The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Fallen Seraph]

Lots of stuff has already been said, and I personally think for the majority of people who don't like 4e the reason comes down to something fairly simple; "it isn't their edition."

There are people in the hobby everywhere where a different edition is their favourite. As such for the main source of debate in this, there are people who prefer 3.5. Simple as that.

Though... I have to admit, (though this could be skewered by my appreciation of the changes of 4e, so take what about to say with a grain of salt) I find it somewhat odd when people say when the talk of, "how would you do it?" or "what would you want in a new edition?" They state, "*preferred edition* with some minor changes."

I dunno maybe it is just me but this doesn't feel like a valid reason for a new edition. I feel a new edition should be a different system, it keeps some base mechanics, themes, etc. But should be something new and different so that those that didn't find what they wanted in a old edition may find it in a new.

 

[joethelawyer]

My take on it is a little bit different. Workplace change is forced on someone usually. What we are dealing with here is nothing forced on us. Many of us were eager for the change. It got our juices flowing.

I think what you are seeing here is not resistance to change, but anger. Anger, because for many of us, for the first time in 20+ yrs of playing D&D, we are being left behind. We associated ourselves with an image. A Brand, you could say. A part of our identity was that we were playing D&D, the latest edition. We may be old timers, we may have cut our teeth on the game in 1984, but we also play the latest & greatest game they put out too. We may houserule it, but we are still part of a growing community of gamers. We buy the newest stuff, or at least check it out and steal from it for our games. When people publish a module, or a new spaltbook, it's for us, damnit! We are part of the next great thing. We are evolving and changing with the game. We are riding the wave of newness, freshness, the latest and greatest. And we loved that. It was part of who we were.

Part of our identity.

With 4e, many of us just felt we couldn't make the switch. It was too far from the game we played and loved.

The result of that, was we were no longer the cutting edge. I know I personally feel regret that I won't be able to go into Borders and sit down and read the latest D&D books. That's something I have been doing since 1984. It's basically like someone teling me that the car/computer/IPod that I have now will be the one I will have forever. There is no sense checking out new cars/computers/IPods, because I won't like it.

It's sad, sort of depressing. It makes me feel old and left behind. Out of touch. And that excitement that I have had in looking forward to the new thing from D&D, that I have felt since 1984, I will never have again.

From that comes anger. Anger at the people/company who took away a part of what I liked about my life, a part of myself. Something I identified with. Something that made me who I was. Anger is a natural reaction, along with the sadness. Eventually acceptance will come, or has come for many of us, and we will find something else to identify with.

I think that's why so many people have such high hopes for Pathfinder, and are calling it the real D&D 4e. That way they really didn't lose anything, they just re-associate that aspect of their identity with something else. Same with the people who are going with C&C, or other systems. It's no coincidence that people are picking up their heads out of the 3.x books, and looking at new and growing systems. They want to be a part of something they can identify with in the same way they used to identify with D&D. They want to be able to buy the new car/computer/IPod damnit! They want to be a part of something successful, new, that grows and evolves along with themselves and their gaming hobby. Just like they used to have.

It stands to reason that for the same identity issues, some, not al, but some people went to 4e because they didn't want to lose that part of their identity. I think most by far went because they loved the system, and it worked for them. But some went because of fear of losing part of themselves.

Edition wars arise because people basically don't want to be analyzed as to their psychological motivations, or reasons for doing something. Most think they are completely rational creatures. If you threaten their sense of self, or identity, they get angry. Their defending of their game system or true motivations is essentially stemming from their identification with the game they play. The more they identify with something, the more hostile they get when you try to take that source of identification away from them. Loss of the argument triggers fear of losing part of themselves. Back someone into a corner and th reaten to take something valuable from them, and watch how they react.


Just my 2 cents...

 

[darjr]

I was going to post that, while a good point, this thread will be taken in completely the wrong way. I don't think I need to point that out anymore. Wound tracks? Really? ugh.

I agree, there are completely valid reasons to not want to switch to 4e, even if I don't ascribe to them. I'll even grant that it's entirely reasonable to find the game horrible, however much I don't agree.

What I do find very interesting are examples of the very thing the OP is trying to point out in the response to his post. It's almost Pavlovian.

I see it in my own words and actions.

 

[Umbran]

This hits the nail on the head. What this thread actually says is that our "rational" arguments for or against a new edition are just rationalizations of the emotional reaction to change.

Probably not quite that simple. Take a half step back...

Our rational arguments for or against may, in part, be rationalizations of the reaction to change. But do note that some of the rational argument is also a rational argument - that you have a reaction doesn't mean your brain stops working. Saying, "You're just having an emotional response" is simplistic, downright condescending, and possibly incorrect in many cases.

When you are having a discussion, do keep in mind how people respond to change, and how people have treated each other around here for the past year or so. And also keep in mind that their points probably have some merit independent of all that.

 

[Jasperak]

This hits the nail on the head. What this thread actually says is that our "rational" arguments for or against a new edition are just rationalizations of the emotional reaction to change.

That's right because no one can rationally decide what game system fits their style. Logic has no place in making choices.

I think the emotional responses come in response to condescending attitudes both for and against change.

 

[billd91]

I dunno maybe it is just me but this doesn't feel like a valid reason for a new edition. I feel a new edition should be a different system, it keeps some base mechanics, themes, etc. But should be something new and different so that those that didn't find what they wanted in a old edition may find it in a new.

See, for me, a new edition of something implies significant continuity with its predecessors. Too little continuity and you've got something new, not a new edition.

While there may be some debate on the topic, I feel that, like 1e AD&D was to D&D, 4e is a new game and not the 4th revision of the game that started with 1e AD&D, despite its claim.

 

[Korgoth]

That's right because no one can rationally decide what game system fits their style. Logic has no place in making choices.

I think the emotional responses come in response to condescending attitudes both for and against change.

Right... there are no thoughts, only feelings. I feel that being hit by a speeding train will injure you, and I feel that 2+2 equals 4. I think.

On the other hand, when you're telling employees how Human Resources has just borked over their career/livelihood/future, it probably helps to couch it in terms of "feelings" and "acceptance". See Catbert for instance.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There is a resistance to change.

There is also resistance to things that don't work as well (or even that just don't work BETTER).

If the change doesn't gain you something, and, in fact, looses you something, and is not forced on you...why do it? Why change something that is good for you into something that is bad for you, if you don't have to?

Usually, in psychology, you can't avoid change.

In the Edition Wars, you can...if the change doesn't benefit you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

An interesting thread...a nice description of the psychological phenomenon of resistance to change.

Doesn't apply to me, though, not in this particular case. I was actually open minded about the update and had pre-ordered my Core 3 before I saw word one of the changes that were to come.

In 30+ years of gaming in over 100 systems, I've only had a problem with 2 system revisions- HERO's flirtation with FUZION, and the changeover from 3.5Ed to 4Ed.

I could look at FUZION and 4Ed and find merits in some of the design decisions that were made. However, the bulk of the decisions were ones I didn't care for.

Like some before me posted:

See, for me, a new edition of something implies significant continuity with its predecessors. Too little continuity and you've got something new, not a new edition.

In each case, the new edition was so different- ignoring issues of whether it was better or worse- as to be unpalatable as a replacement for the old edition. It was no longer a revision, it was a change so complete that the games shared an identity literally in name only.

IOW, what Marketing types call the "New Coke" problem.

 

[Psion]

4e is a totally optional upgrade/downgrade/crossgrade (depending how one might view it) to a particular leisure activity. That is all.

Indeed.

The OP seems to implicitly posit that 4e is the change that must be adapted to; I think this betrays the OP's preference. When, in point of fact, the OP's job and experience is people adapting to changes they can't change.

People who AREN'T upgrading ARE adapting to change. Nothing makes "accepting 4e" any more valid than learning to live without wizards supoort, changing to a different game/publisher, etc.

The OP's job probably concerns itself with helping people adapt to resistance to change because that change is unhealthy for the worker and employer. But when it comes to blindly following a change in one's mode of entertainment, its spending even more after playing the game for years and amassing a collection that is largely unexploited. To me, always spending more resources to chase the new shiney when your existing gaming material is working and largely underutilized is the unhealthy/irrational behavior.

EDIT: A later post by Truename makes me think I may have judged him a little harshly. Nonetheless, I think this is an important point.