The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[tomBitonti]

I am having two responses to the thesis as originally presented.

Before presenting these responses, I should ask, what do we mean by "resistance to change"? I am seeing a number of behaviors that we might see, in the case of adopting the new edition:

1 Want to try it, tried it, didn't like it.
2 Want to try it, tried it, did like it.
3 Want to try it, didn't try it, don't think they'll like it.
4 Want to try it, didn't try it, do think they'll like it.
5 Didn't want to try it, tried it, didn't like it.
6 Didn't want to try it, tried it, did like it.
7 Don't want to try it, didn't try it, don't think they'll like it.
8 Don't want to try it, didn't try it, do think they'll like it.

Of these, the odd responses fit "resistance to change" (but not all to the same degree). I note that there is a counter issue that falls out of the cases: One who adopts 4E even though it turns out to be, hypothetically, a poorer game.

In response to the initial thesis:

First, resistance to change (in a bell-curve) is probably a functional behavior in many, but not all, circumstances. Following, the example that was provided (counseling people to change their work habits), probably preselects cases where the behavior is not functional. That is to say, I'm not seeing evidence that resistance to change is not correct behavior, and if there is a tendency to resistance, I think that one can argue that this is probably correct in most cases.

I will posit, however, that the EnWorld community was tending to the early adopters side of the bell, and was eager to see the shiny new stuff (4E). Therefore, the resistance to 4E is curious.

Second, an actor who is presenting a change (in this case, WotC presenting 4E) has a careful burden of navigating change responses. That is, presentations must be true, forthright, and non-impositional. I presume that most folks have a fairly reactive and negative response to untrue, couched, or impositional statements. (A response that I find to be entirely rational .) Any of these features will quickly push the response from the early-adopter side towards the no-way side of the curve.

Then, a response which is to resist change (that is, to resist 4E) can be argued to be a correct behavior, and not a non-functional response by the community. Rather, the behavior is a result of features of 4E and its presentation.

 

[RFisher]

This is completely independent of how much better or worse the "new thing" is.

So, when people try to argue with me about a change, I don't argue about which way is better. Instead, I say: "It's worked for a bunch of people, and it might work for you, too. Give it a real try for two months and then decide. We'll set a concrete date for your group to make that decision, and it will be your decision to make, not mine."

Funny. I’ve found myself making the same argument for the old way. If you give the “old school” another try and you really make an effort to understand why the grognards still enjoy the old game, you might just find that you really like it. ^_^

There’s two keys here. (1) The person advocating the “new” needs to recognize that the “new” may actually not be better. Especially for a specific person in a specific situation. (2) The person evaluating the “new” way has to really give it a fair chance. They probably should also make an effort to find that “transforming idea”.


Anyway, IMHO, there is no problem with edition wars. My enjoyment of the hobby has been improved by reading and participating in “edition wars”. There’s stuff to learn there if you don’t take it too seriously. Despite any natural resistance or enthusiastic evangelism, the discussion won’t be completely irrational. Indeed, it is in the expression and collision of natural resistance and enthusiastic evangelism that those “transforming ideas” can often be found.

Whether it’s that the resister comes to understands the benefits of the “new” or that the evangelist realizes that what works for them actually doesn’t work for the resister. Or both.

 

[The Shaman]

I purchased 3.0 in 2001, played it for a couple of years, purchased 3.5 and played it a little bit. The more I played 3.x, the less I liked it.

I played other d20 games like Modern and Mutants and Masterminds, and I'd play either one again, so it's not d20 games generally.

Ultimately I just didn't like 3.x.

If I were to play D&D again, it would be either OD&D or 1e AD&D. That's not resistance to change, or worse, "nostalgia" - that's a conscious choice based on experience with different systems.

As far as 4e goes, I've honestly paid very little attention to it because I really don't enjoy fantasy rpgs that much anyway. I can scratch that itch if I'm so inclined with an older D&D game or The Fantasy Trip without dropping ducats on a whole new system. I suppose I'm resisting change to 4e because I'm too emotionally invested in the money in my wallet . . .

 

[Darrin Drader]

However, the OPs post suggests that a 'fair shake' for a new system would be something like 3 weeks constant immersion to overcome your (general you) resistance to change. I'm not sure but I would think that 3 weeks full immersion (120 h) corresponds to maybe 6-12 months of gaming.

Now I am not sure that my need to evaluate a system fairly is big enough to suffer through playing it for that long, if I expect I might not like it. However maybe we can acknowledge that investing substantially less time will not allow overcoming biases.

But my bias was to like it. I was looking forward to a reinvigoration of the hobby, and I was hoping they would fix some of the problem areas of 3.5. I gave it the benefit of the doubt, I even canceled my Amazon order when they couldn't deliver it on time and bought it from the local game store. That means I paid over $100 where most people paid around $60. I was excited to get the books.

And then I played it a few times. Game over man.... Game over!

 

[rounser]

"Your opinion is irrational. I predict you'll get defensive about that statement - that's a classic, entirely predictable response to being called irrational, which will just prove how irrational you are."

"But I'm not being irrational!"

"Oh look, you're being defensive, which is, as I said, a classic pattern of irrationality. And look, I predicted it all along. So you're irrational."

An earlier poster was right - this has all the hallmarks of sleazy catbert change management HR pop psychology bollocks. It's sad that people actually pull a paycheck for this, but I guess they're paid by the "change agents". History is written by the victors, and he who has the gold makes the rules.

Why isn't the light shone on the all-too-human foibles, motivations and predictability of the change agents? Because they're the ones with the whip hand - no more nor less.

 

[Truename]

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.

Not exactly. People hire me to introduce high performance software development techniques and strategies to their teams. I require that the change be at the teams' discretion. I don't know about other fields, but believe me, can't nobody make programmers do what they don't wanna do. Not if you want high performance, anyway.

My initial post didn't betray my preference as it betrayed my work biases; in my day job, the techniques I introduce are genuinely better for many (not all) teams. And I mean "better" in that they make the software better and they make team members' lives better (less overtime, more ownership, higher quality results, authority over schedules...). Yet I face this resistance to change from people on every team. It's human nature. Once they've tried it and adapted, they come to like it, even love it, but there's almost always some initial resistance.

So I'm used to situations where the "new thing" really is better than the "old thing" but the majority of people resist anyway. I'm not trying to make that value judgment here. Sorry if it came across that way. I tried to more neutral in my followups.

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.

Not at all, and I'm not in HR, although I can see why some people would think that. Change is hard, but once my teams get through it, they're generally happier (and still in the same job).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Just to make sure I understand ... is the OP saying that the pattern of resistance to change is independent of the comparative quality of X and Y? That is, in changing from X to Y, and assuming that X can be objectively measured for quality against Y, would the same pattern of resistance apply if X is better than Y and if Y is better than X?

If yes, how in the world would people come around to the "transformative idea" that lets them accept the change to Y, if X is objectively better than Y? And, maybe more importantly, why would they?

If no, doesn't the entire model depend upon Y being objectively better than X (as it is in the OP's profession)? And in this context, then, isn't the OP saying -- indirectly, by positing the model as an explanation for edition wars -- that 4E is objectively better than 3E?

I dunno, seems like a pretty shaky model for explaining edition wars, to me.

(Just for the record, my first anti-4E moment was finding out about deliberately non-Euclidean movement and areas of effect, and I can't really think of anything much more rational than that.)

 

[Plane Sailing]

What you're talking about here is the classic "diffusion of innovations" curve. Geoffrey Moore used this curve to divide people up into five categories:

• Innovators, who want to be on the bleeding edge at all costs
• Early adopters, who like to try new things
• (the chasm--a big gap between what the first two categories want and what everyone else wants)
• Early majority, who wait to see other people have success it
• Late majority, who wait to see most people succeeding with it
• Laggards, who think new-fangled gadgets (like television) are just a passing fad

These five categories form a bell curve, with most people being "early majority" or "late majority." It's a way of understanding the market for new products, and how to sell them to different people.

Yep, that's the one. Over the decades since I first learned it my recall of the details had grown hazy, but I'm glad I still remembered the principles.

Cheers

 

[Silver Moon]

I suspect that there was just as much reaction to the 2e->3e change (and the 1e->2e change), but there are now more people online and in this forum, so you see more of the reaction than before.

I was active in the Convention circuit as an RPGA coordinator at the time of the 2e to 3e change and can verifiy that there was a very vocal negative reaction to it. At one Con a 'company man' even came out to help people convert their beloved 'Living City' characters from 2nd to 3rd and I was surprised that he was able to leave the room alive.

One legitimate argument to resisting edition changes is economic - once you've invested large amonts of money into materials for one system want to keep using it to get your money's worth, especially if there is a lot of it that you haven't even used yet.

 

[arscott]

(Just for the record, my first anti-4E moment was finding out about deliberately non-Euclidean movement and areas of effect, and I can't really think of anything much more rational than that.)

What nonsense is this--Unless you're only moving along a cardinal, Euclidean distance is all about square roots--can't get much more irrational than that.

Now chessboard geometry, that's rational. Nice whole numbers, whatever direction you go.