an actual conflict resolution?

A "real" Edition War always happens when there is just conflict, but no attempt or chance for resolution.

I know I have been in some discussions where it (for EN World standards at least) I felt heads were bashed in and all. But some of them actually achieved a type of resolution - getting to understand some aspect of the other side. I think I've learned some valuable lessons on game design or campaign design (for example, sandboxes) in the process. I am not convinced I couldn't have learned these lessons either, with less than the countless pages. It sure would have gotten better if people had been more focused on resolution than on just causing a conflict. (Or rather, if the people that weren't interested in a resolution would just have gone away.)

A resolution in the context of edition wars doesn't have to mean that one side suddenly changes his opinion on an edition or likes and dislikes. But it can be about understanding - and even accepting - some aspects of a game. Learning to understand what it is people like, why they like it.

Roleplaying games might be one of the things where it is really possible to get such an understanding. You will have a hard time making me understand why you might like, say, Olives. We don't have the vocabulary to accurately express the taste we experience. But I think we very well have the vocabulary to express how we feel about our games. And if we don't have it yet, we at least have a fair chance of expand the vocabulary to get there.

 

[jdrakeh]

It is in that sense...the sense that if I want to play 4e, I can't use my 3e materials. However, if I want to play 3e, I can STILL (and do for Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Planescape) use 2e materials.


In this sense...all "new" material has been cut short OR I can get new material BUT that my old books are now "worthless".

4e material is no less backward compatible than 3e material is with 2e. 2e didn't contain a true skill system, feats, or tons of other things that were central to the 3e rules. You either had to make that stuff up from whole cloth when using 2e material with 3e rules or ignore it entirely. The same thing holds true when using 3e material with 4e rules.

4e does not make 3e books "worthless." 3e books can still be used to play 3e games (Crazy, I know, who would want to use those books in the manner they were intended to be used?!?) or as idea mines for 4e (which is also the only way 2e books can be used with 3e, unless one is willing to re-write whole swaths of mechanical information).*

*Barring some miraculous new turn of events that I am unaware of. I still have the official AD&D to D&D 3.0 conversion guide published by WotC. It consists largely of advice indicating that X rules no longer exist or have been replaced by new rules Y.]

 

[JohnRTroy]

4e material is no less backward compatible than 3e material is with 2e. 2e didn't contain a true skill system, feats, or tons of other things that were central to the 3e rules. You either had to make that stuff up from whole cloth when using 2e material with 3e rules or ignore it entirely. The same thing holds true when using 3e material with 4e rules.

I'm going to have to disagree with that. While 3e had a lot of additional rules and some changes, a lot of the core concepts were the same. You could easilly take a 15th Level Fighter, a 12th Level Wizard, etc, and get a very similar character. Your magic items, spells, etc, are pretty much the same. There was what I would call 70% or 80% compatibility. Sure, some things were harder to take--percentile strength, for instance, and a lot of the optional kits disappeared, but there were good replacements. It was rather easy to make changes to existing D&D campaign settings, for instance.

4e is a whole other beast. Your familiar magic items, spells, etc, have disappeared. I would say you are dealing with less that 50% compatibility. Many core concepts have changed. Its a lot harder to convert existing products. In fact, many core concepts have changed--this game is a lot more focused on tactical and gives a short shift to things like rituals or abilities that aren't dealing with close combat.

Whether or not people like the reboot or if the new game is fun does not change the fact that compatibility or translation from any prior version to 4e would take a ton of work. A lot more than the 3e rollout did to 2e.