What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

Status
Not open for further replies.
True, within certain limits.

Yes. And if you look very closely, I actually spell out those limits precisely in my post. Let me illustrate. . .

My 3e Savage Species book is fairly worthless.

Nope. It can be used to play 3e.

My 3e Tome of Magic book also isn't going to be doing anyone any good in 4e.

True but, again, it can be used to play 3e. Not worthless.

My 3e Complete Divine book doesn't work so well, either.

I bet you can't guess what game this book can still be used with! ;) Not worthless.

Perhaps you see a patten developing here. Again, the assertion was that 4e makes 3e books worthless — a gross generalization at best and a completely untrue statement at worse, when you consider (again) that all 3x books can still be used to play 3x games or as fluff resources for 4e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Perhaps you see a patten developing here. Again, the assertion was that 4e makes 3e books worthless — a gross generalization at best and a completely untrue statement at worse, when you consider (again) that all 3x books can still be used to play 3x games or as fluff resources for 4e.

The few times I've used some player specific crunch heavy 3E/3.5E splatbooks for 4E, was to make some NPCs with some powers and abilities which haven't been already made for 4E. Some 3E/3.5E crunch I've used for higher level super-minions in my 4E games.
 

The few times I've used some player specific crunch heavy 3E/3.5E splatbooks for 4E, was to make some NPCs with some powers and abilities which haven't been already made for 4E. Some 3E/3.5E crunch I've used for higher level super-minions in my 4E games.

Oooo! I didn't even think of that (which is weird, because I use 3x books with Basic D&D in the same way). Good call. :)
 

Perhaps you see a patten developing here. Again, the assertion was that 4e makes 3e books worthless — a gross generalization at best and a completely untrue statement at worse, when you consider (again) that all 3x books can still be used to play 3x games or as fluff resources for 4e.

Ah, I thought we were comparing 3e's ability to include information from earlier editions vs. 4e's ability to include information from earlier editions ("backwards compatibility").

I guess I thought that because of this:
Aberzanzorax said:
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.

If we're talking about one edition's ability to use its own books, I'd have to say that's probably self-evident. Pointing that out in edition discussions probably misses the point.
 

Ah, I thought we were comparing 3e's ability to include information from earlier editions vs. 4e's ability to include information from earlier editions ("backwards compatibility").

Well, we got side-tracked a bit earlier. The post of mine that you responded to was me trying to pull it back on topic. Aberzanzorax and a few other posters had previously invoked the broad generalization that 4e made 3e books obsolete or worthless. Aberzanzorax alone went on to explain a bit better (though I don't agree with him) and that got us onto comparing 2e/3e/4e.

Whilst trying to bring the discussion back on track, I was addressing the earlier broad generalizations about 4e making 3e books useless (hence the "Anyhow..." at the beginning of my quoted post). And, as pointed out, those broad generalizations simply don't hold true. You can still use 3e books in some capacity or another, either to run 3e games, as ideas mines for 4e, or (as ggroy pointed out) actual rule texts for 4e.

So, the point is, yes, 3e books will not be 100% compatible with a completely different game, one that that they were not designed to work with — but they don't suddenly become completely useless, obsolete, or worthless, either.
 

This thread is too long to follow completely, so please do pardon me if somebody already made this point...

But I have to doubt very much any assertion that dismisses the edition wars as nothing more than ego, argumentative tendencies, or human "nature" (whatever that is). Edition warriors are fans of their favorite game. They are D&D fans. And fans strive to keep their beloved properties alive.

Stepping up to defend one's favorite edition is startlingly similar to defending one's favorite TV show, especially one bearing the scent of imminent cancellation. The difference, of course, is that TV shows are competing for limited resource space: only so many TV shows can be on the air at any one time. Different permutations of RPGs, on the other hand, could theoretically perpetuate to infinity. But, of course, there can only be one true D&D in print at any one time. (Well, okay, I guess there could be D&D and AD&D at the same time, but it's not like that'll never happen again. Fingers crossed for "D&D Essentials," though.) So, in a way, the editions of D&D are all competing for that singular "time slot": the current and true edition of the most popular (and first-ever) role-playing game.

Very few canceled TV shows have ever risen from the dead. Some get their movie or miniseries follow-up (Farscape, Firefly, Futurama); some get continued as comic books (Angel, Buffy, Farscape again); I think only "Family Guy" has ever really come back from beyond the grave and had real success. Most shows just die, no matter how much the fans love them, and so they can only continue in the form of daydreams and fanfiction.

The edition wars are basically fans fighting tooth and nail to keep their edition from being "canceled," to win an extra "season" or two. It's futile, of course, because the suits are going to "air" the "show" that will make them the most money, i.e. the new one. (Have I exhausted this metaphor yet?) And so you get pointless edition wars, which don't accomplish anything... and retro-clones, which can be thought of as the fanfic of RPG rules. Unauthorized, but at least it's constructive and aimed at making fans happy by filling a void.

"It's all D&D, therefore it's all good" just isn't true. The editions are different, they play differently, they don't deliver the same gameplay experience. You can't equate original Trek with Voyager or Enterprise or even the new movie... and as long as there are people who feel nostalgia for the original, or Next Gen, or whatever (and, for that matter, people who discover the old stuff long after its heyday and come to love it anyway), there will be nerds and fanboys on the 'net arguing about it.

THAC0 vs BAB. Kirk vs Picard. Fireball is a 3rd level MU spell vs Fireball is a 5th level wizard power. Starbuck is a dude vs Starbuck is a chick who dies and comes back as an angel-ghost. It's all of a kind.
 

...for you, what's really at stake?

I'm going to take this a slightly different route than most people seem to be (and I apologize if someone already made this point, but I only read the first half a dozen pages or so of this thread...).

At the heart of the edition wars lies the future of the gaming industry. The success of 4e determines the path of the D+D brand, and steers the future of the entire hobby has we know it.

It is an undeniable fact that D+D (and, by extension, WotC) is the biggest name in (tabletop) RPGs. Ask someone who has never played D+D if they've heard of Pathfinder or OSRIC. They haven't. Some may have heard of Vampire or Warhammer, but it's pretty much guaranteed that everyone who has played those games has at least experienced D+D at some point in time. The bottom line is that D+D is the de facto standard brand when it comes to paper-and-dice RPGs.

It is a slightly more deniable fact that RPGs are not as big as they used to be. The market is smaller than it used to be. Gamers are lost to computer games, CCGs, or just plain don't play paper-and-dice games as much as they used to. The numbers behind this fact are hard to find, but it has been discussed in other threads here and I generally believe it to be true.

Another unfortunate fact is that D+D now has a smaller market share than it once did. When D+D was the only game in town, it supported (barely) a ridiculous number of expansion packs and settings. It now has to compete with Paizo, White Wolf, Warhammer, and countless other games that nibble away at it's market share.

After losing all of this ground to other media and other manufacturers, D+D is doing it's best to get by. And D+D gets by by selling books. And it doesn't sell books if you're not buying the current edition.

So what happens when more people are playing out-of-print versions of D+D than the current edition? WotC stops being the biggest player in the RPG world. What happens to the market when the flagship product isn't the flagship anymore? I honestly don't know. Maybe Vancian magic makes a comeback. Maybe miniatures take over. But you'll stop worshiping Vecna, won't fight any more beholders, and won't run into Elminster anymore. The world won't end, but it changes a lot. The hobby as we know it doesn't die, but it changes form. And, oddly enough, that's what most people who resist new editions dislike the most.

The closest analogy I can think of is the history of the arcade. If you went into an arcade in the 70s and early 80s, you would see a mixture of electronic and mechanical games (i.e. pinball). Flash ahead to the late 80s and 90s, and you would see that the arcade cabinet has become pretty standardized in terms of controllers and overall design. Arcades were a common location for new games to be released before they went to consoles (sometimes not being released until the next generation of console due to hardware limitations). Fast forward to today, and you will find almost no standard cabinet games left. Every game has a customer controller (a gun, a guitar, a dance pad, a steering wheel, a seat, etc). To stop their losses to the home video game market, arcades have evolved into the games you can't play at home.

The arcade is still a fun place to go. But there's a lot less of them these days. And if the only things you want to play are pinball and Robotron, you're in for a search to find what you want.
 

At the heart of the edition wars lies the future of the gaming industry.
Edition wars have exactly nothing to do with the future of the gaming industry. Edition wars are about people making arguments in bad faith in an attempt to score points against the other side. Nothing productive or insightful ever came from telling other people why they are wrong to like the games they like, which is what all edition wars ultimately boil down to.
 

At the heart of the edition wars lies the future of the gaming industry. The success of 4e determines the path of the D+D brand, and steers the future of the entire hobby has we know it.

I don't think the edition wars have any material impact on the success or failure of 4e.

And, I think there was already a WOTC survey that showed that a majority of players were still playing their very-home-brewed 1e version of the game, even during the 2e and 3e era.
 

I don't think the edition wars have any material impact on the success or failure of 4e.

And, I think there was already a WOTC survey that showed that a majority of players were still playing their very-home-brewed 1e version of the game, even during the 2e and 3e era.

Link? Or any support for this claim whatsoever?

Majority? I really do not think so.

Some, perhaps; a small minority, surely; but a majority?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top