The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Mark]

Change is only good if it's an improvement.

That seems to be the crux of most of what I have read and heard from those who had to decide if they were going to buy, play and continue to play 4E. That is, whether or not they felt what was created as 4E was an improvement over what they were playing previously. The vast majority of what I have read and heard has been based on informed consideration of what was presented prior to release and what was actually being sold as of the release and what was suggested is still in the pipeline. I'll post some more complete thoughts on what I have read and heard later this week. I do not feel comfortable with the premise suggested by the OP in this thread, insofar as it seems to rely on the idea that no matter what anyone actually says, 4E is a natural progression for the game and I have found a good deal of reluctance by many to believe that is the actual case, most agreeing that the game has so substantially change that it is a new game rather than a new edition. I will also add my thoughts on that aspect later this week, as well.

 

[The Shaman]

But if your turtle business plan revolves around convincing cat lovers that your turtle is a cat, you screwed the pooch.

Holy mixed metaphor!

Playing an RPG requires other players. As 3e falls out of print, fewer and fewer players will being seeking out 3e games. Fewer and fewer will have copies of the 3e books lying around. And it will become harder and harder to find people to play with.

Very true.

I returned to my old school roots and discovered that it can be very difficult to find players, to the point that I enjoyed only a single afternoon of tabletop gaming in all of 2008.

The amount of effort it takes to get a game going increases considerably, particularly when you factor in that most of us don't have the kind of time to devote to gaming that we did in our halcyon days of youth.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You sell them 4e, which presumably was the plan all along.

If you want to sell cats, sell cats; and if you want to sell turtles, sell turtles. But if your turtle business plan revolves around convincing cat lovers that your turtle is a cat, you screwed the pooch.

Turtles, Cats.

Food metaphors are the only true metaphor. All others are poor imitations of the real thing.

The problem with the analogy is that it just doesn't fit. Most of the peoples on this board played 3E. Some gladly switch to 4E, some don't see why they should. If it was as simple and obvious as the difference between as a cat and a turtle, this would never have happened. How many cat owners certainly learn that they prefer turtles? Or that their pet shop is now selling them turtles instead of cats?

There was something in 3E that appealed to all of us. But there were also elements people didn't like as much. But the disliked elements are not the same for everyone. A group of people sees the elements they didn't like removed in 4E. Others see the things they liked removed or the things they disliked still remaining.

 

[Rolflyn]

First of all, I don't really accept the original posters notion, but for a second let's assume it is true. If fear/resistance to change is the motivation for the anti-4e crowd in edition wars, what is the motivation of the pro-4e crowd in those same wars?

I've seem both sides start battles, it isn't just anti-4e folks crapping in pro-4e threads. I learned to use the ignore feature just to survive some of the pro-4e crappers who continually assaulted pro-3.x threads. What was there motivation?

 

[Truename]

First of all, I don't really accept the original posters notion, but for a second let's assume it is true. If fear/resistance to change is the motivation for the anti-4e crowd in edition wars, what is the motivation of the pro-4e crowd in those same wars?

I've seem both sides start battles, it isn't just anti-4e folks crapping in pro-4e threads. I learned to use the ignore feature just to survive some of the pro-4e crappers who continually assaulted pro-3.x threads. What was there motivation?

In the OP, I said:

After discovering the transforming idea, people can get very excited and evangelical. They can also overreact, expect too much, and become disappointed. Either way, they clash with people who are still resisting, and flame wars are born.

I'm not sure that this is the reason here, but I certainly see it in my day job. Some people are upset about new development techniques and flame them as stupid (without giving them a fair trial, or in many cases, without really understanding them); others get excited about them and become rabid, pushy, and unwilling to tolerate criticism. The tone of the edition wars here is similar. (Not to say that everyone who participates is mindlessly flaming, or rabid and pushy.)

Note that I'm not trying to say one side or other is "right" or "wrong." (To quote WOPR, the only way to win... is not to play.)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

(To quote WOPR, the only way to win... is not to play.)

Tsk.

"The only winning move is ... not to play."

 

[Truename]

Tsk.

"The only winning move is ... not to play."

D'oh! Knew I should have looked that up.

 

[Melan]

I'm sorry. I was attempting to match color to color when addressing separate points while keeping the original quote more or less in-tact and complete in flow. Apparently the idea failed large.

To use the tried and true analogy, your method was the New Coke of Internet posting.

As for the main topic, it is an argument that has to assume either the inevitability of changes, or the objective infallibility of designers. The first is a misunderstanding of how hobbies differ from corporate jobs; the second is a paternalist assumption. Colour me unimpressed.

 

[Herschel]

No, you over simplified my statement to better counter it. I didn't say numbers don't matter, but in the end resources and money are allocated by priority, that my friend is "business". I never said 3.5 was shut down as far as production...but really, Who here is going to argue Elder Evils was something everybody was pinning for... I would argue this was more niche than even my suggestion, yet it was driven by an imperative to have people wrap up and end their 3.5 campaigns. Same with the Rules Compendium (great a resource as it was) as far as the design principle of ending 3.5... Oh and we also finally got a Greyhawk adventure, even though WotC neglected the setting throughout the run of 3.5 because it supposedly wouldn't sell.

BS. You said they were not putting effort and resources in to 3E, which you just countered right here by saying they were, just putting out product to have people "wrap up" their 3.5 campaigns. Which is it? Maybe there's a good reason you don't understand the debate.

Uhm...huh? What are you talking about here. 3e or 4e...I don't get what you are arguing here or even what you're thought is at all with this paragraph.

Again

Uhm...the 4e PHB had magic items in it not the 3e one... and numerous 4e books (Manual of the PLanes, Draconomicon, Martial Power) have paragon paths in them, not to mention rituals are scattered all over the place as well... Less books maybe, but even that will fade with time...but I don't know about it being more concise. you know what I can't discuss what I don't understand and somewhere in this post your point has been totally lost on me.

Martial Powers darned well SHOULD have Paragon Paths in it as it's closer to a "core" book and centers around a general type of character. I'll grant you Manual of the Planes and Draconomicon are still a harken back to 3.5 with Paragon Paths although I am curious as to which Paragon Paths are in them. If there are only a couple and are directly related to said book (say, Dragonslayer, HaAnd of Tiamat, or the like in Draconomicon) I can see it being more appropriate than a lot of the 3.5 inclusions, but I'm guessing they threw some other stuff in too. More streamlined, but still not great and yet using a style still that would be familiar to 3.5 fans.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

To use the tried and true analogy, your method was the New Coke of Internet posting.

As for the main topic, it is an argument that has to assume either the inevitability of changes, or the objective infallibility of designers. The first is a misunderstanding of how hobbies differ from corporate jobs; the second is a paternalist assumption.

Melan
Is this about right as a color?

There are differences, sure, but note that Truename did notice that the behavior was similar to behavior when new methods and procedures are introduced in a corporate world. This might indicate that we can make predictions on the behavior using the same model as for changes in the corporate world and see if it works. And if we see them, we might want to find reasons why we behave similar despite it being different scenarios.

For one, why could people see the change as similar pressing as the change of a job? Because we don't want to feel left behind? If we fail to adopt to job environment changes, we risk getting fired. If we don't jump on the latest edition bandwagon, maybe we also get "fired" from our games, because it gets harder to find support and players. Sure, you have a group now, but do you still have one in a year? After your move? If the DM has to retire because he needs to care for his newborn?


What is the biggest difference, really? Maybe that you feel that change is not mandatory? But is it? If it's true that if 4E is widely adopted you will find less players and might have to get less opportunity to play, then the change becomes mandatory if you want to keep playing. So you need to find a way to convince others that the "old way" is still better the the new thing. You are in a situation like that at your work place. It doesn't really matter for the behavior pattern whether the old way is better or not - you still use the same methods, like figuring out what is better about the old way and what's bad with the new way.

If you are the guy that decided to adopt the new change, you are in a similar situation - you don't want to go back, but if everyone else does, you have to or stop playing/working - or keep using the "inferior" way. So you do what the early adopters do, too - preach the new way. Aggressively. Possibly even ignoring any valid criticism to the "new way", because it hurts your position (and of course the positive aspects seem to outweigh the negative ones - for you.)*

An edition change is not really as optional as some people describe it. There is a fear - and maybe even a justified one - that if the majority makes a choice different from you, that you are left out and either have to stop playing, or play something you don't like (at least not as much as your choice.)

Sure, losing your job because you didn't adapt to changes is worse then losing one of your hobbies (I assume.) But we are not discussing our job situations on EN World (most of the time), we are discussing our hobby.


*) This is one of the worst things coming from the edition wars. It is a lot harder to discuss what you worry about if you are "pro-4E", and it is a lot harder to discuss what you like about it if you are "anti-4E" - either choice can be construed as an argument against your position. "But you said you liked that? How come you don't switch!" "Haha, even 4E fans don't like their game!".