The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Truename]

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?

Sort of, but not exactly. My field is called "software methodology" (literally, "the methods used to create software"). In some companies there are people who are responsible for defining the company's methods. Sometimes these people are called "architects" and sometimes they're part of a "project management office" (PMO). Although the software teams are the ones doing the work, the architects (or PMO) are "selling accessories"--they're taking established methods and customizing them to the company's needs. They do tend to resist a lot more.

Sometimes these folks are well respected, and sometimes they aren't. Regardless, I have to figure out who is well-respected, particularly the ones who also dislike the new system. People who are well-respected have disproportionate influence. If they accept the change (particularly if they really hated it to begin with), then it's easier for others to accept it, too.

Once I find these folks, I spend extra time helping them find that "transforming idea" in order for the larger change to be successful. So I talk with them and, without asking, try to get a sense of what they really care about. I don't look for details of how software is developed (analogy: HP & healing surges), but what they're truly passionate about. This often turns out to be rigor, reliability, quality, predictability, user satisfaction, sane work hours, career advancement, or something else (analogy: a realistic-seeming world).

Once I have this sense of understanding, I help those people discover how they can preserve those passions in the new system. I'll talk about how the system cares about rigor, or provides predictability, or can be adjusted on the fly to take advantage of user feedback. I'm not pushy about it, though, and I don't try to convince or persuade so much as to put myself in his (or her) shoes and show that I can see things from his perspective and that I value the same things he does. Then I use "did you know" to help him see that things aren't necessarily as bad as his preconceptions say. (Analogy: "suspension of disbelief is important to me too; I want the things that are happening to have some internal logic. It's hard for me to imagine what's happening otherwise. (pause) The way I deal with that in my game is to describe HP loss as 'getting winded' and taking shallow cuts. That way healing surges are cinematic surges of adrenaline rather than actual healing, except when magic is involved. What do you think of that approach?" ...If that quote sounds a bit forced, it is; it's easier in real conversation.)

This isn't as manipulative as it might sound. It's actually understanding his perspective and trying to show new possibilities. For this to work, I have to truly care about his success, and just show options rather than forcing. People can tell when you're being manipulative. It doesn't work if you are.

Anyway, these conversations don't really result in a "transforming idea," but they plant a seed. Usually that seed is enough to get people past the initial resistance and try the new system for a decent amount of time. At first it's chaos and disaster, but people work through it and eventually find that transforming idea that lets them make the new system work for them.

Umm... so, yeah. More than you wanted to know about introducing change. I'm not sure what you can take from this experience, but there you go.

 

[Galloglaich]

Truename-



Okay, but what you argued is that "resistance to change" is "completely independent of how much better or worse the 'new thing' is". Those are your words. You're saying that humans have a response to change which is content-neutral. More specifically, you're implying that the content of 4e is irrelevant to the responses observed, which reduces any resistance to a kind of psychological hiccup. You even described the irrational lengths that people would go to so that they might avoid "change", implying that normal attempts to reason with those who are anti-4e are bound to fail.

All of this effectively becomes a neat way of packing anti-4e sentiment into a self-help syndrome. Really. Your post even ends with a description of the "stages" of change, helpfully suggesting that "people get stuck at different stages in the process".

I agree 100%, and to be honest I find this kind of pschyo-marketing doctrine extremely creepy (even though it is the basis for a lot of very effective and very lucrative influence of public opinions ala Edward Bernays Madison Avenue) it reduces the human mind / spirit to mechanical processes, there is some cleverness in it's insights on human behavior, but it's more to do with manipulation than enlightenment. It's the iron hand of cynical rationalization masked in a warm fuzzy mitten of psychobabble.

G.

 

[The Shaman]

. . . buzzword compliance.

That's beautiful.

Thanks for adding that to my vocabulary.

 

[diaglo]

great thread.

but i'm not sure you'll convince me to play 4E.

i am against 1edADnD, 2edD&D, 3edD&D, 4edD&D, 2edADnD, 2000ed, 3.11ed for workgroups, and 4E.

not that i haven't tried and played all of them. i just find them not to my standards.

edit: diaglo "prefers the term luddite OD&Der" Ooi

 

[Umbran]

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

Discarding it as a (or the) major reason out of hand is also glib. Do not throw out hypothesis that are consistent with the evidence out of hand. You don't need to be bound by them - just keep them in mind as possibilities.

I am not, personally, one who holds to most models that human reactions work in "stages". That does not mean the model does not hold some goodly wisdom you can extract, and use to your own benefit.

If nothing else, you can take away from this the idea that the person on the other end of the conversation isn't "just being a jerk" - there are generally reasons why people have reactions. Treat them as if they have a reason that you, and perhaps even they, do not know, and you can probably avoid warring in the first place...

 

[ExploderWizard]

The original post was a very interesting take on the edition wars phenomenon.

As I was reading it, a different message was playing in the back of my mind.

" I am the wellspring from which you flow." " What would your world be without me?"

Hearing that triggered an emotional response that I'm sure most gamers are familliar with.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

So you are one of those people who turns people's worlds upside down and then explain to them why they should be happy about it. I see.

I'm a big fan of, "If it ain't broke...."

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

"Don't sell the customers what they want, convince them that they want what you're selling."

Depressing.

 

[Wombat]

One observation I have is that the original posting could be applied to trying any other roleplaying game, rather than shifting from 3e to 4e.

Example: my gaming group became bored with 3e. We disliked the emphasis on combat, primarily, but there were other issues as well. So we moved to other systems entirely, rather than moving towards 4e.

(As an aside, we did get briefly involved in a 4e game -- three sessions worth. Admittedly we went in with a negative view, but we tried it, found that the aspects of D&D that we disliked were even more greatly emphasized, and opted out entirely. This was, admittedly, after we had already tried and found we enjoyed other systems.)

When the group first shifted to another system, there was a hard adjustment period, in that the players were still in "D&D mentality" (assume there are dungeons, assume illogical traps lurk in every room, assume that every encounter will be combat-oriented, looks for magical treasures, etc.). It took about four sessions (roughly two months for us gaming) to break totally out of the old habits and really adjust to the new (or more correctly for one player to complete the transition), but we were happy to be away from D&D.

We had not held onto the old. We had gone towards something new. We successfully made a deep transition in gaming.

Much more importantly, however, we did not need to shift. We did this from desire, from an interest in finding a game that better fit our style of sessions. Yes, the game system we shifted to came out after 3e was introduced; would that, then, make the shift necessary?

4e is optional. Just because someone played 3e does not mean that they will play 4e, have to like it, and give up earlier editions. Most people who play D&D have never played another rpg; is it required that they try another newer rpg when it comes out? The logic of this is on the level of saying, "We've always played Bridge, but someone has just invented Hearts -- we are all required to shift."

The logic here is faulty except from a "required" environment, such as work or removal of old technology. It sounds good, but under inspection it becomes questionable at best.

 

[Imaro]

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.

(There's some generalizations in the stuff coming up. Individual reactions vary, of course.)

I will state upfront that I have a bias with anything that tries to attribute a general reason for human behavior. Usually, IMHO, it amounts to this might be why some people could be acting this way...

First, it's human nature to resist change. It's not actually a dislike of new stuff that causes this resistance; it's that people get comfortable with the current way of doing things. The resistance comes from not wanting to lose stuff they already have and like. So the more mastery someone has over the existing way of doing things, the more likely they are to dislike a new way of doing things.

Bold Mine...I think this is a simplistic view when dealing with subjective things such as rpg's. This isn't a policy, procedure or chunk of code that can be measured in terms of productivity increases or efficiency. It is measured in a very subjective way...mainly fun. I think it would be more accurate in the case of 3e vs. 4e to assert that resistance comes from not wanting to lose stuff that achieves one's fun (however each individual ranks that). Thus I don't know if "mastery" is necessarily the correct reason either. Honestly I feel like I have a better understanding and "mastery of 4e than I do of 3e and it's myriad OGL counterparts...but I have more fun with 3e/OGL games and products.

I think this is moreso because I am continuously learning or discovering something new with my 3e and OGL games/books. I enjoy that plain and simple. Others do not and I can accept that.

Let's look at it a different way, I just purchased a 42" flat panel LCD TV, along with a HD cablebox & DVR. I wasn't resistant to this change in my television because in the end this tv helps me garner more enjoyment and more fun from using it (whether that is with my xbox 360, PS3, recording programs or picture quality.)... it has nothing to do with the mastery I had over my old TV and VCR which I knew how to use...while there was and still is a learning curve for my new stuff.

This is completely independent of how much better or worse the "new thing" is. People will come up with all kinds of rationalizations, and engage in long, bitter arguments, but at their core these arguments come down to "I like what I have now. Please don't take it away from me." Such an argument can never be won (or lost). The more you try, the more entrenched people get in their positions.

Again emphasis mine...Why do you believe this? In a work environment, unless you are making the decisions, you often in the end have little choice but to go with the change... as an example, at my job we have just recently switched from RAD 6 to RAD 7 as a development environment. Regardless of which is "better" or "worse", I am paid to learn to use the current one in completing my assigned projects. Thus while I may appreciate how smooth my superiors try to make the transition... ultimately it is not my choice. Unless I don't want to get paid.

I am not paid to go with the current edition of D&D and thus I have an actual choice and freedom to determine, for me, whether it is a better product or not than what I already have.

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."

This generally works, and people often find that they like the new way, even if they originally hated it. (Not always, though.)

Have you ever wondered if it's that most people actually come to "like" the new way... or that at a certain point they realize that it is inevitable... I mean unless they want to quit, be labeled as a "troublemaker" at their job, etc. Again this doesn't apply to something I have the freedom to judge as opposed to having no option in the end.

It works because there's a predictable pattern to change. (Psychologist Virginia Satir explains it this way: Steven M Smith - The Satir Change Model) There's an initial period of resistance to making any change. When people try it, they experience chaos, low performance, and low morale as they discover that they no longer understand how they fit into to the system.

At some point, individuals discover a "transforming idea" that shows how the new way benefits them personally. They see how they can fit into the system and they start integrating it into their life. This happens at different times for different people. The nature of the "transforming idea" is highly personal, and some people never discover one.

(In my work, I've found that it takes about two months of full-time use to get through the chaos to the transforming idea. Hence the "try it for two months" argument. I doubt that timeframe applies to a 3e->4e change, though!)


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.


Over time, people perfect their understanding of the new system and reach a "new status quo." They see its strengths and weaknesses and the turbulence and arguments recede.

Unless of course one or both sides are unwilling to realize this is not an objective thing and totally subjective, again especially when talking about a leisure activity that is done for fun.

People get stuck at different stages in this process. Some never get out of the "resistance" stage, and never try the new system. Some experience the "chaos" stage that occurs when you first try the new system, and conclude that the new system is broken. And some get to the "transforming idea" stage, but then set their expectations impossibly high and are disappointed.

What about those with no need to try (for a cost to themselves) this new system. What if they personally haven't experienced the problems... or said problems with the old system just don't affect them in a serious enough manner that the cost is worth it? As far as the "chaos stage" how about those who know themselves and what they want well enough that they recognize a certain thing is not for them. Or they get to the "transforming idea" stage and realize the old system accomplished their desires and wants better. You disregard the issue of better or worse, and in a subjective arena I feel this is where this whole argument falls apart. If you could show that the new system is objectively better in all aspects that every user wants, your ideas would be totally valid...but instead you disregard it as not relevant, when it is the most relevant thing in this particular situation.

I'm not sure what this tells us, other than the obvious: "edition wars are inevitable," and "some people love 4e from the start (generally the ones who feel they have nothing to lose), others will grow to like it with time, some will try it and hate it, and some won't ever try it," and "edition wars have little to do with which system is actually better." The good news is that they'll pass with time.

Actually I think edition wars have everything to do with "which system is actually better"...for a particular user, and they will be inevitable because, like all fans, D&D players love to debate the merits and failings (as they perceive them) of their particular hobby, sport, movie, etc.

Anyway, I hope this meander through the psychology of change was interesting.

Much as I don't agree with alot of it, yes it was a quite interesting read.