Irreconcilable differences(Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's...)

I don't think the problem with things is as much who is saying things and what as being said, as opposed to where things are being said and why they are being said.

In other words, the fact that people are not 4E fans and don't like 4E doesn't bother me. The fact that people come here to complain, and want people to hear/feel their anger and/or fight some sort of battle for public opinion tends to encourage me to respond.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

but c'mon, let us have our opinions.

I'm happy to let you have your opinion. Just let us discuss topics and issues of 4e without the snide, snarky edition comments in every thread in which we attempt to do so. There can be peace among our peoples.

And I'm not referring 'irda ranger' with you 'you' no more than you (I assume) were referring to me specifically with the above comment, but speaking in generalities about the tension amongst gamers.
 

This is a really insightful comment, especially thinking back to the state of 3E forums and the discussions there before 4E started creeping into things. I would actually go a bit farther and say that this wasn't a binary issue and there were more than two groups of "philosophies" on how to play D&D. One of the hallmarks of 3E was that it tried to do everything and to accomodate everybody. The issue I found was that a lot of things and philosophies aren't really compatable, and that 3E was often a game that was at war with itself. Many of the simulationist aspects of the game didn't really mesh well with classic beer and popcorn D&D. The difference in results between optimizing your character to 11 and not doing so often caused friction. You can go on and on.

4E chose to define D&D and pick a side, and then make the best game possible to cater to the core audience it defined. Other people like different things, and it was decided to let those players go and drift off to other games.
Hey, thanks! I try to be smart! B-)

I completely agree with you, thecasualoblivion, about there being more than two philosophies in the community. I had actually considered that as I was writing that post. However, in the interests of trying not to make a already complicated argument even more confusing, I simplified to two groups. Like you said, you could go on and on about it, but still, I'm glad you brought it up.

I'd hazard that it's because each of the two "factions" is actually a nebula of small, distinct philosophical groups that the 3.5E/4E issue isn't completely polarizing. Despite individual folks being generally more strongly in favor of one system than the other, there's still a sizeable portion of fence-sitters, who haven't chosen one side or the other to any statistically significant degree. The community, though it sometimes seems sharply divided, still isn't anywhere near as polarized as communities sometimes are in the face of sociopolitical issues like abortion or gay marriage. This is probably because, unlike in those situations, where the choice is largely "either/or", in the roleplaying community there are more than two games (3.5E and 4E) to choose from, nor does any one choice actually exclude making additional choices. (One can choose to enjoy several games to various statistically significant degrees.)

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that, ultimately, while the community is perhaps partially fractured or fragmented now, it's BS to say that 4E is "splitting" or "dividing" the community. I think any such "splitting" or "dividing" began at least several years ago, (long before 4E), and that it's primarily due to the varying mindsets of players, which have driven the development of new, philosophy-specific games via individual consumer practices.

Doctorhook, speaking of "irreconcilable differences", I'd like to quote you against .. yourself.
doctorhook said:
I believe that part of why 4E is as popular as it is (and it is popular among an economically-significant portion of roleplayers) is that it fits well with the type of games that many people have been playing over the past few years*. The philosophies that guided the design of 4E are visibly present in 3.5E, in hindsight.

*The extension of this is that a sizable portion of players were playing 3.5E as a "different" game than the group mentioned above was. Nobody was right or wrong, of course, but there were at least two major mindsets in the D&D community, which was exacerbated by the release of a new edition. I posit that these, the disparate philosophies of the community, is the underlying cause of the edition wars of late.
vs.

doctorhook said:
I disagree here, Psion. I think the "philosophical shift" is community-based, not rules-/system-based.
Your observation in the first quote is spot on. You're not the first one to notice this, but you're right, and I'm happy to give you full credit for figuring it out on your own.

But your absolute correctness in the first quote undercuts the second quote. It's both community-based and rule system-based. 3E tried to cater to both sides of the community, and 4E picked one. And they did it by changing the rules.

So one side of the community (which I'll call the "Wormwood-Snoweel Alliance") is happy as a pig in mud, because 4E is now exactly the game they were always trying to play. However another side of the community (which I'll call the "Irda-Midget Imperium") is like "Well crap, these rules are useless for playing the game we're interested in."
I thank you for the credit, Irda Ranger. You're obviously a good sport! :) FWIW, I don't mind not being first, but I am glad to figure something out for myself.

I think my biggest error here is that I wasn't clear enough, and that I still haven't quite wrapped my head around all of the implications of what I'm suggesting. I suppose what I really mean to say was that this "philosophical shift" was community-based first, and is community-based more than rules-/system-based. It's not that the systems haven't influenced these philosophies, but I believe that it's the community that drives the development of new games. (Thanks to free-market economics; generally speaking, consumers buy what they want and don't buy what they don't want, and in order to secure those consumers' dollars, producers attempt to sell what consumers want, and attempt to avoid being stuck trying to sell what consumers don't want.) Specifically, I mean to suggest that the attitudes present in the gaming community tend to inform the attitudes of game designers and developers, who are themselves members of the community. Thus, a new "narrativist" game might be developed in the hopes of becoming a successful product, buoyed by the support of "narrativist" gamers, for example.

I really hope I'm not still contradicting myself here; I'm trying not to, but lemme know. I'll also admit that there's probably an opposite side to what I'm suggesting; that, in fact, the games people play (not to mention the movies they see, and the books they read, and so on...) influence the attitudes of the gaming community, bringing us back to one big cycle of a myriad of ever-shifting philosophies influenced by and influencing each other, the community around them, and the products which result in order to cater to that community.

Call me a "Communitist". I focus on and believe in the community as the primary driving force of change, despite that the reality is multilayered and much more complicated.
 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. "Sainted" game? Interesting choice of non-judgemental language there, heh.

I'm actually on the fence between 3e/Pathfinder and 4e. I've been playing 3e since its release in 2000 and have loved the game. I love the evolution that Paizo's Pathfinder is taking that game in. Most of my friends are still playing 3e.
Well you came in swinging. Personally there are a number of things that really appeal to me about 4th edition, and a number of things that are really annoying about it, and I don't consider my annoyances spurious (many of them anyway), and they have been voiced here a number of times, resulting in the usual dogpile.
 

Irda Ranger said:
doctorhook said:
...Now, what were you saying about 4E being entirely different from the previous edition? :)
In feel and effect, it is quite different.
I suppose it might be to you, Irda, if indeed you were getting something altogether different out of 3.5E than those of the "Wormwood-Snoweel Alliance" were, and that 4E does not offer you. I'll find it a shame if that's the case, that a fan can't be a fan anymore, but I will not myself be ashamed. While it's unfortunate if 4E can't be what you want it to be, what can I do if, with the same stroke, it has become exactly what all my friends want it to be?

I'll just hope that, someday, perhaps you and I can share the same "philosophical faction" in this community, and enjoy a game together. :cool:
 

Curious question:

If someone says, "I don't like 4E because it is too much like WoW", is it a valid response to say "It plays nothing like WoW, what are you talking about" or is this seen as "attacking" the person.

I think there's a disparity here though, because you're stating that being related to WoW is a bad thing. As I said on the other thread, I've seen numerous posters here comment that new players say 4e reminds them of WoW, but they use it in a positive way. I wasn't here for the D&D vs anime thing, but another poster stated that the discussion taught them how far people would go to deny even the smallest similarities.

The thing is, "WoW-like" isn't a bad thing. WoW makes more money a day then some people will ever see in their lives. As someone who used to play it, it can be insanely fun. And right now, it's popular to the point of breaking though any old cliches about nerds and preps. I've seen football players talk to themselves about their WoW characters. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if people didn't see something "WoW-like" in a game.

But the crux is, "WoW-like" has been declared both a bad and a good thing at the same time. I've seen the same issue - and very much so - with "the game is more simplified." The funny thing about "The game is more simplified" is that people - the SAME people - will either praise that statement or scowl and put it down all depending on which poster used it. Same statement. But when one poster says "The game is very simplified," what's read is "It's dumbed down." When another poster says "The game is very simplified," what's read is "It's not bloated and overly complex."

So I guess the problem isn't that someone is saying the game is like WoW, the problem is that you're too stuck disagreeing with it to try and see where they're coming from.
 

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that, ultimately, while the community is perhaps partially fractured or fragmented now, it's BS to say that 4E is "splitting" or "dividing" the community. I think any such "splitting" or "dividing" began at least several years ago, (long before 4E), and that it's primarily due to the varying mindsets of players, which have driven the development of new, philosophy-specific games via individual consumer practices.
Yes and no. "Yes" that there was a division in play style before 4E. But we were all "current edition D&D players." Now we're not. So 4E divided us in that sense.


I thank you for the credit, Irda Ranger. You're obviously a good sport! :)
I certainly try to be. Thanks.


I suppose what I really mean to say was that this "philosophical shift" was community-based first, and is community-based more than rules-/system-based.
Per above, it was community based first, and it was more community based than rules based, but now it is both.

As for your nature vs. nurture thoughts, I'd agree that it's primarily community based first. The game that captures the zeitgeist does well in the market. I've never seen any game that actually defined the market since Basic D&D, but that was a special case since it basically created the market. The D&D brand is certainly still powerful, but since the 90's (and especially since the OGL) there have been so many options available that any game that didn't match a chosen playstyle was simply dropped for other games.

I think that's the reason 4E is so focused on one style of play. They knew that if they tried to straddle the difference any longer each group would go for a different game that matched their preferred style better. It's unfortunate for folks like me, but really not that unfortunate; the Hasbro Gestapo doesn't know where I keep my old rule books. :)


doctorhook said:
I'll just hope that, someday, perhaps you and I can share the same "philosophical faction" in this community, and enjoy a game together. :cool:
Heh. I certainly appreciate the sentiment. I really don't like Narrativist games though (at all; not even a little), so if that's your thing we'll probably have to leave it at beer and poker. :)
 



I'm gonna have to ask you to supply a quote on this one. It sounds much to opportunistic, like the words of that other kid on the playground, who swears on his mother's grave that your favorite flavour of ice cream is made from poop and dead babies.

April 2008: 'Dungeons & Dragons' fourth edition, online tools just around corner | Gaming and Culture - CNET News

"We rebuilt all the character classes from the ground up," <Andy> Collins said...
 

Remove ads

Top