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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Edition wars exist over here simply because of forum structure and forum practice. Wotc has nothing to do with it. If there was no forum such as "General RPG Discussion" but only separate 3e and 4e forums there would be no such a thing as edition wars. Interestingly the site's most traffic is on the General forum. It seems edition wars are the leading part of EnWorld and its health. That's not a nice thing to say but the numbers speak of themselves.
I guess the problem over here is that the OGL market is dead while both Wotc and Paizo manage to support their products as needed.

General RPG Discussion was and is always one of my favorite things. ANd that is not due to edition wars, but because people talk about "big picture" things, like:
- Game Design in general
- DMing in general
- Stories in game
- Stories playing the game

Unfortunately, "Edition Wars" are part of this big picture, too. But I don't want to throw out the big picture just because one aspect of it leads to fear and loathing, bad feelings and nasty comments. I just want that stupid topic to be ignored.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

I am thinking more as examples of conversion, rather than as an emulation of Hollywood. I don't mean "Return to KotB", I mean "Faithful translation of KotB to 4e".

KotB is actually written in such a way that, IME anyway, one has running battles over multiple rooms with groups of humanoids. This might translate very well into 4e. Or it might flop. I don't know.

Likewise, Beyond the Crystal Cave might be rewritten using a series of skill challenges....who knows? This module might actually run better in 4e than in 1e.

Just a thought, though. I don't know 4e well enough to do the conversions myself. It might be something that WotC could offer on their site?


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That is a given, since there are both people who are displeased and people who are unreached.

No, that's not a given. Somethings are mutually exclusive. Like a player that really wants a point-buy-based system, and a player that really wants a class system. You can't please both. Maybe you can get them to accept your system, but that's not the same as pleasing them. These players would still "complain", or try to come up with house rules.

What you could try is create two systems. And now you have the guy that really wants everyone to be balanced in combat, and the guy that wants clear non-combat types of characters. Oops, now you need 4 systems... And of course, once you have the two or four or bazillion systems to please more people than before, you have to support them all... Because some of the players really want support and don't have time to create adventures. Or really need more character build options. Or both. Or prefered a good campaign setting with flavor-supporting rules. Or hate rules based on flavor, but still want campaign setting material...

 

[Barastrondo]

What you could try is create two systems. And now you have the guy that really wants everyone to be balanced in combat, and the guy that wants clear non-combat types of characters. Oops, now you need 4 systems... And of course, once you have the two or four or bazillion systems to please more people than before, you have to support them all... Because some of the players really want support and don't have time to create adventures. Or really need more character build options. Or both. Or prefered a good campaign setting with flavor-supporting rules. Or hate rules based on flavor, but still want campaign setting material...

Wow, I've been in meetings like this.

 

[xechnao]

General RPG Discussion was and is always one of my favorite things. ANd that is not due to edition wars, but because people talk about "big picture" things, like:
- Game Design in general
- DMing in general
- Stories in game
- Stories playing the game

Unfortunately, "Edition Wars" are part of this big picture, too. But I don't want to throw out the big picture just because one aspect of it leads to fear and loathing, bad feelings and nasty comments. I just want that stupid topic to be ignored.

So, are you saying you want all of these in one place (not aggregated in different forums)? If this is what you are saying, I agree that there is some utility in this since one informs the other: for example game design and stories have a relationship, a connection that needs to be taken into consideration when you want to figure out the final picture of any game.

I am still not convinced though that forums cannot be improved. Perhaps industry talk could have its own forum. Things like OGL, GSL, Wotc business plans, Paizo's or Green Ronin's countdowns could be placed there.

What also bothers me, and think is a problem at this point, are the various news and speculations about the next D&D product in the general discussion. I think these should serve and be served better in the publisher's or 4e forums. We know 4e's design and tropes- threads like "battlemind" have no information value in the "big picture" you are talking about. Of course, right now, there is only one thread of this kind in page 1 so I am rather exaggerating: but sometimes it is much more prevalent.

Dunno, perhaps I am overly zealous in my premises? I am only trying to make some suggestions to think and discuss about.

 

[Mark]

Of course you can't please everyone. But you can please more than you are right now.

That is a given, since there are both people who are displeased and people who are unreached.

No, that's not a given.

Naturally, it is. It just requires some changes to be more inclusive to the tastes of those currently displeased and marketing toward those who are yet unreached.

Somethings are mutually exclusive. Like a player that really wants a point-buy-based system, and a player that really wants a class system. You can't please both. Maybe you can get them to accept your system, but that's not the same as pleasing them. These players would still "complain", or try to come up with house rules.

What you could try is create two systems. And now you have the guy that really wants everyone to be balanced in combat, and the guy that wants clear non-combat types of characters. Oops, now you need 4 systems... And of course, once you have the two or four or bazillion systems to please more people than before, you have to support them all... Because some of the players really want support and don't have time to create adventures. Or really need more character build options. Or both. Or prefered a good campaign setting with flavor-supporting rules. Or hate rules based on flavor, but still want campaign setting material...

These are all separate issues and hypotheticals fashioned to prove your point in isolated extreme cases rather than continuing the discussion in the general vein in which is was proffered. I'd imagine we could both come up with additional examples of possible scenarios where the general premise might not work but we'd only need come up with one where it would work for the original statement to be true. You are also lacing a great deal of hyperbole and negativity in your post that seems counter to spirit of finding common ground. EN World seems to be finding some new territory lately where people can discuss their opinions of the various rules and rules sets without the discussions necessarily erupting into the sort of contentious behavior that is counter productive to useful debate. BryonD made a statement that struck a chord for more inclusivity and I agreed that was a worthy and possible goal, again requiring no more than bringing a single person on board to make it true, but your post seems to be against the very idea of bringing more people to the table. I cannot agree with that stance.

 

[hazel monday]

Edition Wars are very entertaining.

Speaking as one who mostly lurks, I gotta say I've been enjoying the edition wars. As a matter of fact, the only reason I ever read these forums is to have a laugh at the "edition warriors". The hypocrisy and complete lack of self awareness (on both sides) is hilarious.

I'm pretty sure these self styled edition warriors enjoy their little battles as well. They may say they don't, but if that's the case then why do they participate at all? They must enjoy it at some level. Otherwise why would they participate in them at all?

Participation on either side of the so-called war only serves to prolong it. And I'm personaly happy it's lasted as long as it has. Because I find it pretty funny.

 

[Umbran]

I am thinking more as examples of conversion, rather than as an emulation of Hollywood. I don't mean "Return to KotB", I mean "Faithful translation of KotB to 4e".

Given that we accept that we cannot do a mechanically faithful translation, we are then talking about a translation that is faithful to the spirit of the original, right?

I saw the new "Wolfman" movie a little while back. I thought it was a fairly faithful remake of the original movie. Lots of folks disagree with me. We have the problem that we each identify what we personally liked most about the thing as the "spirit" of the original. If we liked different things, we will probably disagree that a particular remake is faithful.

Just a thought, though. I don't know 4e well enough to do the conversions myself. It might be something that WotC could offer on their site?

Hypothecially, sure, they could offer it. They hold license to the original work and the new rules.

We can come up with a list of somewhere between seventeen and a bazillion things WotC could have done or could now do to make the new edition more palatable to gamers who prefer older editions. As Mark says, at least in theory, you can always find something you can do to be more inclusive.

But practice is somewhat different. Companies do not operate with infinite time, money, manpower and information - they operate with restrictions on all these things, with business goals to be met on top of that. I'd be willing to place a small wager that WotC doesn't have folks just sitting on their hands doing nothing - they probably have near zero spare capacity. Every single thing we offer up as, "They could do this...," probably means that something else would not get done.

If a business is run properly, hard decisions must be made.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Umbran, in the wake of 3e, there were many, many conversions of older modules posted to EN World. Why do you insist that the idea of doing the same with 4e is somehow wrongbadfun?

 

[Umbran]

Why do you insist that the idea of doing the same with 4e is somehow wrongbadfun?

I don't think it is badwrongfun, wrongbadfun, or wrongfunbad. I just question the utility and effectiveness of having now three different versions of the same modules.

I'm a "use the right tool for the job" kind of guy. If I want to play an old module, I'll do it with an old edition. 4e is what it is - use it for what it is. If what it is isn't what you want, then use something else. I fail to see the point of endlessly trying to rehash the same old content over and over again to meet desires that were supposedly adequately met already. It seems a bit of a practice of trying to beat ever more square pegs into round holes.

Change is one of those constants of the Universe. We can sit and lament (for years) how WotC has not staved off Change for us, or we can adapt and move on.