Broken Base Lookback: Editions

[Herremann the Wise]

We're talking about one group who prefers walnuts and one group who prefers pecans...

You make it sound like the land of milk and honey while drinking wine from grapes pressed by the feet of ninety-nine virgins. I appreciate you wishing to make light of the introduction of 4th edition and I'm sure in your land of milk and honey Umbran would happily relate no extra burden on his moderation duties during this period but I think in reality, this is obviously far from the truth.

Would it have been that hard for some people to have expanded their taste for a new edition? Most likely not, but that isn't exactly the point here. While it would be all too easy to validly generalise, my example was meant to be specific to my own group's experiences and the difficulties we faced. When your group is split fair down the middle as ours was, it really was the second worst low point in our group's history together.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Desdichado]

When your group is split fair down the middle as ours was, it really was the second worst low point in our group's history together.

What was the first worst low point? It was that probe scene in the Dark Matter LARP, wasn't it?

 

[Umbran]

Using the food analogy, what if half your group loves nuts, while the other half are allergic/don't like or what have you in regards to nuts.

Nuts are a single type of ingredient in a dish. Avoiding nuts and still pleasing everyone is easy enough. I know, because I actually live that one too - in another group I have a player who doesn't like cheese. And my wife is deathly allergic to strawberries. I know well how to compensate for single-ingredient issues.

Not liking a single ingredient is not similar to having a drastically reduced overall diet. Think, instead, about the person who is a raw foods vegan, or who keeps strictly Kosher, and you're more on target for what I mean.

My friend who doesn't like food - I have no problem with him, as he's not complaining about how nobody ever cooks for him. He recognizes he's a bit peculiar, and manages. And in return we do occasionally try to meet his needs - find the one kind of cookie he likes, or do simple burgers for dinner. The rest of us would be happy if he'd broaden his palate, but we're okay with him. We'd be a lot less okay with him if he tried to insist or repeatedly insinuate that the rest of us had to change for him.

I'll make it really simple, sans analogy - you like only one game? That restriction is inside you, not outside in the rest of the world. It is your challenge. There's only so much the rest of the world can be expected to do to accommodate you. The world is not going to sit still and not look for new things because your tastes are inflexible. So long as you cannot find a way to have fun doing other things, you're going to have that problem, as those without your peculiarity will want to spend time doing other things, and won't be available to do your one thing.

Edit: Seeing Dannager below me, I should note: I don't think of having narrow tastes as a personal flaw. Expecting that somehow the rest of the world should flex to you, rather than you to it, is perhaps a flaw.

 

[Dannager]

You make it sound like the land of milk and honey while drinking wine from grapes pressed by the feet of ninety-nine virgins.

I'm not sure where the hell this came from. I was talking about nuts because you brought up nuts.

I appreciate you wishing to make light of the introduction of 4th edition and I'm sure in your land of milk and honey Umbran would happily relate no extra burden on his moderation duties during this period but I think in reality, this is obviously far from the truth.

Yes, I wonder why that is!

Would it have been that hard for some people to have expanded their taste for a new edition? Most likely not, but that isn't exactly the point here.

Yes, it is. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to hear someone say "I love 3.5, but 4e is terrible and I refuse to play it!" or "I love 4e, but 3.5 is terrible and I refuse to play it!" or any other such claim regarding two different editions. They're all D&D, and the mechanical differences between editions are very small compared to the mechanical similarities. To make matters worse, the mechanical differences that any given person cares about are going to be an even smaller subset. You can tell the same stories and have the same adventures in almost any edition of D&D.

So it's fine to have edition preferences, but if you (general you, not you in particular) purposefully remove yourself from a group just because that group decides to play an edition of D&D that is a little different from the edition of D&D you most enjoy, I have very little sympathy for your "plight."

No one is allergic to 4e if they were happy with 3.5, and no one is allergic to 3.5 if they were happy with 4e. I think what you're describing is simply the result of some unpleasant flaws of character that are all-too-widespread in the tabletop gaming community (and, I'd argue, the gamer community at-large).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What was the first worst low point? It was that probe scene in the Dark Matter LARP, wasn't it?

That was genuinely funny; I got a good laugh out of that.

Unfortunately no, it was when one of our group suicided just over a year ago after several attempts across the years. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink and all that. That one kind of put all the edition disagreements in perspective.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'll make it really simple, sans analogy - you like only one game?

Just to clarify, I am one of the group who enjoys (and DMs) both editions. And I would not say that those in my group who don't like 4e only like only one game (we also play Traveller and are even looking to maybe start up a Burning Wheel campaign). They have a preference for earlier D&D editions over the latest edition. Will they play 4e? Of course. Do they enjoy it? Not as much as previous editions. Does their reduced enjoyment affect the game? Sometimes. Does this mean that our group has more fun playing 2e/3e? As a cohesive group most probably. For myself, I love any gaming because that's just how I am.

It is not as if people are being prima donnas about it digging their heals in refusing to play. It is just a matter of preference. And when you play a game that half the group does not prefer, it is noticeable. Are they to blame? I don't think so for it is only human to have preferences.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm not sure where the hell this came from. I was talking about nuts because you brought up nuts.

I was alluding to the point that if you thought the 3e/4e split was like walnuts/pecans that you must have been somewhere else (the land of milk and honey) rather than EN World at the time.

Yes, it is. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to hear someone say "I love 3.5, but 4e is terrible and I refuse to play it!" or "I love 4e, but 3.5 is terrible and I refuse to play it!" or any other such claim regarding two different editions.

Perhaps people exaggerate on the internet?

For myself, I loved everything they were saying about 4e in the lead up. I bought the two preview books and was lapping it up. Then when the actual books arrived, I'd have to say I was disappointed and underwhelmed. They had significantly changed the game and in a direction away from our group's style and preferences. Once we played it a bit, I came back around to enjoying it (although my own preference is most probably more in line with what Monte and Mearls are talking about at the moment). 4e is not my favourite edition of D&D but I still love playing it. I can appreciate though that it is not going to be everyone's cup of tea and like any edition change, that is going to trouble some groups of players.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dannager]

I was alluding to the point that if you thought the 3e/4e split was like walnuts/pecans that you must have been somewhere else (the land of milk and honey) rather than EN World at the time.

The reality was that 3e was walnuts and 4e was pecans, but people acted like 3e was walnuts and 4e was broccoli. Which is exactly my point: a lot of gamers choose to take the position of anything-that-isn't-this-thing-sucks, even when both of the things being discussed are really very similar.

It's a big deal to them because, for whatever reason, they want it to be a big deal to them.

Perhaps people exaggerate on the internet?

If I told you they never do, would that be an exaggeration?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The reality was that 3e was walnuts and 4e was pecans, but people acted like 3e was walnuts and 4e was broccoli. Which is exactly my point: a lot of gamers choose to take the position of anything-that-isn't-this-thing-sucks, even when both of the things being discussed are really very similar.

It's a big deal to them because, for whatever reason, they want it to be a big deal to them.



If I told you they never do, would that be an exaggeration?

I like walnuts, I like broccoli. 4e is turnips.

Sometimes it is really about the fact that some folks have tried 4e, and really do not like it.

I have tried 4e.

I do not like it.

For some reason some people seem to be in denial about people not liking turnips 4e, they try to pretend that there is no reason to dislike turnips 4e.

That is just as wrong as saying that nobody can dislike strawberries 3.X. Or that it is impossible to not see that chocolate Pathfinder is a huge improvement on turnips 4e.

Now, can we all stop pretending that none of us have any reason to dislike the other system?

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* For the record, my girlfriend loves turnips, and really does not like any role playing games, at all. We both love chocolate and strawberries, often together.

 

[prosfilaes]

To continue the analogy, fault lines indicate crustal weakness. They inevitably lead to a broken base.

The 90s may have lost people for D&D, but it didn't break the base. Looking at the 1999 WotC RPG survey, 66% of the people played D&D; of the other RPGs, only 16% for Palladium and 3% for GURPS indicated possible competing non-modern fantasy games, and (assuming Rifts is included in Palladium) neither are primarily fantasy games. It took work for WotC to actually break the set of D&D players with D&D 4, to make D&D players find a non-D&D-brand game.

Without D&D 4, they would have lost some people who went to D&D 4, maybe from roleplaying completely, maybe to some other game (which?). But a lot of them would have stayed. Could they have restarted the system and kept the D&D 3 players and would-be RW D&D 4 players? I suspect so, though any new edition loses some players.

Fault lines only indicate where things will break when stress is put on them. They can stand a lot of give and take in real life and not break.