The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Galloglaich]

Yes, this version of salesmanship is potentially useful if people are forced to accept a change. The thing is, it comes from a completely value neutral viewpoint; it presupposes you do not care about the actual value of the change and only implementing it. Useful for corporate authority figures, not so helpful when people are trying to choose one or more games based on their perceived play value.

Very well put.

G.

 

[Imaro]

This sounds suspiciously like a claim that "4e isn't D&D".

*Why not just ask me if that's what I was trying to say?*

Interpret how you want but no, that's not what I was getting at.

It's a claim that the analogy really doesn't represent the situation very well. In the example two totally separate things are compared... In the 3e to 4e situation it is suppose to be the same type of game with the same type of general play. This might be more analogous to the boardgame Clue and the DVD version of Clue.

EDIT: And for the record you won't find a single post of mine where I ever claimed 4e wasn't D&D... not my style, WotC owns D&D so it's whatever they put the name on. Now whether I like or dislike what they turn it into is a different story.

 

[Roger]

Then maybe I don't understand what you believe the OP's point is... could you perhaps clarify for me?

Sure! I think the point is revealed in the last paragraph of the original post:

* edition wars are inevitable

* edition wars have little to do with which system is actually better



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Scott_Rouse]

Call me a bit naive, but based on the accounts of the initial rise of D&D in 1974, Gary and Dave didn't need to do a lot of convincing. People were intrigued by the concept, they tried it, and they liked it. The initial print run of D&D was 1,000. And from there it exploded as people were exposed to it. That's not a corporate marketing strategy, D&D started at the grass roots level and became huge through the perfect storm of cool new play style, cultural awareness, and controversy. Marketing played a factor eventually, but it didn't start out as anything other than this small experimental new game.

No you are correct, I am obviously simplifying history to make a point about the nature of creation, evolution, and market dynamics.

As someone pointed out several months ago, if you get ten people together who want to buy a cat, the shop owner shouldn't sell them a turtle. There are numerous ways that OD&D departed from miniature wargaming, and yet this newest edition has more in common with wargaming than OD&D or any version we've had since. The official brand has gotten so far away from the original game that it's no longer recognizable as the same. 4E is not a continuation along an established line that has gone on for more than 30 years as much as it is a reinvention. I think the reason that 4E is having a hard time gaining acceptance, particularly among the core audience, is because the majority of the people wanted refinement, not reinvention. Had you given them that, there wouldn't be as much discontent right now.

It is the sentiment in your analogy that is at the heart of the edition wars and it is the belief that we are selling turtles that perpetuates them.

There was really no need for such a huge departure from the previous editions, people still would have bought it because it's D&D. This brings me to the point that the true reason for making the game so different was to eliminate backwards compatibility. If people can no longer use their old stuff, they're forced to buy new stuff, which is where we come back to selling the people what you have rather than giving them what they want. This strategy all falls down due to the fact that gamers are smarter than that and they have other options. Lots of them.

This is as much an over simplification of the situation as my comparison to war games. You really think Mearls, Collins, Perkins or Slavicsek, or anyone else on the design team set the rule in the design document "make sure people can convert their old stuff to 4e"? Give me a break. You know many of these people personally and you worked with many of them. You know that they didn't go into the design process with the notion of forcing people to buy new stuff. If anything that was an inherent outcome of the design procees and not an premeditated objective.

Or New Coke.

Darin

This meme is tired.

 

[diaglo]

It is the sentiment in your analogy that is at the heart of the edition wars and it is the belief that we are selling turtles that perpetuates them.

i love turtles.

and i would love them even more if you made them OD&D turtles.

sell me products for my favorite game.

 

[Scribble]

Call me a bit naive, but based on the accounts of the initial rise of D&D in 1974, Gary and Dave didn't need to do a lot of convincing. People were intrigued by the concept, they tried it, and they liked it. The initial print run of D&D was 1,000. And from there it exploded as people were exposed to it. That's not a corporate marketing strategy, D&D started at the grass roots level and became huge through the perfect storm of cool new play style, cultural awareness, and controversy. Marketing played a factor eventually, but it didn't start out as anything other than this small experimental new game.

I once asked people if they thought the "negative press" D&D got back in the day helped boost its sales. People said yes, and I'm inclined to agree. It might not have been planned marketing, but it was marketing none the less.

As someone pointed out several months ago, if you get ten people together who want to buy a cat, the shop owner shouldn't sell them a turtle. There are numerous ways that OD&D departed from miniature wargaming, and yet this newest edition has more in common with wargaming than OD&D or any version we've had since. The official brand has gotten so far away from the original game that it's no longer recognizable as the same. 4E is not a continuation along an established line that has gone on for more than 30 years as much as it is a reinvention. I think the reason that 4E is having a hard time gaining acceptance, particularly among the core audience, is because the majority of the people wanted refinement, not reinvention. Had you given them that, there wouldn't be as much discontent right now.

There was really no need for such a huge departure from the previous editions, people still would have bought it because it's D&D. This brings me to the point that the true reason for making the game so different was to eliminate backwards compatability. If people can no longer use their old stuff, they're forced to buy new stuff, which is where we come back to selling the people what you have rather than giving them what they want. This strategy all falls down due to the fact that gamers are smarter than that and they have other options. Lots of them.

I play 4e, and I don't find the changes to be as much as you seem to claim. There are some big changes sure, but there were some pretty big changes between 2 and 3 as well. I don't see the need to imply alterior motives.

Or New Coke.

Man you and new coke. I'm begining to think you had a thing for new coke!

I like Batman. I like the new Nolan batman movies more then I liked the Burton ones (which I still liked) both of which I liked betetr ten the old Adam West batman stuff.

A new take doesn't always = new coke.

 

[JohnnyQuest]

I find 4E quite recognizable as D&D, and so does my entire gaming group.

Feel free to insult me now

 

[Mallus]

Interpret how you want but no, that's not what I was getting at.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Imaro]

But the point still remains that prior to D&D, wargaming had a completely different status quot. D&D evolved the standard for gaming the same as happens in other product categories. Music played live progressed to music you played on acetate at home, to music played on the radio,... to music that you take with you and download digitally.

But D&D isn't wargaming, if anything it could be considered an offshoot of wargamming which in turn is an offshoot of the larger category of gaming itself. So not necessarily any evolution, just new sub-branches created.

As an example using your music example... Where would live concerts vs. and MP3 file be? Is either an "evoluton" of music? Not really, though they are sub-branches of ways one can enjoy music and the MP3 file could even be considered an evolution of music storage devices... but it is not an evolution of music.

Can you imagine the state of D&D (and quite possibly the RPG hobby) if WOTC just allowed D&D to die on the vine like TSR did with 2e? How much would you be complaining if we broke the game and then just stopped making stuff for 2+ years. If we did that, sure there would be OGL stuff and other systems, but I gaurantee you the hobby would be way different.

Uhm, I may be the wrong person to ask this... as my gaming is in no way limited to D&D (in fact with 4e D&D has fallen pretty low on the gaming ladder with me)... but White Wolf did a mighty nice job stepping up to the plate when TSR dropped the ball with AD&D 2e, and I've been a fan ever since. I don't believe the hobby or even the industry dies or necessarily gets worst with the failure of D&D, in fact I hate this type of thinking as it promotes buying a product, not because it is good, but because you don't want your beloved hobby to collapse. Truth be told I would love for some of the people who play D&D exclusively to seek out and try new games, support them if they are more to their likng and realize diversification is a good thing in our hobby. Sometimes I feel the position and detrimental effects of D&D failing are highly exaggerated, especially since...

1. The FLGS is dying...more and more people are ordering online, so the large sales of D&D become less and less of a necesity in keeping these shops open for convenience... I mean were halfway there already.

2. I don't necessarily feel the direction D&D is heading in (incorporating more and more aspects of boardgaming, wargaming, collectible games, etc.) is where I want my roleplaying to go. Especially when a company seems determined to make it a headache to ignore these aspects.

 

[Mallus]

I play 4e, and I don't find the changes to be as much as you seem to claim. There are some big changes sure, but there were some pretty big changes between 2 and 3 as well.

Same here. Whenever I read about the huge departure from 'traditional' D&D that 4e is supposed to represent I can't figure out what that's supposed to mean.

If D&D is defined --roughly-- by the fantasy action stories that make up play, then all editions of D&D form one big unbroken continuum. If D&D is defined by a particular rule set, then 2e and 3e aren't the same game.