Edition wars...a GOOD thing? or if not, an APPROPRIATE thing?

[Mistwell]

I don't think they are doing so intentionally, as a function of their job or continuing market research, etc., though such a thing is not without precedence in business. "Shopping the competition" isn't a myth.

I also think that the videogame thread was more about the people on these boards looking for a better understanding than about sending a message to WotC. IMHO, that thread was less an EWT than a meta-EWT.

What I DO believe is that there are many game designers- freelancers and WotC employees, who frequent these boards and others. I doubt they actively participate in EWTs (at least, not very often), but they're definitely aware of them and may even lurk on one thread or another.

I'm also pretty sure that several of these designers play in multiple systems- not just 3.X and 4Ed, so they're conscious of gaming controversies and discussions in general. That the Edition Wars have moved on into more of a "cold war" phase isn't going to disappear from WotC's radar. If they enter the 5Ed design process down the road and the EWTs are still popping up and are still heated, and if there is any kind of 3.X market out there, they'll take a new look at it. I'm not saying that would make them make 5Ed resemble 3.X more, but it would probably make them reconsider some of the marketing bumbles they pulled in 4Ed's rollout. They'll probably also reconsider their market research and interpretation- IOW, they'll ask better questions, or they might cast a broader net.

Again, if that effect is real, it will have already happened. Continuing the edition wars doesn't make it happen "more". They are aware of the edition wars. They will not become less aware of them if they actually finally stopped. There is nothing about them continuing forever that helps the issue in any way. It's not persuasive at this point. It just further harms the community.

 

[Shemeska]

Now, I know that's totally not conclusive. I know that. But, it's a pretty common trend on all the VTT boards and I see no reason to think that VTT players are any more inclined to one edition or another.

I'm really not sure why people would think that the community is split anywhere near evenly.

Two potential reasons. WotC went all out hyping the (now dead) VTT as an intrinsic part of the DDI/4e, and that got the very idea of online tabletops pumped up in the minds of the 4e player base, more so than people not playing 4e. That's likely going to weight any VTTs out there potentially towards 4e, because when the WotC version went belly-up, a lot of those 4e players who were looking forward to that went elsewhere and started looking for 3rd party VTTs.

A more cynical reason might be that if you can't find anyone local willing to actually play 4e, you have to go online to find players, and VTTs will help that out. No evidence to suggest this is the case, but it's one possible option for any actual or perceived weight towards 4e on the VTTs out there that has nothing to do with suggesting that the market as a whole is massively weighted towards 4e.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I mean, looking at the Maptools D&D specific forum I see 15 3.5 and Pathfinder games compared to 37 4e games on offer (note, when I did the count, anyone who said either was fine I counted in both columns). To me that says there's three times as many 4e players as 3e and Pathfinder combined.

Now, I know that's totally not conclusive. I know that. But, it's a pretty common trend on all the VTT boards and I see no reason to think that VTT players are any more inclined to one edition or another.

Not really.

That proves that, on some VTT forums, it's more common to find VTT games of 4 then of 3.5/Pathfinder

Nothing more.

 

[The Greene Knight]

Everybody feels frustration at some point, and I think it's a right given to everybody and anybody to express it.

The problem isn't that someone will not like this or that game and be vocal about it. The problem is when people feel the need to engage these frustrations with frustrations of their own, while knowing nothing good will come out of it. That makes losers of us all.

 

[Ourph]

Here's another vote for Edition Wars having no redeeming qualities other than some occasionally entertaining interludes. If publishers are making design decisions based on some of the ridiculous hyperbole intrinsic to the EWs, the RPG industry is doomed, DOOMED I SAY!!!!!

 

[N0Man]

I'm just tired of having to avoid discussing D&D with strangers, because every time I meet and discuss D&D with a 3E / 3.5 player they seem compelled to take jabs at 4E...

Edition Wars suck.

 

[Hussar]

Shemeska and Prof C - sure. I can get behind that.

But, it's about as much "proof" as the idea that there is this massive group of D&D gamers who are sticking with 3e or Pathfinder meaning that there is this huge "fracturing" of the userbase. The problem is, no one has any real idea outside of maybe WOTC itself, if that is true. But it doesn't stop people from claiming it as truth over and over again.

 

[Umbran]

If your definition of Edition Warriors are the ones who just can't help but insult the other side, I'm with you 100%.

Yep.

If you're lumping them together with the passionate supporters of their games of choice, not so much.

As a moderator, it is my job to distinguish between the two. I'm not sure a small publisher would bother. My point is that if what you're doing in an Edition War is trying communicate to publishers and game writers, I expect the first thing that's getting communicated is, "Gamers can be major jerks!"

 

[Raven Crowking]

I expect the first thing that's getting communicated is, "Gamers can be major jerks!"

I noticed that way back in Grade School, when I first started playing.

I am sure that I have helped others notice the same thing more often that I'd like to admit.



Apart from that, though, I miss the pre-4e EN World, when there was so much more good fellowship, and so much more sharing of ideas.

It is harder to share ideas when the common language and/or methodology of encounter design has changed so much between editions. There is so much less "yoink"able material.

Maybe faithful 4e versions of classic modules would help bridge the gap? Or a conversion guide, so that prospective earlier-edition or alternate-edition GMs could make use of the 4e materials coming thier way, and vice versa? You know, the way EN World had conversions of 1e and 2e modules?

Is such a thing even possible under the GSL?


RC

 

[Umbran]

Apart from that, though, I miss the pre-4e EN World, when there was so much more good fellowship, and so much more sharing of ideas.

I miss it too.

It is harder to share ideas when the common language and/or methodology of encounter design has changed so much between editions. There is so much less "yoink"able material.

It is a little more tough, yes. But not impossible. I'm in the process of putting together a new game, and I think there's a better than even chance I'll be working with classic Deadlands, and I am still finding yoinkable ideas on EN World.

Maybe faithful 4e versions of classic modules would help bridge the gap?

Eh. We should emulate Hollywood, with sequels and remakes?

Or a conversion guide, so that prospective earlier-edition or alternate-edition GMs could make use of the 4e materials coming thier way, and vice versa?

I am not sure this is really appropriate. I think things can often be ported between the two systems, but not in anything like a programmatic or algorithmic way. If you know the two systems, you can find the heart and soul of a thing as it exists in one system, and port that over. But that really requires a human to see and understand the spirit of the original, not a guide that says, "class A maps to class B with these power choices..."

You know, the way EN World had conversions of 1e and 2e modules?

Is such a thing even possible under the GSL?

I am not sure. I suspect it hasn't been tried because folks feel there isn't enough payoff for the work involved.