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

[Ariosto]

But I think where the issue comes in is that the two games are still so far apart.

How and why they are so far apart is a problem, when there's all this pressure to identify them as "the same thing".

The game-mechanical jargon is babble? That's no great hurdle when I talk with fans of games that are quite proudly different from old D&D in that regard. Even if the other fellow finds old D&D a drag, and I return the favor regarding his rules set of choice, we can still discuss dungeon design and campaign management and even basic questions and principles entailed in adjudicating particular cases. The specific numbers and dice don't matter much at that interface.

Replace one of those clearly non-D&D games with AD&D 2E, though, and discussion is more likely to be difficult despite the vastly greater objective similarity in rules sets. Why? Note the point above: those specifics don't matter much.

What matters is whether we are on the same page as to the purpose of it all, how to use it, where the game is and what it's "about".

Among the many people the marketing of 2E brought in were some who had fun "despite the game". That went in different directions, but take a look at Planescape. "A look" is all I've got, because at the time I had stopped purchasing TSR products ... but I see something that might get a bit cramped trying to be "about" levels and armor classes -- yes, even about "non-weapon proficiencies". Not that one "can't do it" with AD&D, for assuredly many people did.

With 3e, WotC may have kept a few "sacred cows", but it is pretty well designed to do particular things -- whereas 2e seemed unclear on just what it was trying to do and be.

Where those are different in basic ways, they tend either to be very clearly "better" or "worse" depending on the eye of the beholder. Plenty of "edition war" fights have explored the specifics of what those are.

With 4e, the shift is radical even from the 3e perspective. It might be harder to articulate clearly, because there's a common focus on some things. The difference of "3e good, 4e bad" calls for more subtle distinctions -- at least in getting to the initial "bad" -- than "3e bad, 4e worse".

The problem is that critical differences relate to such fundamental matters that it becomes difficult to discuss a great many things that are "not rules-specific" without the potential for an "edition war". Those differences are literally pre-game-mechanical; they are the ideals given by design mechanical expression, the "common law" behind the rules.

 

[catastrophic]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I favor the General forum because people will talk about things that go beyond edition. I like seeing dungeon design commentary from OD&D and 1e fans, setting talk from 2e fans, character concept talk from 3e fans and discussion of exciting terrain setups from 4e fans — and better yet, a mix of all of those topics, from all of those editions, and from other games besides. Talking about RPGs is more than just talking about mechanics. I like the discussions on inspiration, on roleplaying, on personal takes on given races or monster.

Segregating the forums would be a mistake for this reason, and more. Everyone regardless of edition has a lot more in common than they do dividing them, and there's all sorts of overlaps and areas where inspiration and story concepts would just as well in any edition, or could even be enhanced by being seen from different edition pov's.

 

[samursus]

Simple solution to EW's on ENWorld. Like a previous poster said, create a thread called "Edition Wars/Debate", put on a disclaimer and let people go crazy with no moderation in that thread only. Put any threads that the Mods feel are Edition Wars in there and presto.

I predict the thread will die out in a few months.

 

[BryonD]

The crux of all this is legitimacy. 4E fans want the RPG community to if they don't embrace it, accept 4E as a "legitimate" iteration of D&D, while 3E fans feel like the release of 4E and the embracing of it by a large percentage of the D&D community has "delegitimized" 3E, and are angry about that.

I disagree.
There is certainly one camp that thinks 4E has abandoned key items that made prior versions of D&D special to them. But the "legitimacy" claim isn't accurate.

And I don't know of anyone who feels 3E is remotely "delegitimized". If anything, the 3E fans I know feel the opposite.

 

[BryonD]

@ByronD:
To use your analogy, it's rather more like WotC, a longtime sponsor of MLB, retracted their sponsorship in favor of the NFL. Nonetheless, MLB still has a number of sponsors like Paizo and Crafty Games. WotC didn't ban 3e, they just no longer support it.

It's Bryon.

You have ignored several points in my post.
I clearly said that I still have my game and I am quite happy.

One obvious question becomes, why doesn't WotC want to support a larger fan base? I don't need them, but the question remains.

But my observation is more in regard to the fan vs. fan "edition wars" than it is WotC vs anyone.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I disagree.
There is certainly one camp that thinks 4E has abandoned key items that made prior versions of D&D special to them. But the "legitimacy" claim isn't accurate.

And I don't know of anyone who feels 3E is remotely "delegitimized". If anything, the 3E fans I know feel the opposite.

Let me add to it then. "Delegitimized" as the mainstream, universally held definition of D&D.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It's Bryon.

You have ignored several points in my post.
I clearly said that I still have my game and I am quite happy.

One obvious question becomes, why doesn't WotC want to support a larger fan base? I don't need them, but the question remains.

But my observation is more in regard to the fan vs. fan "edition wars" than it is WotC vs anyone.

Because you can't please everybody, and you have to make a hard choice at some point. In order to make 3E holdouts happy, they would have to make people who have embraced 4E less happy. They had to have come to conclusion that serving WotC's definition of the core D&D audience was more important than leaving the game vague and flexible enough to appeal to a wider audience.

 

[catastrophic]

Let me add to it then. "Delegitimized" as the mainstream, universally held definition of D&D.

That was never the case, either within fandom, or outside of it. Within the hobby, plenty of people played D&D but never payed 3e, having moved on to other games. Many even came back for 4e.

 

[BryonD]

Let me add to it then. "Delegitimized" as the mainstream, universally held definition of D&D.

So you are claiming that the old versions of D&D are not the same D&D as 4E?

 

[BryonD]

Because you can't please everybody, and you have to make a hard choice at some point. In order to make 3E holdouts happy, they would have to make people who have embraced 4E less happy. They had to have come to conclusion that serving WotC's definition of the core D&D audience was more important than leaving the game vague and flexible enough to appeal to a wider audience.

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