[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?

[Umbran]

Who are the people who voice a stronger opinion against a certain edition?

If we take a look around we'll see how, for example, with 4e it's mostly D&D

veterans who say this and that.

Do you see someone at the age of 16 to 20-something bitching about 4e?

Personally, I don't.

Well, you have to be careful about that. Who you hear talking depends upon where you listen.

It is my impression that EN World's population leans toward older gamers - the people speaking are preselected to be older here, so of course you won't see as many younger players speaking. On some other website (say, the WotC forums), you may see more younger gamers, and come to the exact opposite conclusion.

Which is to say, the sample you see on any particular website doesn't speak to other websites. And what you see on websites doesn't necessarily speak to the majority of gamers who don't post to websites at all.

 

[Redbadge]

Sometimes I forget that I'm only 23 and most posters on this website are probably older than me. Of course, I feel much older than your typical 23-year-old does.

Funny story: earlier in the year I was at a conference (I'm an executive at a U.S. defense contract firm) and one of the other presidents was complaining about, well, my generation. He was saying how we were lazy, had no drive, felt entitled, etc. I just had to roll my eyes at his ignorance. Admittedly, he didn't know how old I was, and he did specifically complain about his 23-year-old son who was apparently still at home and flipping burgers.

 

[Jimlock]

Well, you have to be careful about that. Who you hear talking depends upon where you listen.

It is my impression that EN World's population leans toward older gamers - the people speaking are preselected to be older here, so of course you won't see as many younger players speaking. On some other website (say, the WotC forums), you may see more younger gamers, and come to the exact opposite conclusion.

Which is to say, the sample you see on any particular website doesn't speak to other websites. And what you see on websites doesn't necessarily speak to the majority of gamers who don't post to websites at all.

Well I've seen a bit of what goes on in the WotC website, and I did not come to the opposite conclusion.

WotC is much more pro 4e than here (normal right?), and the people in there are a lot younger. Especially those participating in the 4e dedicated sub-forums.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't any older gamers who have crossed the bridge. There are. It's just that they're the minority.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

One interesting fact about edition war is this:



Who are the people who voice a stronger opinion against a certain edition?

If we take a look around we'll see how, for example, with 4e it's mostly D&D

veterans who say this and that.

Do you see someone at the age of 16 to 20-something bitching about 4e?

Personally, I don't.

Would it surprise you to hear that I have? And that I have heard 13 and 14 year olds complaining as well?

To take any surprise away - one group are all in my teens 'n' tweens Pathfinder game - and for the most part their parents are in my grown-up games, either Pathfinder or Spycraft. They had played the game for a while, and had parents who had played similar games for years.

And the person they were talking to was a younger brother who was a loud mouthed 4e fan, and who was quoting WotC ad speak. (All about the combat, that boy. All about the combat.)

They got quite heated about it*. At least in part because he could not seem to grasp that they enjoyed 3.X/3.P in spite of the fact that he had never read or played it. He based his premise entirely on WotC's claims, rather than informing his own voice. In this case sibling rivalry was a stronger component, I think, than actual enjoyment on one side, and defensive behavior on the other.

While I happen to agree that Pathfinder is a better game in many ways, the actual battle was over things aside from the topic voiced. The younger brother wanted to run a game, and they did not want to play that game. I do not know if they would have played the game if he had decided to run Pathfinder, but I have my doubts.

On the flip side - the young players all seem happy with Pathfinder, while the 4e fan was willing to play Pathfinder because it wasn't 3.X. (If I could roll my eyes here, trust me, I would be doing so. Ah, the power of brands.) He also seemed to have a good time, though he did not become what I would call a convert.

I think part of it may just have been him wanting to be in something before his friends and family, then being frustrated when they weren't interested in that new thing.

I have also encountered 13-15 year olds, not my players, who quite happily called Pathfinder 'D&D'. They did not care about branding, as far as they were concerned it was D&D, and the version of D&D that they wanted to play. (I would love to say that it was because they preferred the Pathfinder mechanics, but I suspect it had more to how with how the book looked and read than the actual systems.)

And a group at the book store who were complaining about 4e, but sounded more like Exalted would fit them better than 3.x/Pathfinder. (They really were not happy with 4e, not at all.)

The Auld Grump

* By heated I mean loud, stubborn, and repetitive - you know, standard edition war behavior.

 

[catastrophic]

When asked why you dislike something, maybe the answer you give isn't as correct as you think. Our own minds occasionally mislead us. Maybe you dislike a thing because of it intrinsic qualities, or maybe you dislike it for other reasons that even you don't consciously recognize.

People out on the internet are not in a good position to say which it is, though. We cannot tell you for certain whether a person's stated reasons are accurate, and we aren't in a position to divine the truth. So, for the vast majority of cases we should take a person's word for it, accepting that the know themselves better than we do.

This is not a constructive thing to do when the argument is about how games should be made. Mike Mearls is over on the wotc website doing his regular colum in which he basically kisses up to grognards, talking up the kind of ideas edition warriors have as if they were legit goals for design.

But they're not.

Most criticisms of 4e from the edition warriors simply aren't well argued, well supported, or legitimate. For example, 4e is not less narritive than previous editions in any real, concrete sense- it's just one of the ways people are rationalising their edition war angst.

That's fine if it's preference, and i'm the first to say that around the table? In a game? Somebody's whim or feelings or enthusiasm is totally concretly relevant if everyone is going to have fun. If somebody is bummed out about 4e for whatever reason, they're not going to have fun playing it, no matter how well it's designed.

But this is not about play, this is about design. When it becomes a design goal to try and serve those demands? That's a recipie for a crappy game, and a clear step backwards from the progress made in 4th edition.

One example. 4e is not less narritive-oriented. That criticism is simply not legit, and it not being argued on a rational basis. A designer trying to appease the people making that criticism cannot suceed in doing so through design, because the criticism is not a legit criticism of design.

What they can do by trying is make a crappier, less well designed game, with a bunch of sacred cow baggage and appeasement for grognards.

Treating all opinions on design as equal is a recipie for disaster when people pretend that their preferences, whims and edition war angst are linked to real, rational design issues.

There are any number of flaws in 4e, and there are even cases where for instance, the out-of-combat systems like rituals should be fixed to give more suport to that play.

But it doesn't matter what the 4e ritual system looked like, most of the people bitching about 4e being too combat oriented would be doing it either way. Their critiera is not rational, it never has been.

 

[pawsplay]

An edition war is an attempt for one group of RPG players to defeat at least one other group of players of a different edition through opinion. Whether or not a specific action is part of such an activity depends on interpretation. In general I would look for evidence of any of the following:

- Bad argument, e.g. ad hominem attacks, illogic, failure to respond to and rebut, numerous fallacies, and so forth
- Evidence that someone is not merely content to state the superiority of their game, but to insist that others also agree to its superiority
- Evidence that someone prefers to engage in aggressive posting when an opportunity presents, and does not post constructively when opportunities arise
- Not valuing the enjoyment of others, whether playing a different edition or the same one

 

[Lanefan]

But this is not about play, this is about design. When it becomes a design goal to try and serve those demands? That's a recipie for a crappy game, and a clear step backwards from the progress made in 4th edition.

Spoken like a true warrior.

Crappy? Backwards? Progress? All subjective opinions, and all open to debate and disagreement.

One example. 4e is not less narritive-oriented. That criticism is simply not legit, and it not being argued on a rational basis. A designer trying to appease the people making that criticism cannot suceed in doing so through design, because the criticism is not a legit criticism of design.

Without diving into ghastly Forge-isms, it's pretty easy to see the swing from story-driven (or imagination-driven) to gameplay-driven (or rules-driven) as you look at the evolution from 2e to 3e to 4e. Pushing the pendulum back the other way a bit *can* be done through a combination of design and presentation; and thus is a legitimate design goal. It is also a worthy one.

What they can do by trying is make a crappier, less well designed game, with a bunch of sacred cow baggage and appeasement for grognards.

Where instead you would do...what, exactly?

Treating all opinions on design as equal is a recipie for disaster when people pretend that their preferences, whims and edition war angst are linked to real, rational design issues.

There are really only two things that make an edition what it is:

1. Design. This is where we all try to have some input, or at least we go through the motions and hope for the best, and hope the actual designers listen to us as a bloc if not as individuals.

2. Presentation. This is completely out of our control. If the game is presented (by how the rules and books are written) and marketed as all-combat-all-the-time then guess what? That's how it'll be played. But if it's presented as something more; as being capable of combat, story, imagination, world design, exploration, etc. etc. - in other words, as being versatile - then more people will find it suitable for the game they want to play. Which by extension means more people wil buy it.

But it doesn't matter what the 4e ritual system looked like, most of the people bitching about 4e being too combat oriented would be doing it either way. Their critiera is not rational, it never has been.

It's not just 4e. 3e had the same problem. So did 1e, though to nowhere near the same extent.

Lan-"it's not D+D until I can roleplay getting drunk in a Norse town somewhere"-efan

 

[catastrophic]

See, am I supposed to argue with that? Am I supposed to put on a show?
We go line by line for a few pages and then hmm, I wonder who'll get banned for edition warring?

I have nothing to prove, I stated my opinion, and my entire point is that there isn't a constructive dicsusion going on here, even if people want to pretend there is.

2e wasn't some bastion of story gaming, and the edition with the best story support is 4e, because it has the best dming advice, by a long shot. You don't use that definition? I don't give a rat's ass; in my opinion your criteria is not sound.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm trying to figure how 4e is this bastion of gamist ideas compared to other games, when 4e is the first one to openly state "Rather then give you charts and rules, it's up to the DM to create the world, and up to the players to be creative and roleplay."

If by 'first' you mean 'most recent in a long line going back to OD&D'.... Typically called 'Rule Zero' something akin has been in every edition. It has been in most games that aren't part of the D&D systems as well.

Not a bad thing, but far from new.

Part of the gamist accusation against 4e is true, but a larger portion is a product of the manner that WotC forwarded the line, especially in the pre-release and just post-release periods.

4e most certainly can be used for a more vibrant manner of game, with greater verisimilitude, but in its early days it was presented in rather the opposite manner, with a not unspoken assumption that previous games were doing it wrong.

Me, I'd rather watch a good movie than play 4e. Hell, I'd rather watch a bad-but-fun movie than play 4e. And, given the number of miniatures that I have painted, I can honestly say that I'd rather watch paint dry than play 4e.... But that just means that I like painting miniatures.

The Auld Grump

 

[Doug McCrae]

Gamist means challenge the players.

For most of its history, D&D has been strongly gamist, but the nature of the challenge has changed. In OD&D and 1e the player figures out how to crack the DM's dungeon - avoid the traps, solve the puzzles, avoid the wandering monsters, kill the guardians, find the treasure and then haul it out.

In 3e, the challenge has changed somewhat. PC build is very important - avoiding 'traps' like the Toughness feat. The rules for combat tactics are much better than 1e's pummeling/overbearing, weapon vs AC, etc so combat becomes a more viable area for player decision making and hence gamist challenge. Avoiding encounters that are too tough and figuring out a foe's 'secret weakness' are also part of it, as per DMG page 49-50.

In 4e, the challenge shifts away from the build somewhat and more towards tactics in combat. Players also have to make strategic decisions about spending gold on rituals, and operational level choices about using dailies and action points.

2e is the least gamist by far. Although the rules are pretty similar to those of 1e, gameplay is supposed to be focused more on roleplaying and experiencing the world and story, not winning.