The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Psion]

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).

Sorry, I mis-typed. I meant "when resisting the change is unhealthy...". I.E. Substantially the same as what you have said here:

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...).

So, unlike the situation of adapting to new tools, software engineering best practices (yeah, I'm a software engineer), etc., accepting the change to 4e is not implicitly in my best interest.

As a related back-analogy, I find that about the worst thing you can do in the software world is to accept a change just because a vendor promises it is better. One vendor assures me using java for embedded development is the way to go. Elsewhere, one vendor assures me that open source based software has inherent benefits (and thus I should be buying their product) and another tells me that there is no way I should risk that (and thus I should be buying their product).

 

[Truename]

At the risk of beating a dead horse...

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?

Almost. The pattern of reaction to "the introduction of a foreign element" (change) is consistent regardless of whether Y is better or worse. The whole cycle is about more than just resistance.

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?

The transforming idea is about how to integrate the "foreign element" (in this case, Wizards releasing 4e) into your life. Sometimes that means adopting it enthusiastically, but not necessarily.

Here's an example. It's a caricature, but it's the best I can do in 7 lines.

1. Late Status Quo: 3.5e
2. (introduction of foreign element: 4e released)
3. Resistance: "I read about 4e and didn't like it."
4. Chaos: "All the board conversations are about 4e. Will I be forced to use it? I hates it, my precious, hates it!"
5. (transforming idea): "Hey, I still have all my 3.5e books, and there's a lot of people who don't like 4e."
6. Integration: "I'm going to find some 3.5e players for my group, move to a 3.5e forum, and snag some cheap books off eBay."
7. New Status Quo: "I've got a healthy group, more books than I can use, and Paizo's putting out some awesome stuff."

And for the other side of the fence, also a caricature:

1. Late Status Quo: 4e excitement
2. (introduction of foreign element: people flaming 4e)
3. Resistance: "These people obviously don't understand 4e. They just need to try it!"
4. Chaos: "Why do people keep flaming 4e? Can't they see that all their arguments are straw-men? 4e is great! Isn't it? Isn't it? Why won't they just try it? Oh crap, this person tried it for 6 months and still hates it. What if it really does suck?"
5. (transforming idea): "Hmm... this rule kind of bothers me. Maybe 4e isn't perfect."
6. Integration: "The flames are getting boring, but there's definitely some problems with 4e. Let's talk about house rules and encounter design."
7. New Status Quo: "4e isn't as awesome as I thought it was, but with some house rules and a good DM, I'm having even more fun than before."

(Again, there's more details on the Satir change model here: Steven M Smith - The Satir Change Model)

 

[resistor]

The transforming idea is about how to integrate the "foreign element" (in this case, Wizards releasing 4e) into your life. Sometimes that means adopting it enthusiastically, but not necessarily.

Here's an example. It's a caricature, but it's the best I can do in 7 lines.

1. Late Status Quo: 3.5e
2. (introduction of foreign element: 4e released)
3. Resistance: "I read about 4e and didn't like it."
4. Chaos: "All the board conversations are about 4e. Will I be forced to use it? I hates it, my precious, hates it!"
5. (transforming idea): "Hey, I still have all my 3.5e books, and there's a lot of people who don't like 4e."
6. Integration: "I'm going to find some 3.5e players for my group, move to a 3.5e forum, and snag some cheap books off eBay."
7. New Status Quo: "I've got a healthy group, more books than I can use, and Paizo's putting out some awesome stuff."

And for the other side of the fence, also a caricature:

1. Late Status Quo: 4e excitement
2. (introduction of foreign element: people flaming 4e)
3. Resistance: "These people obviously don't understand 4e. They just need to try it!"
4. Chaos: "Why do people keep flaming 4e? Can't they see that all their arguments are straw-men? 4e is great! Isn't it? Isn't it? Why won't they just try it? Oh crap, this person tried it for 6 months and still hates it. What if it really does suck?"
5. (transforming idea): "Hmm... this rule kind of bothers me. Maybe 4e isn't perfect."
6. Integration: "The flames are getting boring, but there's definitely some problems with 4e. Let's talk about house rules and encounter design."
7. New Status Quo: "4e isn't as awesome as I thought it was, but with some house rules and a good DM, I'm having even more fun than before."

How would you account for people whose opinions have flipped? I was initially really excited for 4e, until more details came out and I realized it wasn't what I wanted. And I'm sure there are other people who experienced the reverse: initially disinterested, then discovered they like it later.

 

[Roger]

My day job is all about helping people make major changes to their work habits. I see the same types of reactions there that I'm seeing on this forum in regards to 4e, so I thought you might like to hear some of the things that I've learned about change.

Interesting post and interesting thread. I think the data and evidence fit the model fairly well, for the most part.

Regarding the virulence of this particular War, I think there's another factor that isn't usually present and that has yet to be raised.

Since your background is in work habits, let's say we have a situation in which there's a group of employees who have been using a particular brand of Day-Timer for years, but there's a push from management for everyone to migrate to some new brand. The parallels between this scenario and the real life situation are clear, I hope.

The tricky bit is that it's not just that the employees have been using their particular Day-Timers for years. It's that some of them, including some who are well-respected by their peers, have also been producing and selling accessories specific to that brand. A few on a large and profitable scale, many on a smaller and less-profitable scale. And the upcoming change threatens their economic ecosystem.

In that sort of situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see an unusual amount of effort being put into resistance to the change, and a high level of evangelism inherent in that resistance.

Have you run across this sort of situation in your professional experience? How did it work out?



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Stormtower]

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...

This. I was going to type a long post but joethelawyer, you covered it bro. The only addition I could make to his thoughts is the additional anger/stress that comes with the fracturing of social bonds as players and GMs diffuse away from the previous edition into "anything but" 4E.

Now, I'm not down on 4E, personally. I think the game is pretty doggone fun (it ain't my beloved 3.5, but it doesn't need to be) and has plenty of potential. But as a mid-80's D&D guy it's certainly demoralizing to see how this edition change in particular (more so, by my personal observation, than previous edition changes) has driven many gamers into other RPGs and away from D&D altogether. I've lost players and DMs from organized play, although they are still happy to sit at my 3.5 table. Long term, I have some serious reservations about how much the community will remain fractured, as well as how WotC/Hasbro truly intend to draw new gamers (and particularly, new DMs) into the hobby.

But it's not fear of change. I've happily adopted every previous edition of D&D before 4E, and I'm still on the fence, hedging my bets, seven months after its release. That's never happened before.

 

[Thistonius]

As someone has said, maybe the main reason is an economic one. I know one person who has refused to buy any 3E/3.5E books due to the amount of money he spent on 2E. I refused to buy 2E books from 1E simply because of the cost involved.

My move to 4E was a simple one for me. The rules seemed better, the combat quicker and the character creation easier. Why? Because my group has 3 people who wanted to roleplay and had never done it before. We started with 3.5 and they found all the rules, spells, etc etc very confusing, even after a group of us sat down with them and explained everything to them. This got me thinking about 3.5 in general.

When 4E arrived, we gave it a quick playtest, since I bought the 3 core books, and we found that we enjoyed it far more then 3.5. We introduced it to our new players and they loved it. They explained that the characters were more concise in what they wanted and didn't have to trawl to page after page of character generation and spells. When my older players came into the game, they said that it was a breath of fresh air, and when we finished our first fight in less than 10 mins, we were astonished.

So for me, and my group, it was a no-brainer to switch to 4E from 3.5E. Even our hardcore 3.5 splatbook master has made the switch completly because he enjoys the system more. He has even sold some of his 3.5 books so he can start buying 4E books instead.

But, at the end of the day, it comes down to what you like and how much you have spent on that 'like' and what you like to play. Simple as.

 

[lutecius]

When I read the OP my first thought was "hmmm, recent account… troll!!!" Now I’m sure it wasn’t Truename’s intention but if it were it would have a lot of potential. People involved in a debate just love being told "your arguments are irrelevant, you’re just being irrational and following some predictable pattern".

I adopted 3e immediately because I thought it was a huge improvement over previous editions. After a few years I was burned out and felt it needed a serious overhaul. I was really looking forward to a vastly different new edition even before it was announced. Then 4e came out and I realized it kept things I didn't like and I hated most of the changes...
OMG! I don’t fit either profile! I’m so unique and unpredictable!!!

…OR some people may dislike and not adopt 4e for a variety of perfectly valid reasons and edition wars happen because:
1- people tend to take sides and argue about many things (sports, politics, not just new situations)
2- surprisingly, gamers have strong opinions on rpgs.
3- anonymous online debates are often more heated
4- there is no objective way to prove either side right or wrong

Resistance to change may be a factor in edition wars but implying it's the main reason is just glib.

the techniques I introduce are genuinely better for many

See? completely different situation here.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

I want to thank Truename for a great post and to everyone for a lively and respectful debate. This has been one of the best threads for me on the boards in a while.

I don't agree with everything said in the thread and I am not sure you can use a clinical explanation for the situation. Regardless it is still a terrific thread and generated a great discussion amongst my team on brand and marketing strategies.

 

[Truename]

I want to thank Truename for a great post and to everyone for a lively and respectful debate. This has been one of the best threads for me on the boards in a while.

I don't agree with everything said in the thread and I am not sure you can use a clinical explanation for the situation. Regardless it is still a terrific thread and generated a great discussion amongst my team on brand and marketing strategies.

Thanks! Introduce me to your DDI software team and then I can really do some good...

 

[RFisher]

Yet I face this resistance to change from people on every team. It's human nature.

Well, with software engineers you’ve got much, much more than human nature in the way. You have every IT department who ever forced Notes as an e-mail system on people. You have every PHB who forced development practices that were meant to be a bad example but they weren’t smart enough to understand that. You have every pressed-T-shirt who decided to early adopt unproven practices because their only criterion is buzzword compliance.

Software development has been so badly managed so often.