What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Dire Bare]

The main problem that I've encountered in years of trying to solicit more constructive criticism is that the Internet is also a place where people want to make statements, but not necessarily to discuss. They like short and punchy phrases that "say it all." Unfortunately, when a phrase doesn't say it all, and you ask for clarification, you don't always get it. Sometimes you do, and hey, it's constructive criticism; you had to go through an extra step to get to it, but there it is, and now you can actually talk about the topic. Sometimes you don't, though, and you get a person who's angry and defensive about how this short, punchy phrase is somehow not having the argument-ending fist-pump effect they were hoping for. Defending that turn of phrase becomes more important than talking about the issue it was coined to represent.

For me, this is what the edition wars is all about. It's not about rational folks discussing differing opinions, but about those who "wish to make a punchy statement". If we were all calmly discussing the differences between our favorite editions, it would be called the "edition discussion" and not the "edition war"

 

[I'm A Banana]

Everything is not just a matter of opinion.

On the one hand, frankly if we're ever going to accept that any game system has any impact that is in any way other than subjective, we should be willing to recognise things like the caster/non-caster power split in 3e. But fine, let's just leave that aside, it's all subjective, DMs can warp the system so that every wizard is an insomiac and every fighter has an amulet of mind blank, whatever.

BUT that doesn't change the fact that people have been misrepresenting the nature of the 4e system ever since it came out, not in subjective terms, not in terms of extrapolated game style, but in terms of making claims that are directly contrary to the actual facts of what is included in the books.

Now, it seems to me, that this is exactly part of what causes the edition war to spiral out of control.

"My criticism of your favorite edition is valid, but your criticism of my favorite edition is DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION."

Fact is, people have different play experiences, and dismissing a criticism (especially one that keeps coming up) out-of-hand is not going to foster a conversation about how to improve each of our play experiences (or how Wizards can improve the majority of players' experiences going forward).

As for my specific point, I was merely pointing out that there is a sort of equivalence, no fallacy involved, between various criticisms. Both "4e is like a videogame" and "3e's wizards made everyone else useless" are subjective, based on play experiences that are probably not universal. Giving people who post similar things the benefit of the doubt, you can see that most of the edition discussions are actually about something relevant, but get sidetracked because all too often people want to shut down statements they don't agree with, rather than engage it, to find out where the true difference lies.

 

[Dire Bare]

My housemate -- an MMO addict; she plays Aion and CoX for hours a day -- loves 4E because, and this is a quote ...

... "It's just like an MMO!"

I just like telling that story, because it cracks me up. I (not an MMO player) agree with her and don't like 4E. My other housemate (MMO player but not quite as addicted) agrees with her and is relatively neutral on 4E, and she loves it.

Because it's videogamey. In her humble opinion, of course.

Good example!

I don't have a problem labeling 4E as "videogamey" (and I love 4E), but I do have a problem with how the term is used as a perjorative with nothing solid to back it up.

Videogames borrowed rather heavily from prior editions of D&D. So a lot of fantasy and scifi videogames are "D&D-y". The new edition borrows concepts, rather obviously, from videogames, particularly MMOs. But since many of those concepts were originally borrowed from D&D, it's a inspiration circle . . .

I don't see the problem with designers taking what is good from MMOs and modifying them to fit into D&D. Both to improve the game and to catch the interest of the majority of RPG players, MMO players.

And, while certain concepts are clearly influenced by MMOs, I don't think that the new D&D actually plays like a videogame at all.

So, I guess to sum up . . . the descriptor "videogamey" doesn't bother me, just how most of the 4e haters use it bothers me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't have a problem labeling 4E as "videogamey" (and I love 4E), but I do have a problem with how the term is used as a perjorative with nothing solid to back it up.

Which is why I try to ask for back up. Coming into the thread and telling that poster to effectively shut up, and accusing them of trolling, and saying they're clearly ignorant, and that they're only there to spread misinformation, and...

...well, those things seem to not encourage a dialog, to me.

Coming into the thread and asking "Not my games. Why do you say that?" works better, IMXP.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The key thing to have a healthy debate on the issues, is to use facts instead of buzzwords and appeals to emotions.

For example, instead of talking about it being "videogamey", try to discuss it in detail. Maybe mechanics are less simulation oriented and more game-oriented like the healing surges. Someone who thinks it's too miniatures based can simply compare the games and how 4e (and actually starting with 3.5e) emphasizes the battle board. Someone who thinks its like the CCG games can point out to the lack of emphasis on rituals and the minimal descriptive text used in the rules as compared to all prior editions.

There ARE objective facts regarding the differences between editions. I think both sides use their own subjective opinions to ignore the changes. As I pointed out before, there are ways to measure the differences--while conversion was always needed, the changes between 1/2 and 3e has a much smaller gap between 1/2/3 and 4e. You could easilly create a table or spreadsheet and tally up the rules changes.

In this case, a 4e fan saying something like "the spirit is the same" is just as wrong as a 4e critic saying something like "the spirit is not the same". People need to be able to back up their concerns with facts, or just agree to disagree and simply state their opinion.

I also think there needs to be more understanding from both camps. 3e fans should realize some people like the new game and that's cool. 4e fans should also remember that 4e objectively changed a lot of things and considering that D&D has a huge fanbase and literally decades of tradition they should at least be understanding about the disappointment and accept this is going to cause a huge schism.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Since then people have managed to talk about real issues somtimes, but they still don't get to talk about the 500 pound gorilla in the room- the edition wars themselves, and how they've damaged 4e's 3pp market.

I don't think the criticism of 4e or the "edition wars" caused people to abandon the 4e market. Most smart publishers know how to separate a verbal or vocal faction from their audience. I think the collapse of the 3pp market came from the following factors.

• The d20 glut hurt a lot of publishers, and the 3.5e release didn't help matters.
• The GSL was a huge change from the expected OGL, and some people didn't like the legal ramifications. And there were several delays--WoTC deserves criticism for not communicating effectively. Furthermore, the OGL allowed the older product to be supported.
• There seems to be an economic slowdown for many publishers, even those that didn't support d20. (And this seemed to start happening before the economic recession).
• Regardless of whether the changes to the ruleset were good, bad, better, worse, there are a lot more differences than any other edition. A lot of older work would be a lot harder to convert. Some authors might not even care or want to support this. And companies might also have to take into account if their existing fan base is even interested in the new game.

Blaming the "negativity surrounding 4e" for the market reduction to me is blaming a symptom rather than the problem, and at least in part you have to recognize that WoTC probably brought this amongst themselves. Yes, there are 4e detractors who go too far, but remember, this is a hobby, and people have a right to be upset and disgruntled, at least in terms to their own purchases. In fact, if nobody provides negative feedback, companies won't learn from their mistakes.

 

[ggroy]

There seems to be an economic slowdown for many publishers, even those that didn't support d20. (And this seemed to start happening before the economic recession).

When did this start? Was it before the announcement of 4E at Gencon 2007?

What are some of the causes of this rpg economic slowdown, besides the d20 glut and "unspoken" rumors of a 4E before it was announced?

 

[MrGrenadine]

(A lot of anger, and then...) Here's the real truth about the edition wars: People threw a huge tantrum when a new edition came out, and their hostility, ignorance, overt dishonesty, and petulance was encouraged and placed upon a pedestal, when it should be recognised as immature, self-indulgent, and destructive.

Here's the real truth about the edition wars: people portraying one group as an innocent victim, and another group as the evil instigators.

 

[Barastrondo]

I find that pretty shocking.

So if you ran a restaurant and someone said they were never coming back, you would find them giving no explanation at all to be just as good as them saying they didn't like the flavor of your food? That information wouldn't give you much to go on, but at least you know it is the food, rather than rude waiters, ugly decor, prices, whatever.

For all I know, I'm serving Italian food, and he doesn't like garlic or tomatoes. There is not enough information to go on whether the food was undercooked, overcooked, or simply not to his taste — and there are gamers, customers in every field, who are the equivalent of people who don't like garlic, go to an Italian restaurant, order something garlicky, and then feel ill-used.

The customer articulating something other than "I don't like the flavor of your food" is the valuable one. He's the one who can actually isolate if something is wrong, because at the very least he's willing to use phrases like "underdone" or "over-seasoned" when he talks to me.

And having someone prevent them from telling you the food was not good is no more harmful than them simply not telling you? Really? If that is your position, we disagree.

Well, is the food bad? Was it overcooked? Overseasoned? I don't know, and the guy who just posts "not good" on the Internet and acts defensive if I ask him to explain further is not going to help me know. If a fellow customer tells him that if he has nothing more useful to say than "not good", then he might as well save his breath, then no, that's no more harmful. Either way, I have learned nothing that I can actually use to improve my food.

Feedback is something game designers crave, but there really needs to be signal to noise. If it's all noise and no signal, or worse, the signal is rooted in factual inaccuracies ("I had no reason to believe there would be garlic in these Italian dishes"), it's not helpful. That can be surpassed if someone is willing to go further, but if they're not — if they feel "it tasted bad" is all they need to say — how is any professional cook supposed to learn from that?

And again, this whole reply plays along with the presumption that "videogamey" is a wildly abstract unknowable assessment that has not been discussed since before 4E came out.

I don't presume that. The trouble I have with "videogamey" is that it's a buzzword that people use to make statements rather than discussions, rather than articulating personal opinions. It's used as if that's all that needs to be said, but not everyone even uses it in the same way. As opinions go, it's valid, but I only ever see it improve the quality of discussion if people are willing to articulate what it means to them.

 

[Mistwell]

As pointed out in my last post, a conversion guide- indeed, any product- you have no idea exists is (for you) functionally the same as one that doesn't exist.

By ensuring that game stores had copies of the conversion guide, WotC ensured those of that portion of the market interested in conversion had everything they needed.

No conversion guide in the stores for 4Ed meant those of their shoppers who were interested in conversion had nothing. There was also no mention of online conversion guides whatsoever in retail outlets- I know because I asked for them.

I've been here since the early days of 3e. I've never, EVER, heard of an in-store conversion guide. I was shopping at three different stores at the time, and I never, ever saw such an in-store conversion guide. I am not saying you didn't get one. However, I am saying that either 1) your store printed them for their customers and were not actually "sent" them from WOTC, or 2) you encountered a relatively rare in-store conversion guide that many people never saw or heard about.

As for the online guide, the books themselves are very explicit about the online information regarding the game. The 4e books often speak of checking their website (with the URL mentioned) for additional information like errata and additional material. If your game store didn't ever mention to you that the WOTC had extra stuff, then they made a mistake. WOTC went pretty darn far to get word out that there was additional useful content, including things like errata, on the website.

If nothing else, not letting a significant portion of your market or retailers know that there is a conversion guide online is at the very least another flaw in the 4Ed product rollout.

I think your assumption that no stores knew about the online conversion articles is false. Your store didn't know - but then your store also had an apparently rare or printed conversion guide for 2e to 3e, so your store seems to be rare fairly consistently.

Conversion articles which obviously didn't reach a good portion of their installed base.

Obviously? How so? You are speaking for who else exactly here?

I may be somewhat of a neo-luddite (I don't think I am, but I'm open to the possibility), but 90% of my primary game group are computer programmers...and a few of them are in the computer game subset of that industry.

IOW, this is not a bunch of technophobes- any decent publicity of those conversion guides would have popped up on their radar.

Again, I don't think you can say with confidence that the extraordinarily small sample group of your players can speak for the world on this topic. I think most people knew to go to the WOTC website for additional information because that fact is mentioned in the 4e books (all three "core" books say it), and anyone who did could have seen the set of conversion articles.

4e REQUIRES someone have some basic internet access, in order for you to get some essential information such as errata. For that matter, so did 3e, and 3e also mentioned their website in the core books. I think at this point, everyone knows that someone in their group should go to the WOTC every once in a while to see if there are any important things there for the game.

And heck, you know how to use Google. I found that conversion article ranked high when searching for any of a half dozen variations on the topic. Anyone looking for the WOTC conversion articles just had to Google the topic to find it. You didn't even need to go to the WOTC website directly to find them.