The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[pawsplay]

Yes, this version of salesmanship is potentially useful if people are forced to accept a change. The thing is, it comes from a completely value neutral viewpoint; it presupposes you do not care about the actual value of the change and only implementing it. Useful for corporate authority figures, not so helpful when people are trying to choose one or more games based on their perceived play value.

 

[Greg K]

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

Depressing.

This is the design team whose members said that they learned in 3e that thing's like Knight's Challenge and Rope Trick were bad and then, in 4e, gave us things like Come and Get It (targets must move towards the Fighter), Divine Challenge (attack the Paladin, who marked you or take damage), and reintroduced Rope Trick as a ritual available to anyone.

 

[Imaro]

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...

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

OK, Emphasis mine... What data and/or evidence? The fact that we are having edition wars? That's the result, so what evidence backs up any of the OP's original hypothesis?

 

[Umbran]

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.

Debate is fine.

Debate is not "war". Let's be really clear about this - people who are being rational and calmly discussing what they do and don't like about various editions are not engaging in "edition war". Debate does not extend to the level of incivility, divisiveness, and vitriol seen on these boards.

Either people lack basic notions of polite discussion, or there's more than that going on. Given that we are collectively capable of polite discussion about most other topics, the former reason does not explain the behavior.

Ergo, there's more than "love of debate" going on. Probably several things.

 

[pawsplay]

This is the design team whose members said that they learned in 3e that thing's like Knight's Challenge and Rope Trick were bad and then, in 4e, gave us things like Come and Get It (targets must move towards the Fighter), Divine Challenge (attack the Paladin, who marked you or take damage), and reintroduced Rope Trick as a ritual available to anyone.

Well, I think they just got a little over-excited and accidentally designed a new role-playing game instead of D&D 4e.

 

[Imaro]

Debate is fine.

Debate is not "war". Let's be really clear about this - people who are being rational and calmly discussing what they do and don't like about various editions are not engaging in "edition war". Debate does not extend to the level of incivility, divisiveness, and vitriol seen on these boards.

Either people lack basic notions of polite discussion, or there's more than that going on. Given that we are collectively capable of polite discussion about most other topics, the former reason does not explain the behavior.

Ergo, there's more than "love of debate" going on. Probably several things.

Uhm... you realize there have been literal deaths over sport fans arguments...right.

Not to say this is in any way acceptable or correct behavior on the boards, but people get heated...especially when all it takes is one person and a snide remark to send everyone escalating to that level.

 

[Umbran]

Uhm... you realize there have been literal deaths over sport fans arguments...right.

Yes, and I dare anyone to suggest with a straight face that "love of a sport" is sufficient reason for a sane person to murder another human being.

And having fans charge out into the streets committing vandalism, burning sofas and trashing people's cars after a Big 10 football game (after their team won, even!) isn't about the football, either.

 

[Stormtower]

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.

I hear what you're saying, but consider that social tension created when one is "required" to adopt a new edition to remain involved in organized RPGA-style play. I will grant that simply dropping out of organized play is an option, but then we're back to the social tension of losing access to a vibrant community of potential DMs and players (not to mention, potential friends).

The rules and culture of games like Bridge and Hearts (or Checkers, Backgammon, Chess, etc.) have not changed significantly since the games were first invented/introduced. Therefore it is a simple matter to show up at Starbucks, for example, and have a reasonable chance of finding someone to play cards or chess with. D&D requires not only a much larger monetary investment to play, but a much larger social investment of time and energy. That is why I remain concerned about the long-term effects of 4E's culture and rules shift fracturing the community. When the available pool of DMs/players/friend shrinks, social tension about our collective hobby seems to rise.

This is a very different discussion than whether WotC/Hasbro were within their rights to make 4E (they clearly were), and whether remaining involved in the active RPGA community benefits any particular individual within the RPG hobby.

 

[Roger]

OK, Emphasis mine... What data and/or evidence? The fact that we are having edition wars? That's the result, so what evidence backs up any of the OP's original hypothesis?

Yes, the fact that we are having edition wars.

This is consistent with the hypotheses:
- edition wars are inevitable
- edition wars have little to do with which system is actually better



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Imaro]

Yes, and I dare anyone to suggest with a straight face that "love of a sport" is sufficient reason for a sane person to murder another human being.

And having fans charge out into the streets committing vandalism, burning sofas and trashing people's cars after a Big 10 football game (after their team won, even!) isn't about the football, either.

Whoa, Umbran I wasn't trying to insinuate killing someone over sports was right or for the "love of the game"...if I did well I'm clearing up the fact that that's not my stance... however, I do feel things on the board need to stay in perspective.

I have seen very few out and out verbal brawls on the boards lately, and would argue it's more snarky jabs... the same side remarks you'll hear when a gathering for 2 competing teams end up in the same sports bar. That's it, I don't think there's much going on with that type of behavior except competitiveness (of course here it's on a much, much larger scale than at a local bar)... I certainly don't feel it's increased by fear of change...since again how does that fit into the sports analogy? I just feel like sometimes we can read too much into peoples behavior. Again, I am not saying the behavior is right... just that I don't think it goes to some deep seated fear of change everyone is having.