[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?

[TheAuldGrump]

I think part of the problem of this thread is that 4e "fanboys" are being too defensive and emotional, when there is nothing needed to be defended. 4e is the best game by far, best at narration, best at simulation, and best at gaming. The problem, as mentioned in the posts above, is that WotC's presentation and marketing of the system was very poor, and now they're trying to change that. The presentation can be approved, but I think we can all agree that 4e is otherwise the best edition so far.

The single word answer 'NO!' comes to mind for the last sentence in that paragraph.

Not the 'best by far' for 'all', in fact, as far as I am concerned it is the worst edition of D&D - the edition where I gave up on a game that I have played since 1975.

You may think it is the best, and perhaps for you that is the case, but by no means do all of us agree, nor is it at all likely that all of us will ever agree on what is 'the best edition by far'.

I would count Pathfinder as 'the best edition', and it isn't even D&D by the title. I would rate True 20 as a better edition, and it may have wandered as far from the original D&D as 4e has. Heck, I might even rate DCC as a better edition, but that may just be the warm whiskey-like glow of nostalgia.

Trying to say that 'we can all agree that 4e is otherwise the best edition so far.' is just plain foolish. It looks like a large percentage disagrees, even here, in this small but outspoken enclave of role playing games, lost in the tangled strands of the interweb.

The Auld Grump

 

[Barastrondo]

Edition wars, in my experience, tend to happen partly because the people involved assume their experiences are universal. Even in the case where people understand their preferences are personal and not shared, what turns a discussion into an edition war is the idea that experiences must be the same.

"I like/do not like Edition X," says one person, "because these factors create an experience that I dislike."

"But I do not like/like Edition X," says another, "because I had a very different experience, and those factors did not create what you describe."

How does this become an edition war? When either the first person or the second person believes that the other is saying they're wrong -- that they didn't have the experience they describe, or that if they did, that they "did it wrong." For example, "if you weren't able to get immersed in a 4e game you did it wrong," or "if casters were a problem for you in a 3e game you were doing it wrong." This may be a matter of sensitivity, or it may be that the other person is actually saying you're wrong. And of course, that's where the defensiveness breaks out and war is declared.

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.

 

[DragonLancer]

The single word answer 'NO!' comes to mind for the last sentence in that paragraph.

Not the 'best by far' for 'all', in fact, as far as I am concerned it is the worst edition of D&D - the edition where I gave up on a game that I have played since 1975.

You may think it is the best, and perhaps for you that is the case, but by no means do all of us agree, nor is it at all likely that all of us will ever agree on what is 'the best edition by far'.

I would count Pathfinder as 'the best edition', and it isn't even D&D by the title. I would rate True 20 as a better edition, and it may have wandered as far from the original D&D as 4e has. Heck, I might even rate DCC as a better edition, but that may just be the warm whiskey-like glow of nostalgia.

Trying to say that 'we can all agree that 4e is otherwise the best edition so far.' is just plain foolish. It looks like a large percentage disagrees, even here, in this small but outspoken enclave of role playing games, lost in the tangled strands of the interweb.

Well said. If I could give XP for this post right now I would.

 

[Redbadge]

The single word answer 'NO!' comes to mind for the last sentence in that paragraph.

Not the 'best by far' for 'all', in fact, as far as I am concerned it is the worst edition of D&D - the edition where I gave up on a game that I have played since 1975.

You may think it is the best, and perhaps for you that is the case, but by no means do all of us agree, nor is it at all likely that all of us will ever agree on what is 'the best edition by far'.

I would count Pathfinder as 'the best edition', and it isn't even D&D by the title. I would rate True 20 as a better edition, and it may have wandered as far from the original D&D as 4e has. Heck, I might even rate DCC as a better edition, but that may just be the warm whiskey-like glow of nostalgia.

Trying to say that 'we can all agree that 4e is otherwise the best edition so far.' is just plain foolish. It looks like a large percentage disagrees, even here, in this small but outspoken enclave of role playing games, lost in the tangled strands of the interweb.

The Auld Grump

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.

And I know you might say that it's not even possible that we "can" all agree, we're just all too different. I would like to clarify that what I was thinking was, that for any given person, the perfect combination of past experiences and specific circumstances might have led them to like 4e. Obviously in some cases that didn't happen, isn't happening, and won't happen, but I think anything is possible. I thought I might bring more geniality and camaraderie to the "rift" if I shared such a view, that although we all have different preferences, there are experiences and circumstances that we share that led us all to be gamers. But I think this argument is a bit too... out-there/unuseful/specious/fill-in-your-word-of-choice-here.

I will now resume not contributing to this thread .

Edit: And I suppose another of my goals was that maybe I could, if not get people to appreciate it, at least get them to dislike 4e a little less, because I apparently care more than I thought I did. And it seems I may have come up short in that goal, at least.

 

[Elf Witch]

Edit: And I suppose another of my goals was that maybe I could, if not get people to appreciate it, at least get them to dislike 4e a little less, because I apparently care more than I thought I did. And it seems I may have come up short in that goal, at least.

This is something I don't get. If someone dislikes something why would you care about trying to make them dislike it a little less?

I think it is natural to be a little uncomfortable when you really like something and some people go ugg. It can feel like they are not validating your opinion.

The trick is to realize that is where the feeling is coming from. And then to realize that you really don't need anyone else to validate your liking of something.

 

[Lanefan]

This is something I don't get. If someone dislikes something why would you care about trying to make them dislike it a little less?

Why not?

I'm a Canucks fan. I'll try to talk others into supporting the Canucks when opportunity arises.

He's a 4e fan. He's trying to talk others into supporting 4e when opportunity arises.

It's only fair...

The problem comes when trying to talk each other into supporting our edition of choice turns into a brawl. They don't seem to like that here.

Lan-"so support 1e, dammit!"-efan

 

[Elf Witch]

Why not?

I'm a Canucks fan. I'll try to talk others into supporting the Canucks when opportunity arises.

He's a 4e fan. He's trying to talk others into supporting 4e when opportunity arises.

It's only fair...

The problem comes when trying to talk each other into supporting our edition of choice turns into a brawl. They don't seem to like that here.

Lan-"so support 1e, dammit!"-efan

I guess I don't see it the same way. Well no I do sort of. I try and introduce my favorite authors and books or TV shows to other people.

But I don't keep trying if they say I don't like it or I am not interested. I may ask why because I am curious but I don't try and change their opinion. And I don't get pissy or snarky about it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm a Canucks fan. I'll try to talk others into supporting the Canucks when opportunity arises.

He's a 4e fan. He's trying to talk others into supporting 4e when opportunity arises.

It's only fair...

The problem comes when trying to talk each other into supporting our edition of choice turns into a brawl. They don't seem to like that here.

Anyone trying to do that should remember that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In other words, I think they should be positive about their favourite thing, whatever it is, and not be negative about other peoples' favourites*. In fact they should try to be of a pleasant demeanour, generally. There was a poster on ENWorld a while back (think he was called Nightfall) who was a huge fan of Scarred Lands but he conducted himself so poorly that I've seen several people say they were turned off ever trying the setting because of him.

*I'm negative about peoples' favourites, but I'm not trying to proselytise for anything.

 

[keterys]

I guess I don't see it the same way. Well no I do sort of. I try and introduce my favorite authors and books or TV shows to other people.

But I don't keep trying if they say I don't like it or I am not interested. I may ask why because I am curious but I don't try and change their opinion. And I don't get pissy or snarky about it.

Part of the problem is the way that the discussions occur...

For example, let's say I were talking to someone about fantasy authors that I appreciate - especially over the course of growing up, and I mentioned George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, since it's got the TV series and it's probably worth a talk... and the person immediately recoiled "You read that filth!? It's just a pile of crap filled with rape and swears"... I'm fairly content to let people read what they will, and I've specifically _not_ recommended his books before to certain people due to their content, but I could easily see myself attempting to defend the work as _not_ just a pile of crap filled with rape and swears.

I'm more than content to discuss various nuances of gaming systems in a mechanical light, but more often than not a lot of arguments feel like they're somewhere between "your momma" level of civility and "when considering just this blemish on the left flank, you can see the entire system is horrible" level of hyperfocus on "This One Horrible Thing" that I can't help but blink and go "So... change that one thing? Or ignore it? I haven't even noticed it come up?"

Also, some people just like to stir up trouble. And other people like to give them XP for stirring up trouble, which only encourages the behavior. It's a trick we learn in our youth I think.

So, yeah, edition wars. Maybe, just maybe, people could try harder not to engage in them.

 

[Windjammer]

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.