[forked thread] What constitutes an edition war?

[Imaro]

Game design is such an art, I don't think you can formulate what works. Of course it's his decision.... a game designer's best effort that they think is cool is probably one of the better designs you are going to get out of them. Of course, if you think you can get 2% more profits doing a little backseat designing, go ahead and burn out Mike Mearls on your project. Independence is both a blessing a curse.

Honestly, 4e is obviously the product of the WotC designers doing whatever the whatooiee they felt like, either with the blessing of management, or the tactic acceptance by suits who don't understand the game anyway. 4e is a textbook example of a creative group of people doing something really amazing by following their own instincts. Unofortunately, the zeitgeist is not as happy with the result as perhaps some had hoped, but that's the risk of daring to do something good.

I think 4e is pretty stinkie, but there is no doubt in my mind a lot of people are proud to have designed it, and it provides genuine enjoyment for many of the people who play it.

This has nothing to do with my post... what I'm saying is that regardless of what Mike Mearls wants to do there are certain design and development constraints he must work within as set down by those in a higher position at WotC, this has no bearing on whether it is a good or bad game, or whether the developers are proud or not of their design... that's just how businesses are ran. The only way this wouldn't be true is if Mike both owned and developed D&D.

 

[pawsplay]

I can be a silly person, but also optimistic, confidant, and enthusiastic (good qualities for a DM, by the by). When I say 4e is "best", I don't mean that any other system is bad. I've actually said the opposite. What I mean is that on average, players using the 4e system will have a little more fun, a little more often, and given a choice players will choose that system most of the time. If the 4e system was built with the Pathfinder presentation, it would be even better.

I mean compare 4e to 3.5. 4e is basically 3.5, but with more fun and colorful options (after all, a 4e wizard can summon a red dragon at-will at level 1, if he wants, while the 3.5 wizard is probably using a crossbow most of the time at level 1) with fewer restrictions. Note that a 4e wizard can still use a crossbow if he wants.

Basically, 4e has everything and can do anything that earlier editions could do, but they added more for those that wanted to take advantage of it. By most accounts, better.

Better to whom? This thread is about what constitutes an edition war. Your post is an example of something that, while not overtly aggressive, is riddled with numerous problems as a logical argument. The biggest problem is that you are simply wrong. Now, I realize you may not believe you are wrong, and you may not feel wrong, but as far as I am concerned, you are wrong. Now, if you don't want to have an edition war with me, it would be worthwhile to try to look at why someone might have a different opinion than you do.

You like 4e. You are predisposed to like 4e. My opinion is that 4e is a well-designed 4e. However, I have a lot of experience with game design, and it is my opinion that

1) the 4e design is not very robust and the core of the game is less elegant than many other games, and
2) 4e is not as good a 4e as 3e is 3e, or BECMI is BECMI; I put 4e about on par with AD&D and Shadowrun 3e in terms of meeting its own design goals. Definitely not a home run.

You can claim 4e is an objectively better, freer system, but if you won't listen, you will never come to understand why others believe differently. You will have an unexamined opinion, and hence a less valuable one.

 

[pawsplay]

This has nothing to do with my post... what I'm saying is that regardless of what Mike Mearls wants to do there are certain design and development constraints he must work within as set down by those in a higher position at WotC, this has no bearing on whether it is a good or bad game, or whether the developers are proud or not of their design... that's just how businesses are ran. The only way this wouldn't be true is if Mike both owned and developed D&D.

You made the comment that market research was wasted if Mike Mearls does whatever he wants. I disagree. You do the market research, then you do whatever you want. You are of course correct that Mike Mearls has bosses that will tell him what to do. It does not follow logically that they are correct to tell him to do any one thing. That's not "how business is done." That's one style, and in my view, probably not a good way to run a creativity-based business.

Market research is really only useful for telling you about the predictable.

 

[Redbadge]

Better to whom? This thread is about what constitutes an edition war. Your post is an example of something that, while not overtly aggressive, is riddled with numerous problems as a logical argument. The biggest problem is that you are simply wrong. Now, I realize you may not believe you are wrong, and you may not feel wrong, but as far as I am concerned, you are wrong. Now, if you don't want to have an edition war with me, it would be worthwhile to try to look at why someone might have a different opinion than you do.

You like 4e. You are predisposed to like 4e. My opinion is that 4e is a well-designed 4e. However, I have a lot of experience with game design, and it is my opinion that

1) the 4e design is not very robust and the core of the game is less elegant than many other games, and
2) 4e is not as good a 4e as 3e is 3e, or BECMI is BECMI; I put 4e about on par with AD&D and Shadowrun 3e in terms of meeting its own design goals. Definitely not a home run.

You can claim 4e is an objectively better, freer system, but if you won't listen, you will never come to understand why others believe differently. You will have an unexamined opinion, and hence a less valuable one.

"I'm never wrong. I once thought I was, but I was mistaken."

I know why people have their opinions... and it's because they haven't had the benefit of experiencing the game the way I have. I'm not claiming that 4e "is an objectively better, freer system." I'm just saying that, if you had my perspective, you'd agree with me. It's tough to argue against that.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

[MENTION=61463]Redbadge[/MENTION]:

First, I want to apologize for using the word "silly". I'm glad you didn't take offense, and I want to clarify that I didn't mean YOU are silly...I was saying the position you are supporting is silly...but even then that's a loaded word.

Untenable might be a better word.

I think, if we were to put a poll up (which I don't want to do because it would be flamebait for sure), you would find that even ardent supporters and huge fans of 4e would not claim that it was "best". Most people on these boards are able to see positives and negatives about all editions of D&D and of various systems.

Here's what the poll would look like:
1. I play an edition that isn't 4e and it's clear that 4e is objectively the "best" edition.
2. I play an edition that isn't 4e and I don't believe 4e is objectively the "best" edition.

3. I play 4e and it's clear that 4e is objectively the "best" edition.
4. I play 4e and I don't believe 4e is objectively the "best" edition.


I suspect you wouldn't be surprised by the ratio of answers to 1. and 2. I suspect you WOULD be surprised by the answers to 3. and 4. especially if we were to make it a public poll (where people's account names are tied to their answer).

I believe that we'd see more than 90% of the answers to 3 and 4 be #4...that even people who play 4e don't consider it objectively "best".

 

[Imaro]

You made the comment that market research was wasted if Mike Mearls does whatever he wants. I disagree. You do the market research, then you do whatever you want. You are of course correct that Mike Mearls has bosses that will tell him what to do. It does not follow logically that they are correct to tell him to do any one thing. That's not "how business is done." That's one style, and in my view, probably not a good way to run a creativity-based business.

Market research is really only useful for telling you about the predictable.

Are you being pendantic... I really can't tell. If market research tells WotC... classes are what 99.8% of players want in D&D, you best believe they are going to set down a design paradigm of classes in D&D. Now what Mike Mearls does within that paradigm is up to him... but telling a developer to "Just do whatever you want..." especially with an established property in a creativity-based business is a quick way to failure... profit wise (which is what we have been discussing)

I also have not made any argument towards the correctness or not of any particular design or development paradigm... that again has nothing to do with the argument that he is given restrictions, paradigms and tenets he must adhere to in his development... and thus cannot just decide to do whatever he wants with D&D development.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

"I'm never wrong. I once thought I was, but I was mistaken."

I know why people have their opinions... and it's because they haven't had the benefit of experiencing the game the way I have. I'm not claiming that 4e "is an objectively better, freer system." I'm just saying that, if you had my perspective, you'd agree with me. It's tough to argue against that.

You were posting this as I wrote my last post. You clarify a bit here.

I'd addend your statement to: "if you had my perspective, and my preferences in gaming, you'd agree with me."

That would be a statement I could agree with.

I could go to the exact same movie as someone else and they might love it while I hate it.

4e is better for you. Got it.

4e is better for everyone, even if presented in the ideal way to them? No.

 

[dagger]

I can be a silly person, but also optimistic, confidant, and enthusiastic (good qualities for a DM, by the by). When I say 4e is "best", I don't mean that any other system is bad. I've actually said the opposite. What I mean is that on average, players using the 4e system will have a little more fun, a little more often, and given a choice players will choose that system most of the time.

Nope, not from what I have seen, it is less fun and folks have dropped it. See how this works?

I mean compare 4e to 3.5. 4e is basically 3.5, but with more fun and colorful options (after all, a 4e wizard can summon a red dragon at-will at level 1, if he wants, while the 3.5 wizard is probably using a crossbow most of the time at level 1) with fewer restrictions. Note that a 4e wizard can still use a crossbow if he wants.

Basically, 4e has everything and can do anything that earlier editions could do, but they added more for those that wanted to take advantage of it. By most accounts, better.

So 1e has everything all the other editions have and can do much more. By my account combats are run better.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

A more "meta" comment.


Regarding the original question of "what constitutes an edition war", I'd like to make the claim that Redbadge and I (and any others so far) are not having an edition war despite claims of which edition is "best" and whether or not that might or might not be true.

I've enjoyed/am enjoying the conversation, I don't think anyone is upset, and I don't see "warring".


Just an observation about how discussion can occur, even about which edition is "best" without it being an edition war (at least in my definition of "edition war").

EDIT: Damn, ALMOST made it. *Sigh*.

Well, the post above mine, which I wouldn't call "edition warring" does seem to exemplify the beginning of a "getting the ball rolling down the edition war hill".

Nope, not from what I have seen, it is less fun and folks have dropped it. See how this works?

Could have just been:

Nope, not from what I have seen, it is less fun and folks have dropped it.

and would have been less likely to provoke an upset response. I think edition wars come about when one person is offended and then uses snark/sarcasm/an attack/passive aggressive behavior or some other means of escalating the emotion in the thread...then it builds.

[MENTION=279]dagger[/MENTION], my apologizes for the critique of your post, I don't mean to single you out, and I'm certainly guilty of doing the same (hence my apology for using the word silly).

 

[pawsplay]

"I'm never wrong. I once thought I was, but I was mistaken."

I know why people have their opinions... and it's because they haven't had the benefit of experiencing the game the way I have. I'm not claiming that 4e "is an objectively better, freer system." I'm just saying that, if you had my perspective, you'd agree with me. It's tough to argue against that.

Actually, it's very easy to argue against that. I'm not you. "If you had my perspective," is a nonsense phrase.

As for your experience... I have a LOT of experience. You are welcome to claim your experience is superior and more wide-ranging, but I don't believe you.