What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Dandu]

I imagine someone who was motivated could come up with a psychology Ph.D. thesis out of sussing out all the motivations involved.

Their parents didn't love them enough.

Yours,
Dr. Solo, Ph.D

 

[Raven Crowking]

Since you seem to agree that the "represented meaning" is highly subjective, isn't each person then the final arbiter of what constitutes "D&D" to them? Would you therefore agree that trying to impose one's own definition on others is arrogant, presumptuous, and rude?

Absolutely!

But, if I thought "4e isn't D&D" was an attempt to "impose one's own definition on others", I would certainly not think that "any game which says it's Dungeons & Dragons IS." is any less so. Indeed, the "emphasis" might make it more so.

You can argue for a "big tent", but how big is that tent really if it doesn't include Pathfinder, RCFG, Basic Fantasy, Champions, and Traveller as "D&D"?

In the end: my argument comes down to this. Everyone's tent is a different size. What problem do you have with the size of tent other people have? What possible difference does it make to you if I think Dungeons & Dragons is a big tent where everyone's edition is included, or a small tent where only one my home game is on alternate Tuesdays?

If the second opinion seems wacky to you, why wouldn't you simply consider the source, and let it alone? Because you can be certain that the "big tent" view is just as wacky to someone else. Especially if the "big tent" is big enough to include Battletech, Rifts, and FASA Doctor Who.

So, after going round and round, we're back where we started. As usual.

Can't we all just get along?

One wonders, if edition wars are about bragging rights, exactly who do you brag to? If the usual is going round and round to where you started, what do you brag about?

My take is this:

(1) Person A posts opinion.

(2) Person B is offended that person A holds said opinion.

(3) Person B posts counter-opinion.

(4) Person A is offended that person B holds said counter-opinion.

(5) Edition War begins.

(6) Edition war largely boils down to (A) "You shouldn't hold that opinion", (B) "You think your opinions are facts", (C) "My opinions are facts", (D) "Your terminology/opinion is too vague/broad to be useful, and therefore should not be used" -- IOW, it is ultimately not the wording, but the existence and posting of the opinion that is considered offensive.

(7) Both Person A and Person B view themselves as "defenders" and view the other person as "agressors" or "trolls".

The easiest way to "get along" is to stop being offended that other people hold (and publicly hold) opinions diametrically opposed to your own. It is also, apparently, one of the hardest things for folks to do.


RC

 

[MrGrenadine]

Not sure if the answer to this is hiding upthread, but I haven't seen anything, so I have to ask:

SpiderMonkey--did the panel happen yet? And if so, how did it go?

Would love to hear if your presentation led to any good discussions, or led to you any conclusions that you'd like to share.

 

[JohnSnow]

Absolutely!

But, if I thought "4e isn't D&D" was an attempt to "impose one's own definition on others", I would certainly not think that "any game which says it's Dungeons & Dragons IS." is any less so. Indeed, the "emphasis" might make it more so.

You can argue for a "big tent", but how big is that tent really if it doesn't include Pathfinder, RCFG, Basic Fantasy, Champions, and Traveller as "D&D"?

In the end: my argument comes down to this. Everyone's tent is a different size. What problem do you have with the size of tent other people have?

<SNIP> - (Good stuff, but I don't need to quote all of it.)

The easiest way to "get along" is to stop being offended that other people hold (and publicly hold) opinions diametrically opposed to your own. It is also, apparently, one of the hardest things for folks to do.


RC

I think the difference is that I feel the "big tent" argument is more inclusive, rather than exclusive. Personally, I'd rather have an intelligent discussion about system trade-offs than a pissing match over who's playing "the right version."

For the record, my (subjective) assessment of "what counts as D&D" would be any game that derives from OD&D rules and self-identifies as such or would like to. So, by MY definition, RCFG counts if you want to say it does. As a continuation of 3e, Pathfinder counts. As an OGL recut of AD&D 1e, Castles & Crusades counts. As an OGL rewrite of OD&D, Swords & Wizardry counts. Obviously, every game that bears the title Dungeons & Dragons (Advanced or otherwise) counts. As variant PHBs for 3e, Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes count. Hell, Hackmaster counts! If they weren't so generic, I'd count True 20 and d20 Modern. And I'm sure I'm missing some. Basically, as long as the game follows the basic tenets of the 1974 D&D ruleset, it counts.

Over the years, I've played "D&D" with people who have altered just about everything (how AC is counted, or even whether it's used, how damage is handled, how saves work, WHICH classes, the magic system(s), magic items, parry mechanics, multiclassing, et cetera, etc.). So what defines "D&D" for me? Let me see...

1. It's a Medieval Fantasy Roleplaying Game.
2. It uses the 6 attributes of Str, Int, Dex, Con, Cha, and Wis.
3. It uses a Fantasy-based class system, with levels.
4. It uses a d20 for combat resolution.

Those are my sacred cows. When they kill one of those, I'll agree it "isn't D&D." Everything else is negotiable. Even the "medieval" is negotiable - to a point. Perhaps the forthcoming Gamma World "setting" goes too far, but you could certainly play a stone-age, bronze-age, renaissance, restoration, or victorian-era game and have it still be recognizably Dungeons & Dragons. And I do recall people thinking of, and referring to, Urban Arcana as "D&D Modern."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Personally, I'd rather have an intelligent discussion about system trade-offs than a pissing match over who's playing "the right version."

Again, then, what difference does it make whether or not my opinion is the more inclusive big tent or the far more exclusive only-every-second-Tuesdays-on-alternate-months-and-only-in-Joe's-kitchen tent?

If you'd rather talk about system trade-offs, what difference does it make whether I call the system D&D or not?

I mean, I don't think you call Traveller "D&D", but I am pretty sure that you and I could carry on an intelligent discussion about the system trade-offs between, say, classic Traveller and 3e?

IOW, worrying about what I think is D&D has nothing to do with your stated objective. If your real objective is to converse about system trade-offs, and you and I both know what systems we are talking about, what difference can it possibly make whether System X is in my "D&D tent" or not?



RC

 

[JohnSnow]

I mean, I don't think you call Traveller "D&D", but I am pretty sure that you and I could carry on an intelligent discussion about the system trade-offs between, say, classic Traveller and 3e?

Umm...probably not, as I've never played Traveller.

But otherwise, I suppose you're correct.

IOW, worrying about what I think is D&D has nothing to do with your stated objective. If your real objective is to converse about system trade-offs, and you and I both know what systems we are talking about, what difference can it possibly make whether System X is in my "D&D tent" or not?

I suppose you're right. But I guess I'm also trying to understand (and you seem like a reasonable guy, so I'm asking you) what the value is in publicly being "exclusive" about what counts as D&D. The way I see it, you're taking what you must know is a confrontational stance for no apparent reason. It's the EXACT same attitude (albeit with a different bias) as:

1. "If you're not playing by the rules as written, you're not really playing D&D." (the "badwrongfun" argument - blatantly rude.)

2. "If you're not playing the newest version, you're not really playing D&D."

I think we're all aware that statements like that WILL (no bones about) start a fight. So why is the converse of the latter considered okay by so many? Is it that people feel they can make the statement somehow "neutral" by attacking only the system directly and the people who like it only be inference?

There's nothing wrong with an intelligent critique that addresses a particular point. However, when someone makes a statement like "4e is dumbed-down," they're implying that the people who like it are themselves dumb. Aren't they?

I just don't get how that statement can be read any other way. I can see how an exclusive attitude will cause hurt feelings. I don't see it that way when it comes to inclusion.

But maybe that's me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But I guess I'm also trying to understand (and you seem like a reasonable guy, so I'm asking you) what the value is in publicly being "exclusive" about what counts as D&D.

The value is the same as that of being publicly "inclusive": it lets people know where you stand, it gives you the (perhaps vain, if you are exclusive to the absurd degree of second-Tuesdays-etc) opportunity to find and/or develop a community of like-minded individuals, and (for some) it is an opening to calmly discuss (and possibly change) an opinion.

(Note, though, that this last is not an invitation to attack the person, nor does it mandate that the person must bow to your argument or be considered obstinant, a hater, or a troll.)

Notice that everything you objected to is a projection of the poster's subjective perception of quality onto what is happening at your table. Most of the time, this is the same as trying to force someone to like X/agree that X is (or is not) D&D/stop using term Y/etc. Again, the problem is not the opinion, but taking offense that others do not share it. It happens in both directions.

The exception, IMHO, is when a poster claims to have Z problem with the game, where the problem is an artifact of the system/method of using the system. I would think that it is then valid to say "That is because of the system/how you are using the system", especially if you can suggest alternatives.

In the "quantum wounding" discussion of 4e's healing surges, it was this sort of reply that gave me (at least) a working model to at least consider healing surges to be acceptably plausible to enjoy playing the game. For me, both the initial complaint, and the refusal to accept answers that made no sense to me, allowed me to eventually change my mind (and say so in the thread).

IOW, if you want to play the game, and you are having a problem that you don't want to have, it follows that either the game or you are doing something wrong (and by wrong, I mean, in a way that makes the problem arise) if other people can do it without having the same problem.

The problem is, not being offended that other people hold (and publicly hold) opinions diametrically opposed to your own really seems to be one of the hardest things for folks to do.

We are all guilty of being offended when we should not be, IMHO. The only solution I can see is just letting it go.


RC

 

[Nifft]

The value is the same as that of being publicly "inclusive": it lets people know where you stand, it gives you the (perhaps vain, if you are exclusive to the absurd degree of second-Tuesdays-etc) opportunity to find and/or develop a community of like-minded individuals, and (for some) it is an opening to calmly discuss (and possibly change) an opinion.

(...)

Most of the time, this is the same as trying to force someone to like X/agree that X is (or is not) D&D/stop using term Y/etc. Again, the problem is not the opinion, but taking offense that others do not share it.

(...)

We are all guilty of being offended when we should not be, IMHO. The only solution I can see is just letting it go.

So wait, you'd be cool with everyone calling the game you're working on VaPID ("Vanity Project In Development"), instead of the title you came up with?

And with people saying that your game is not "really" Fantasy?

- - -

I'm sure you know that having one's tastes insulted is, in fact, insulting.
I'm sure you know that having one's taste dismissed as "not real" is also insulting.

I'm not sure why you think your brand of insult should be tolerated.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Ariosto]

1. By my count, there's Dungeons & Dragons (1974), 2 versions of Basic/Expert D&D, 1e AD&D, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e (& 3.5), Castles & Crusades, Pathfinder, and Swords & Wizardry. That's 10. And that's without counting any of the variant versions of 3e as separate games (like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved or Iron Heroes).

How about the Holmes (first "basic") edition? Why not BFRPG, Labyrinth Lord or OSRIC?

Why C&C, Pathfinder, and S&W?

Actually, I don't say that Fourth Edition D&D is D&D. The NAME on the cover of the books says that. That, and only that, is the definition of whether a game is "D&D" or isn't.

Fine. If you're serious about that, then cut the baloney you demonstrated in that list. Then get used to the fact that all it means is people must find some other way to say, "As far as I'm concerned, this is not D&D."

They'll still mean the same thing. It's just that "D&D" will have lost its meaning in terms of having anything to do with the game itself.

What use such a vague brand? Maybe it will just wither as terms with more consistent references, such as "Old School", take over much of its practical utility.

 

[Mistwell]

What the heck does this line of discussion have to do with what is really at stake in the Edition Wars?