The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Scott_Rouse]

To be fair, these kind of attacks come from both sides of the fence (or train).

.

QFT.

For the record I don't like either side of the war. Debate is fine but people need to be civil

 

[Herschel]

I think the point was that even if you ask the customers, you end up with products that don't satisfy everyone, and you get edition wars. That's not something "going wrong". That's the nature of the beast - you cannot please everyone all the time.

I'll even take this one step further, using myself as the example. There are many things I REALLY dislike about 4E. There was more I disliked about 3E. I ran/run a 1E/2E Hybrid with house rules because there were things I didn't like in those editions. I have played all three, run 1,2 & 4. I disliked 3E most of all and never bought products outside of miniatures and the original 3.0 PH and I was big on the skirmish side. But I did borrow from it the parts I did. That said, I play/run 4E mostly now and am enjoying it, even with its "warts".

I don't like the "bad" parts any better now really, but there are enough things I do like that make it easier to overlook the parts I don't.

Oh, and JQ is a lilly-livered weasel-licker.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think this solution is only viable to a certain point.

The problem is that, even if I am willing to invest in a new rpg... what is the point where buy in becomes too much?

That's something everyone has to figure out for himself - in the end. But it might be a good thing for you and the guy selling you his new-fangled product to ensure you know all the potentials of what you will gain.

I mean if I have to buy the first 3 corebooks (about $112) plus the second DMG...so another $34...but what if you in fact need rules from the 3rd DMG aqnd rules from the 2nd PHB just to get the core for your playstyle? Basically I think with the multitude of 3.5 sourcebooks and a generally lower buy in costs of most games (Do yo know Anima: Beyond Fantasy has rules for Magic, Martial Arts Techniques, Psychic Powers, Summoning, Skills, etc. all in one $60 full color book?) when do yo jump off the train and admit you would be better served by not going with 4e... even though up until now you have had a certain amount of brand loyalty to D&D?

If you mean literal buy-in - how much do I need to spend on this gaming product, I can barely help you. I have enough money each month to buy the gaming products I want (which might be more then I need, too). The question for me is if I get the utility I expected. If we still played 3E D&D in my group and there will still new products coming out, I would probably still buy them. Which to me indicates that I might never really feel that I have "enough", so it doesn't mean much to me that a new edition means I start at "zero".
If I really believed there was a point where I couldn't be interested in getting more, and, worse, that I couldn't afford more, then this might change my decisions. But I suppose that would have meant more home-brewing for me (and/or relying on other members of my group to provide the rulebooks.)

 

[Imaro]

Scott,

Just a question, I am a fan of SWSE, and in fact feel it is more along the lines of what I was both expecting and desired in a D&D 4e. In fact I was quite excited in hearing that SWSE was a "preview" for D&D 4e and it actually got me to purchase the 3 core and an extra PHB, sight unseen (though I will admit I haven't purchased any supplements or signed up for DDI)... yet I feel in the end you all went in some pretty divergent, if not downright opposite directions with the final product of 4e. Was there a reason for this, was the concept originally closer to SWSE than it turned out? Just curious.

 

[Imaro]

That's something everyone has to figure out for himself - in the end. But it might be a good thing for you and the guy selling you his new-fangled product to ensure you know all the potentials of what you will gain.



If you mean literal buy-in - how much do I need to spend on this gaming product, I can barely help you. I have enough money each month to buy the gaming products I want (which might be more then I need, too). The question for me is if I get the utility I expected. If we still played 3E D&D in my group and there will still new products coming out, I would probably still buy them. Which to me indicates that I might never really feel that I have "enough", so it doesn't mean much to me that a new edition means I start at "zero".
If I really believed there was a point where I couldn't be interested in getting more, and, worse, that I couldn't afford more, then this might change my decisions. But I suppose that would have meant more home-brewing for me (and/or relying on other members of my group to provide the rulebooks.)

Well for me it's not a question of whether I can afford it, but if your initial product doesn't grab me... I will tend to look for and fully support ones that do, and regardless of how much free income I have, I have limited actual play time. Honestly, it's hard for me to want to buy more, or even stay interested enough to see what's coming out if a product doesn't grab me initially (I haven't been to the WotC site in forever)... which leads me to another thought

It's also not just a question of cost either though... You realize if the rules I wanted weren't coming out till DMG 3, I have to wait 2 to 3 years in order to get them... that can also be a factor with the addressing of issues in future products.

 

[cwhs01]

For the record I don't like either side of the war. Debate is fine but people need to be civil

I was thinking about a clever and witty response, but couldn't really come up with any. I'll go with qft and add that i am amazed that you insist on being reasonable and friendly despite all. cudos.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Whether you believe you are selling cats or turtles is only partly relevant.

but I get the feeling that you don't like it.

Only sort of true. My issue with the change here is in the name and former brand associations I am losing. I play dozens of games both RPGs and Board Games. I have tried lots of RPGs and enjoy some more than others. For fantasy role playing I have found I really like 3.x (leaning more 3E over 3.5). Now does this mean that I think 4e sucks, not really. I think 4E is an interesting system and has its uses. I think it was well designed and balanced. Will I avoid playing 4E, no I think it is excellent for tactical wargaming. But for fantasy RPGing I will stick with 3.x. I get involved here because I have brand associations and group identity with which I find myself on the 3.x side of the edition war. I am mostly upset by the takeover of the brand of the D&D name by 4E when I think it would have had better critical reception if it had been called Heroes and Horrors (a name I am making up and apologies if it has already been taken).

 

[Darrin Drader]

You may think it is tired, and I understand the need for you to try and squash it, but it is still relevant. New Coke died in part because a significant portion of the market rebelled and thought it was a turtle and not a cat. It was a statistically small portion of the taste testers that rejected it, but they were able convince enough of the market to believe them and to complain loudly enough that New Coke died.

Just like there can be resistance to change by consumers to a new product, there can also be a resistance to change from the provider of a new product that what they believed that they knew what the market wanted may not have been as accurate as what they believed.

There's something else to consider with New Coke. The brand New Coke stuck around for many years afterwards and was marketed alongside Coke Classic. What New Coke represents isn't the failure of a change to grab hold of the market. It's a case where the manufacturer listened to the people who were dissatisfied and then put out a product that made them happy.

Granted, Coke Classic was still not the same as original Coke because they changed the sweetener, but it was close enough to satisfy people. The reason New Coke gets mentioned as much as it does is because that's exactly the solution that a lot of us want. Frankly, if WotC wanted to release edition 3.75, and do it it under the OGL, and run it alongside 4E, I think that would take care of the problem. And it isn't like this approach has never been done before; Basic D&D and Advanced D&D coexisted for a long time.

This solution wouldn't be about ending an edition war. It would be about getting the people who got off the train to get back on and I think it would restore a lot of good will towards WotC.

Only sort of true. My issue with the change here is in the name and former brand associations I am losing. I play dozens of games both RPGs and Board Games. I have tried lots of RPGs and enjoy some more than others. For fantasy role playing I have found I really like 3.x (leaning more 3E over 3.5). Now does this mean that I think 4e sucks, not really. I think 4E is an interesting system and has its uses. I think it was well designed and balanced. Will I avoid playing 4E, no I think it is excellent for tactical wargaming. But for fantasy RPGing I will stick with 3.x. I get involved here because I have brand associations and group identity with which I find myself on the 3.x side of the edition war. I am mostly upset by the takeover of the brand of the D&D name by 4E when I think it would have had better critical reception if it had been called Heroes and Horrors (a name I am making up and apologies if it has already been taken).

Emphasis mine. This sums it all up better than I've seen before.

 

[DaveyJones]

I made this half-monkey half-pony monster to please you



but I get the feeling that you don't like it.



What's with all the screaming?



You like monkeys, you like ponies
Maybe you don't like monsters so much
Maybe I used too many monkeys

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?

if the half-monkey half-pony monster of a ruined pony that i loved was marketed for OD&D i would buy it.

 

[Krensky]

Granted, Coke Classic was still not the same as original Coke because they changed the sweetener, but it was close enough to satisfy people. The reason New Coke gets mentioned as much as it does is because that's exactly the solution that a lot of us want. Frankly, if WotC wanted to release edition 3.75, and do it it under the OGL, and run it alongside 4E, I think that would take care of the problem. And it isn't like this approach has never been done before; Basic D&D and Advanced D&D coexisted for a long time.

That's a myth. Coca-Cola had been replacing cane sugar with corn syrup in Coca-Cola for years, starting with a 50-50 mix five years before New Coke, and having completely replaced all cane sugar with corn syrup in all Coke in the country by six months before the release of New Coke.

There actually be some interesting take away between the New coke D&D 4 analogy though. New Coke was developed to compete with Pepsi, and Coca-Cola did it be taking the formula for Diet Coke and swapping the artificial sweeteners for corn sugar, and was very popular in taste tests. But since the whole plan was secret, they never asked how people would feel about it replacing the Coke they had, which had become a cultural icon. The problem wasn't that New Coke tasted bad, it was that it was replacing something that people cherished as part of their identity.

There's no direct analogy, but there are some points of similarity. D&D is certainly a core element of the current gamer identity, especially after WotC saved it when they released 3e. 4e changes that, and it also replaces 3e. 4e is very different from 3e in order to meet the perceived demands of the market (which may also be the actual demands), but those differences make people who hold D&D as part of that identity upset, just as lots of people rejected New Coke without consideration. 4e is also very different then people expected (I also was expecting something more like SWSE), which diesn't help either.

It's coincidence but there are some interesting, although probably meaningless in the end analysis, parallels.