The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Darrin Drader]

What sucks about workplace change is that it's usually thrust upon you and you have no choice in the matter except to roll with it.

What's great about edition change is that although it's thrust upon you, you are free to evaluate it and either roll with it or reject it.

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".

Yep. And for what it's worth, I'm very much in favor of changes, if they happen to be good ones. That's why I've given a number of alternate systems a shot. Some I've liked, some I haven't.

 

[FireLance]

But instead, Bob thinks "4e sucks, my system mastery will be worthless," and then he posts "4e is too simplistic, for example: it's stupid for epic characters to have a higher DC to climb ladders than heroic characters," and people start shouting about DC tables and p.42 and a gigantic flame war erupts.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Bob doesn't even consciously think "4e sucks, my system mastery will be worthless". He probably actually does consciously think that 4e is too simplistic.

 

[Harlekin]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Bob doesn't even consciously think "4e sucks, my system mastery will be worthless". He probably actually does consciously think that 4e is too simplistic.

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.

 

[markkat]

I know you like lasagna. But from now on, how about spaghettios instead?

You don't like that?

Ah, I suspected as much! Let me explain...

 

[Creamsteak]

While I would certainly wager that a lot of people have been extraordinarily averse to 'change' between editions of a game here, it's certainly not the end-all-be-all of the discussion.

I think 4e is better at some things and 3e is better at others (and OD&D and every other game in existence are better at something else, worse at something else, etc). For different groups and different games I might run, I might choose one or the other. As a general rule, I think that while they managed to change a couple issues for the better, they also changed a couple things for the worse, and the vast majority of shifts were lateral and are essentially trades (a little more of this and a little less of that).

There is also cost associated with 'change'. Money, time, and other expenses are to be anticipated. In computer hardware, different companies move into newer technology at different speeds, and similarly different gaming groups are going to move into different games at different speeds. It's not all pure psychological aversion. It is perfectly legitimate to weight both sides against each other and say, "This isn't a net benefit."

Then, of course, there's the fact that the hobby as a whole isn't exactly one where any amount of change is going to drastically effect the amount of 'fun' (which is the end-goal afterall) that is going to happen. Honestly, with the people I like gaming with we don't really need a game at all in order to have maximum fun.

 

[haakon1]

Interesting, but I don't think it translates very well, sorry.

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

That's what I was thinking too. In a company, people can complain, obstruct, and drag their feet, but ultimately, there are only 3 possible outcomes:
(1) conform to the change
(2) lobby the leadership to allow you not to change/cancel the change for everyone
(3) quit/be fired/see your career languish for not being a team player.

In this change, it's about a consumer product being canceled and a producer trying to sell a new product as a substitute under the same brand name. There are 4 choices for the consumer:
(1) confirm to the change
(2) lobby the manufacturer to support both, possibly as a climbdown to eliminating the new product (see New Coke)
(3) continue to the use the old product, viable in this case as it has a network of third party support and is difficult to physically wear-out
(4) quit using the product, either to use competitor products or seek a different form of entertainment (such as WOW)

The other interesting factor not addressed here is that a lot of gamers have been gaming FOR A LONG TIME -- I believe 25+ years was the modal response to the poll on that. And, to various degrees depending on where you live and when you started gaming, we've been a shunned minority amongst "normals". So, with a very passionate and entrenched group of devotees, strong opinions are to be expected.

Among workers, I suspect a lot of people just don't care very much about X change, and therefore are willing to acquiesce in any system that isn't directly harmful to their well-being.

 

[Harlekin]

What sucks about workplace change is that it's usually thrust upon you and you have no choice in the matter except to roll with it.

What's great about edition change is that although it's thrust upon you, you are free to evaluate it and either roll with it or reject it.



Yep. And for what it's worth, I'm very much in favor of changes, if they happen to be good ones. That's why I've given a number of alternate systems a shot. Some I've liked, some I haven't.

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.

 

[haakon1]

I submit that the change causing the edition wars is a change to either "what game Wizards of the Coast supports with its immense resources" or "what games are topics of discussion on EN World."

I tend to agree. If WOTC still had 3e core books, at least, in circulation, or allowed another company to sell them, would there be less angst, I wonder?

Having your game go Out of Print is more scary/forcing than just having a new game available.

 

[Drowbane]

Or maybe 4E really is worse than 3E for a larger number of people?

Thats what I'm thinking.

I was initally resistant to 2e also... but that faded with one thumb through of the shiny new 3e PHB "They fixed *so* much!!!".

4e has some nice innovations (easier to DM, more static HP, etc), however its just an inferior product to 3e.

 

[Wayside]

As someone not going 4E, it was originally my intention to buy the core books and make a decision afterwards. Once I learned that what was "core" in 3.5 (PH, DMG, and MM) was not going to be in the first three books of 4E, I felt like WotC was gouging, and it's been downhill from there . . . . And, since I've changed with every other AD&D edition change, I hardly think the reason I'm not changing is simply "resistance to change."

You specifically just said that you didn't switch because of change--in this case, change in "core" material. Choosing to characterize this change as "gouging" (despite the fact that the amount of material was relatively constant, even if tieflings and warlocks replaced gnomes and sorcerers) without even examining the books or trying the game doesn't strike me as being particularly receptive to change.

Some people (like me and many people I know, and many I know of) simply find the game to be lacking, or in some cases to be truly awful. That is all. This is not 'resistance' to anything. Yeesh.

And of course, if it were just "resistance" you'd certainly know it, because the processes by which people form their beliefs are totally transparent to them. Really, there's a lot of room for questioning people's motives on both sides of issues like this, where the identity stakes are so high for so many people. Unfortunately, most people are as resistant to having their motives questioned as they apparently are to change.