[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?

[Umbran]

Edition war is something...

...that first reared its ugly head in mid 2007

Vicious argument between players of different editions of games (or just different games) started well before 2007.

 

[pawsplay]

Vicious argument between players of different editions of games (or just different games) started well before 2007.

I was around for Hero Fuzion Edition, something I would describe not so much as an edition war as Edition Genocide...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Where edition wars don't happen is where people are more willing to take one another's word for it. "I have been playing D&D for 30 years," says one person, "and I simply find it impossible to roleplay to the same level in a game with such abstraction." "I have been playing D&D for 30 years," says another, "and I find the abstraction is actually a boon to roleplay." "My group never was able to get into character, we spent so much time wrangling with the rules." "My group dives deep into character and barely comes out."

Both sides are probably telling the truth! At least, they are when they talk about themselves alone. Once one side starts assuming their experiences are universal, that's where the problems begin. "It is impossible to roleplay with Mechanic X" and "It is totally easy to roleplay with Mechanic X" aren't themselves true statements. But add "for me" or "for us" and they're as true as any absolute statement can be.

A closely related aspect to the above is when the misplaced universal declaration turns into, "the thing you say happens at your table can't logically happen because of X."

Ironically, I've defended mulitple versions of D&D from other system fans, on this very point many times. You even get variations like, "you can't have exciting/interesting/fun combats with hit points and armor making you harder to hit." That kind of statement always means that the speaker hasn't been able to have combat he likes in such systems. And as far as any kind of truth or insight, that is all it ever means.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I was around for Hero Fuzion Edition, something I would describe not so much as an edition war as Edition Genocide...

I fled the country during that furor. We hunkered down in another land with our 4th edition rules and quietly kept up the culture.

 

[Barastrondo]

Edition war is something...

...that first reared its ugly head in mid 2007, gained steadily in momentum in 2008, caused Enworld to nearly shut down in 2009, died a slow death in early 2010, only to be re-ignited as 'Essentials hatred'. But that too is on its way out. Let's hope WotC is fast at work to once more 'evolutionize' our hobby with radical soft changes which abandon the traditions by harkening back to them.

Well, you could also count 1e AD&D vs. 2e AD&D, aforementioned Hero/Fuzion, various World of Darkness edition wars (oWoD vs. nWoD and Mage in particular), Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Exalted...

The most memorable edition war by any single person's metric is one that involves an edition that single person cares about. Doesn't mean it's the only one, same as how the one side of any edition war isn't the right one.

 

[pawsplay]

I fled the country during that furor. We hunkered down in another land with our 4th edition rules and quietly kept up the culture.

Somewhere out there, Almafeta is probably still fighting...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It was a joke, but a poor one. I was trying to play on the subtle difference between "can" versus "do" or "should". I think now that it may have detracted from any other point I might have made.

I would give you XP for that admission if I could.

Thank you.

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I was around for Hero Fuzion Edition, something I would describe not so much as an edition war as Edition Genocide...

*Shudder* I remember that.

And, much like D&D v. Pathfinder, Champions ended up having competition in the form of their own earlier rules set being published by a third party (though by permission - I don't think that either publisher engaged much in the fighting).

At least in the end that war had a clear victor - Fuzion is pretty much gone, while Hero is still going strong.

The Auld Grump

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm reminded of something called the "Conservation of Happiness" concept. It's like the conservation of energy idea; there's only so much of it to go around. That means whenever a designer does something in D&D, one person will love it and another will hate it! Since there are unhappy people no matter what you do, that's bound to make conflict sooner or later...

 

[catastrophic]

Fuzion seemed likc such a great idea- combine the simple, low-complexity system of interlock with the depth and breadth of hero system power creation. Take the best bits of two great systems and smoosh them together. Instead, the designers did something completly different, and nobody was happy.

When I play "White Wolf" Games, the people I play with (and that means people who mostly play "White Wolf" Games), are a lot more interesting in Roleplaying, storytelling, narration... & somehow we manage to play a more storytelling/Roleplaying driven game...

I'm wondering why......

Is it perhaps the "White Wolf" books that play a role in this?

Is it perhaps that they are more Roleplaying/Storytelling oriented?

Personally, I am TOTALLY convinced that the way the books are written, play a MAJOR role on how/how-much we roleplay.

I'm not suggesting other designs, even other editions of D&D in the future could not serve those goals better- but the previous editions of D&D certainly do not do so, that's just one of the rationalisations people make for hating 4e.

There are any number of games that take a fair crack at putting roleplaying and story concepts into a space with more mechanics support. I don't agree that they all work, but they at least have a valid argument to make in favour of them trying.

The previous editions of D&D did nothing of the sort, and 4e is certainly better than them in that respect, due to the quality of it's DM advice about story, campaign, play styles, ect.