What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[MrGrenadine]

I don't play 4E or WOW. But, when someone states that "4E is too videogamey", I understand what they are trying to convey--that, in their opinion, 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game. I don't require elaboration. Nor do I consider the statement to be trolling or deliberately provocative. It is merely a negative opinion.

I can understand why someone would disagree with the person's opinion, but I don't understand why anyone would be offended or make trolling accusations. I suppose a 4E fan could read between the lines and make the conclusion that the person who made the statement is insulting their intelligence, but that seems like an overreaction to me.

Absolutely. And this is the crux of the whole exchange, and why this rather academic thread has turned into another endless roundabout argument.

Its probably impossible for someone to change the way they feel, but to those who have such powerful reactions to a game that they like to play being called "videogamey"--no matter how the person using the term defines it personally--or the game being called anything else for that matter, I'd like to ask: why have such a strong emotional reaction?

Its been suggested numerous times in this thread that of one assumes the best out of the poster, and engages in dialogue, instead of accusation, then...well...dialogue may actually occur.

And if it actually turns out that the person who labeled 4e "videogamey" meant it as an insult to people who enjoy 4e, (a stance no intelligent person would put forth), then again I ask: why have such a strong emotional reaction?


You are not the game you play.

 

[Merkuri]

why have such a strong emotional reaction?

You are not the game you play.

Is it worth going into why people have such strong emotional attachments to their game/edition of choice to the point where they get upset when they think someobdy is belittling their system? I think that has a lot to do with what's at stake in the edition wars.

I've heard stories in this thread and elsewhere about friendships breaking up or threatening to break up over 3e versus 4e, and this makes me sad. After all, D&D is just a game, right?

Why do we get so emotionally attached to RPGs?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would like to say at this point that what REALLY seems to be at stake hinges on how many pages this thread can go before crashing the server.

 

[DaveMage]

I think the main feeling was of betrayal by WoTC in release a game that was not what they expected, that made all of their skill sets and ideas about the game ‘out of date’ sort of like people who hate Vista/7 and still use XP or 2000.

Yep.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I understand what they are trying to convey--that, in their opinion, 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game.

I've read this explanation many times. I don't understand what you mean when you say that 4E plays more like a videogame than a PNP roleplaying game. For one, immediately I must ask what constitutes a "PNP roleplaying game" to you such that 4E can fall somewhere inbetween videogame and PNP.

I think another possible reason so many people here on ENWorld react negatively against this criticism is that many of us here are DMs (evidenced by prior ENWorld polls). Computer roleplaying games are run by pre-programmed artificial intelligences at best. Are you saying that 4E DMs are pre-programmed bots that can't think outside their programming like DMs of other editions could?

I am asking for a serious explanation of what you mean. I promise I am not baiting as RC thinks some people are.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are aware, I assume, that Monte Cook is on record as saying that removing the DM from the equation, as far as possible, was a design goal of 3e? That he believed that they went too far? That he believed that 3.5 went further along that path?

(If not, you missed some "may you live in interesting times" posts about 3e. Lucky Vyvyan!)

I don't think it is any surprise that some might feel that 4e take that mandate even farther. I am not saying that this is objectively what occurred, merely that I am not surprised that some people "read" it that way.


EDIT: If you are not aware of it, there are threads on other sites where people discuss threads on EN World, including how they're going to post here to bait people, or how they have posted here to bait people in the past.

Luckily, EN World has excellent moderation overall, and those who telegraph what they are doing are shut down pretty quickly. You should be aware that it happens, though, and try not to let yourself be baited.

Hopefully, your Will save is better than mine. I used Wisdom as my dump stat.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would like to say at this point that what REALLY seems to be at stake hinges on how many pages this thread can go before crashing the server.

Is there a pool? Closest without going over wins?

 

[MrGrenadine]

Are you saying that 4E DMs are pre-programmed bots that can't think outside their programming like DMs of other editions could?

Saying the rule set is "videogamey" has nothing to do with DMs or players. Honestly. I play 4e with one of the best DMs I have ever met, with an outstanding group of people I look forward to seeing once a week, but I also think 4e is more like a videogame--and I'm not talking about character roles and healing surges.

What I mean when I use the term is that the powers-based system feels very constricting, and...well, finite. It feels, in fact, like the game world has been limited by the rule set, whereas prior editions felt freer, more inclusive, and like the action was limited by only one's imagination (and maybe crappy dice rolls).

To explain: My 7th level 4e cleric only has a dozen different powers, period--including spell-like and martial/physical powers. And some of those powers he can only use once a day, period. Yes, in prior editions, my cleric would have limited access to some spells, but if I wanted to, I could memorize the same spell for every available slot, or memorize all different spells, or some combination, and then change them up after a rest--in other words, I had more choices. Yes, in previous editions, spamming "I swing my sword" was not the height of fun, but that is not how I played, so that wasn't an issue for me personally. Yes, some people used spell casters in prior editions to stomp on other characters rolls, but I never played that way, so that wasn't an issue for me, either. And yes, some spells were overpowered and could be used in ways that shut down the fun, but thats not my experience either.

And yes--I know about page 42! It think page 42 is terrific, but its use is entirely at the DM's discretion, and for some of us, its not an easy answer to the issue of feeling limited.


So, in short, to some of us, the powers based system feels limited in a way that is akin to the more understandably and logically "finite" worlds of computer or video games, which are based on calculations and if-thens and quantifiable conditions that need to be tracked and accounted for. You can't have infinite choice in a computer game, and this is fine, but TTRPGs don't have to be finite, since the action is basically made up on the spot, and the other people around the table can act and react however they wish in an organic way.

So, to me, the infinite and limitless feel of TTRPGs that seem to be bounded only by our imaginations is preferable to the feeling of being told "you can pick from this short list of things to do".


I understand that what I've outlined here is not 100% accurate 100% of the time for 100% of gamers, but I hope it clears up where some of us are coming from.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So, in short, to some of us, the powers based system feels limited in a way that is akin to the more understandably and logically "finite" worlds of computer or video games, which are based on calculations and if-thens and quantifiable conditions that need to be tracked and accounted for.

Thank you for explaining. I do see this as a problem that occurs in some games. We've had discussions here on ENWorld about how to break players out of the box of thinking that powers are the only choice of actions they can take. I've made an effort myself as DM to make options outside of the power structure accessible to my players by tying them into the rules. That way they can better quantify their choices and have their characters act more like real people in the world.

This is the type of discussion that I think makes ENWorld a better place. I've had this discussion before and never saw anyone connect it to the term videogamey. It's a civil conversation even if the other side of the conversation dislikes 4E enough not to play it for these reasons.

 

[Ourph]

And if it actually turns out that the person who labeled 4e "videogamey" meant it as an insult to people who enjoy 4e, (a stance no intelligent person would put forth), then again I ask: why have such a strong emotional reaction?

I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect the insulted party to be responsible for keeping the peace by ignoring obvious insults, especially in a place where they normally come to relax and have a good time. I'm not saying we have to fetishize our emotions to the point where any insult is an excuse for all-out retaliation, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be angry at an intentional insult or to hold the insultor responsible for being a <you know what>.