D&D 4E Ron Edwards on D&D 4e

[pemerton]

But you can say the same about anything--politics, sports teams, competing sports (consider the tribalism of gridiron vs fútbol), brand loyalty, competing fiction franchises (consider the B5 vs DS9 brouhaha), anything with a tribal character. Religions and politics tend to be about deeply-held beliefs regarding the nature of things, people, and the world. Sports, brand loyalty, and fandom tend to be about much more lightly-held preferences and taste. Maybe if we're going to make comparisons referencing tribalism, it is more respectful to reference things that are about preference when talking about games, which are by definition a leisure-time activity, than about things that at least should get to the heart of a person's ethical judgments.

Particularly when religious tribalism is such an incredibly serious issue in the world right at this very moment, so making a comparison to the tribalism of geekdom runs the risk of sounding like one is trivializing religion and its importance to real, living humans, rather than elevating gaming to its level (which I think most people would consider a fairly ridiculous notion.)

Everything is fair game within the haphazardly cast net of rhetoric compared to the purposefully wound rope of philosophical inquiry.

I don't know how far Edwards intends his comparison to "folk religion" to be taken. But the analysis of non-religious phenomena using the analytical tools of anthropology and sociology of religion and ritual is not uncommon, in my experience as someone who researches and teaches in social and political philosophy.

Sometimes it can be useful, sometimes not.

But for instance, if it was deemed off-limits to compare (for instance) the social function of football-team identification in contemporary Australia (or Britain or the US) to the social function of religious identification in pre-modern societies, then one wouldn't be able to address questions about the role of sports-as-entertainment in supporting social solidarity and integration (which might be interesting from a broadly Durkheimian point of view) or the role of sports-as-entertainment as ideology (which might be interesting from a broadly post-Marxist point of view).

And my own view is that these sorts of inquiries don't need to involve dismissal or trivialisation of religious adherence. I believe this on the basis of my own experience teaching social theory, jurisprudence and Holocaust studies to many students, including many religious students, over the years.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

I don't know how far Edwards intends his comparison to "folk religion" to be taken.

Hmm. Not trying to be pedantic, but... Rather than framing this as a point moving downward in his supposed thesis, and into the unresolvable area of the nebulous, would not it be better couched, considering that it is his assertion that he must prove (or not), to promote the upward course by asking the question of Edwards, "How far does your comparison extend?" Of course that course is negated by your own admission of "not knowing"; and thus we are left with, at best, his assertion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But for instance, if it was deemed off-limits to compare (for instance) the social function of football-team identification in contemporary Australia (or Britain or the US) to the social function of religious identification in pre-modern societies, then one wouldn't be able to address questions about the role of sports-as-entertainment in supporting social solidarity and integration (which might be interesting from a broadly Durkheimian point of view) or the role of sports-as-entertainment as ideology (which might be interesting from a broadly post-Marxist point of view).

And my own view is that these sorts of inquiries don't need to involve dismissal or trivialisation of religious adherence. I believe this on the basis of my own experience teaching social theory, jurisprudence and Holocaust studies to many students, including many religious students, over the years.

And if I thought a relatively casual conversation rose to this level of rigor, I'd have zero problem with it.

But you also have extensive professional experience dealing with this specific kind of discussion, and are aware of the limits, pitfalls, etc. of such analysis. Ron Edwards, to the best of my knowledge, does not have significant experience with the field, being a zoologist by training. (I did, in fact, look up his qualifications, and am aware that he does have advanced degrees--by his own admission, in zoology.) I've rather had my fill of talented, highly educated experts in the physical sciences making sweeping generalizations over the field of philosophy, so when I hear such comparisons, I tend to be skeptical unless the person making them is, like you, well-versed in the field.

 

[Cadence]

I've rather had my fill of talented, highly educated experts in the physical sciences making sweeping generalizations over the field of philosophy, so when I hear such comparisons, I tend to be skeptical unless the person making them is, like you, well-versed in the field.

Universities generally have lots of folks who seemingly consider themselves experts in teaching, assessment, and writing - in spite of not having a Ph.D. in any of those things. And those in fields with quantitative data often do the same with statistics. And to go the other way with philosophy, some members of a philosophy department once claimed at a University curriculum meeting that their courses could easily satisfy every part of a university's general education curriculum. Of course these days such claims are increasingly egalitarian - those with no particular trained expertise in any subject claim mastery of whichever they need for the moment too.

 

[pemerton]

And if I thought a relatively casual conversation rose to this level of rigor, I'd have zero problem with it.

But you also have extensive professional experience dealing with this specific kind of discussion, and are aware of the limits, pitfalls, etc. of such analysis. Ron Edwards, to the best of my knowledge, does not have significant experience with the field, being a zoologist by training. (I did, in fact, look up his qualifications, and am aware that he does have advanced degrees--by his own admission, in zoology.) I've rather had my fill of talented, highly educated experts in the physical sciences making sweeping generalizations over the field of philosophy, so when I hear such comparisons, I tend to be skeptical unless the person making them is, like you, well-versed in the field.

I appreciate your remarks about my expertise.

 

[darjr]

(1) His discussion of how there are various frameworks in the game for player-driven play (e.g., quests, skill challenges, epic destinies, etc.).

(2) How the tactical elements of 4e actually led to greater inter-player/PC interactivity and roleplaying in combat than his prior non-4e D&D experiences.

(3) In general, the fact that 4e is being talked about in a mostly positive light. (That's always a welcome change of pace on the internet for me.)


The best ones: The Madness of Gardmore Abbey and Reavers of Harkenwold

Great rundown, thanks. I loved Epic Destinies. And the group synergy in play was good. And those two last I think are classics.

 

[heretic888]

For fuller context, it might be helpful to see some of the videos and discussions involving Ron's actual plays of 4E. His player handout in the introduction is particularly illuminating into how he sees the game.

Barbaric Psychedelic Cosmic Cataclysmic Fore Ee – Adept Play

adeptplay.com

BPCC 4E continues! – Adept Play

adeptplay.com

Crystal psychic revelation + slimy explosive mayhem – Adept Play

adeptplay.com

Dungeon is as dungeon does – Adept Play

adeptplay.com

The Door – Adept Play

adeptplay.com

Say “syzygy” three times fast – Adept Play

adeptplay.com

Kumbayah, oh no – Adept Play

adeptplay.com

Hop skip jump scribbles – Adept Play

adeptplay.com

 

[Umbran]

I don't know. As per the rest of your post, I don't tend to equate popularity with influence.

Indeed. Maybe the place we can see this best (but avoid our gaming prejudices) is in music. There are a small number of musicians who are popular to the broad public. There are other musicians who are extremely popular with a small set of the public (which we may say have "cult followings"). There is an entirely different set of musicians who are influential for other musicians.

So PBtA is an example of Forge influence, and directly of Edwards. It certainly seemed the best fit.

There is a point to consider, though - the fact that Edwards and The Forge influenced thinking, and from that thinking there came some good products and designs does not mean that Edwards or the Forge... were ever correct about much.

For analogy, I will raise the ever-controversial H.P. Lovecraft. Setting aside his problematic aspects, there's also the inescapable point that... his prose wasn't actually very good! It's kind of dry and plodding, to be honest, and not terribly scary. But, there are things in there that, filtered through better authors, can turn into something good.

I find Edwards to be much the same. At this point, the work influenced by him, but done by others, is far more valuable and instructive than his own work and writings are directly.

In the end, if we are to look at Edwards' legacy, his theories and designs are (to my mind) much less important than the movement for independent publishing that he spawned.

 

[heretic888]

And here's another discussion about 4E from a few years back that touches on some of the same points.

Conversation: the Abomination that Shall Indeed Be Named | Adept Play

adeptplay.com

 

[pemerton]

There is a point to consider, though - the fact that Edwards and The Forge influenced thinking, and from that thinking there came some good products and designs does not mean that Edwards or the Forge... were ever correct about much.

<snip>

I find Edwards to be much the same. At this point, the work influenced by him, but done by others, is far more valuable and instructive than his own work and writings are directly.

It's possible that the influence of the impressionists (just to pick one school) doesn't tell us anything about whether their aesthetic theories had merit. But it's not self-evident.

Central to Edwards' analysis of RPGing is who gets to decide what about the fiction, by reference to what principles? And then to build ideal types of the play experiences that will result from those differences. I don't think that the passage of time has reduced the utility of such analysis.