What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Anselyn]

Regarding the OSR:

I hope I'm not implying a directly causal relationship, here. What I am suggesting is that the edition wars, by being largely exercises in comparison/contrast, have brought older styles of play to light. It was through threads here, for example, that I came across Philotomy's explanations of how the expectations/sensibilities of newer games/versions often act as impediments to understanding the rationale of older styles (I hope I'm not butchering his stance too badly here). Similarly, it is through links provided in such threads that I've come across blogs such as Grognardia or Jeff's Gameblog.

While I would hesitate to assign direct causality, I think each contributes to the other.

Does this make sense?

I can't find Philotomy's explanations of this - but Windjammer's link to the Mearl's commment is very interesting in terms of what players _do_ in the game - then and now.

In narrative terms, I think it's amazing that OD&D so quickly found a consensual pseudo-mediaval world that people "got" so they could play the game. My friends and I knew Tolkien, Arthurian romances, Robin Hood, Star Trek, Mission Impossible and some European history but we grasped the idea of the generic D&D setting without ever having read Lieber/Vance/Moorcock. I know it's been said that the roleplaying concept grew from the community of players depsite the OD&D rules not because of them. [1]

I can say that while I've happily run trial 4e games for my 8-year-old son, I do find the power level of starting characters not exactly to my taste. However, I realise that 32 years ago I grasped a game where my character started out like a hobbit in Lord of the Rings in which boys go out on an adventure which makes them men. My son, not only generally lives in a post-D&D world in terms of cultural influence, but specifically he likes Power Rangers, Lego Star Wars and The Sarah Jane adventures (We can share Dr Who). So - his default idea of "Heroes can do this - ...." is different to mine and _possibly_ better served by 4e.

A previous poster mentioned the possibilities of playing with the grandkids and (IIRC) how that may be changed by rules changing over the years. But, the rules may just reflect the latest idea of what being a hero is - and that 's a "cultural" (? - there's probably a better word) divide between the generations as much as anything else.

Tangentially, to this - I liked the original Gamma World and we had fun with it. I think its return is interesting. I also think that WoTC may have realised that the contemporary consensual idea of "this is what heroes do ..." is so little linked to a pseudo-medieval world fantasy world (think BioShock, Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty) that quite large jumps in the setting might be survived with the games ruleset that is - power A/power B/ Power C with some flavour text.[2]

Actually, given current TV trends, some post-apocalytpic vampires with zombie friends need to be added to the Gamma World mix (both could be a mutation ...).

[1] This is not meant to be an insult to any fan of OD&D - and this reflects comments in the UK fanzine community in the mid-80s that I think were insightful.
[2] IMHO that's the strength and weakness of 4e. I admire its design with some reservations about its feel - FWIW.

 

[diaglo]

The edition wars are not really about which game version is better. If they were, we'd see wars about which GAME is better too.

those exist here too.

Paladium, GURPS, Fudge, Hero, Savage Worlds...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yes, I understand the feeling. This, however, is when we of the moderation staff highly recommend that you WALK AWAY. There's really no sign that the person(s) in question is going to have their mind changed at this point, right? So why bother? Isn't continuing to engage only giving these parties more opportunities?

I don't think it's a matter of changing the mind of that particular person, just making sure that others see through the un-truths. I do agree that we defenders need to WALK AWAY when posting angry though. It does not behoove the defense of any game to act just as poorly as the person you believe has wronged your game of choice.

Edit: Also, I do understand that the striker/defender view is subjective. That's why I believe in trying to make it clear that my posts are my opinion and expound upon my point instead of reducing my point to something dismissive.

 

[Umbran]

I
Why EDITION wars instead of GAME wars?

You don't see "Vampire is SOOO better than D&D" threads continually boil out of control.

Well, back in the day when White Wolf was newer, you saw a heck of a lot of that sort of thing. It was perhaps less visible because the online community of gamers was smaller back then.

 

[DaveMage]

At this point, I think that in order for one side to actually win the edition war, some help will be needed. If only there was some way gather our forces...

Some means of coming together....

Some sort of....army builder.

 

[Desdichado]

I've seen tons of game wars. I don't think they're very common here, and probably never really have been, because the community self-selects here for those who like D&D.

rpg.net used to be infamous for game wars back in the day. There's even a meme that was unintentionally created over one of the more famous threads in the game wars; "my hat of d02 know no limit."

 

[Cadfan]

For me, I think the most important rule is to assume the other person is being genuine. They aren't a troll, they aren't an internet tough guy, they aren't here just to stir up Edition Wars, they don't hate ENWorld, they actually have a conversation they want to have, they are willing to talk about their ideas, they aren't a hater or a fanboi, they actually have reasons for their beliefs, and these are their actual beliefs, however rabidly mad they sound to me.

If you give the person the benefit of the doubt, even if you disagree with them, you can have a pretty productive conversation. But the moment you assume you know what motivates the other person, you get beyond the discussion of the game, and get into a personal series of attacks.

1. This is only true if you were correct to give them the benefit of the doubt.

2. Past behavior is indicative of future behavior. How did the last time you gave them the benefit of the doubt turn out for you?

3. If what you're giving them the benefit of the doubt about is something like, "does this person genuinely believe the really nasty insult he tossed my way?" then giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding their sincerity doesn't help a thing.

4. There is value in not feeding trolls.

 

[JohnRTroy]

There seems to be something a great deal more here than just different games, but it's hard for me to pinpoint it beyond itentity of something we care about being changed or wiped away.

When you think about it, this is about brand and/or identity changes.

One of the newer trends today is the fact that companies like to recycle brands more often nowadays. In the past, brands used to have solid identities. You only had a few Hershey bar (milk chocolate and one with almonds), for instance. Lately, though, brand changing has become more common place. You now have Hershey bars of various types.

The big thing is that, in entertainment and media, brand changing that completely changes identity can involve alienation of fans and sometimes the core is lost. Take the case of MTV and VH1. Both stations used to be devoted to music videos. Even in the 90s when they moved away from exclusively being a music channels, they showed music related programming. This changed early this decade and suddenly VH1 became what I call the K-Mart version of the E! network. (And I'm not sure what MTV turned into). Other stations have done similar things--Cartoon Network executives tried to say "why does a Cartoon have to be animated" when they added some live action programming. However, in other cases, channels that changed their basic identity also changed their names--The Nashville Network became The National Network and then Spike TV.

The key problem here is the identity of a brand. That's key. If you change something in a radical way, it can be very risky, at least to the loyal consumers and fans. Most people don't care about things like Candy Bars, for instance, so it's not as off-putting to see "Cookies and Cream" Hershey Bars (and the original still exists)--although like Coca-Cola in the 80s there are exceptions. But if you change a creative work with a strong brand, especially with entertainment, people can get upset. "Radical Reboots" don't always work, we only see the success stories. There are many disenfranchised fans of VH1, like myself, for instance. In some cases, companies have accepted losses in an attempt to bring in new members of greater value, or they cynically want to change things based on ego of the owners, or they want to fix a perception problem.

With D&D, you have a game with a very strong identity, and a rather large and loyal audience. Regardless of motivation of the owners of the D&D trademark for the changes from 3e to 4e, they unleased more radical changes than any previous edition to date. So, we have a strong brand with a loyal audience that changed.

Part of the reason I think edition wars are so powerful this time is because a disenfranchised group feels threatened by the replacement group. They are loyal to the old identity, feel what happened is a form of "identity theft" (from the perspective of the fans, not the owners), and don't want the change to succeed. While I dislike the bad behavior and the personal attacks, I can understand this feeling. If a very old and popular heroic character was rebooted to be some sort of psychotic miscanthrope (Harry Potter, Superman, Snoopy, Mickey Mouse), you'd likely see protests even if sales tripled. Some people don't consider bands as legitimate if they lose their lead singer (or the entire lineup). If McDonalds gave up the burgers and changed to a Scottish Haggis stand, you'd see people complaining. Fans, Consumers, Customers--whatever you call them--have a certain expectation from long-lived businesses, brands, and products with a strong history and identity.

So, if you're asking what's at stake with the edition wars, it's the identity of D&D and its future. And I think people on both side are trying to change opinions, because it's as important to them as a political party--does D&D go more liberal/progressive (more changes, killing of sacred cows), or does the next edition go more conservative (any changes going back to a prior version, less changes introduced, even a radical back to basics approach that is 80% AD&D 1st Edition, etc.).

 

[jmucchiello]

I've only read page 1 but I think this is the crux of the issue:

it's easy to say "everybody loses" in these squabbles (and I'm certainly not inclined to disagree). I guess what I'm asking is "what specifically is intrinsic to D&D (or rpgs in general, if you like) that leads to this particular form of interaction.

This is the flaw in your thesis. "Edition Wars" are not unique to RPGs at all. If you go to a Van Halen fan page (moderated as well as ENWorld) you will still find thread after thread of "Edition Wars": Van Halen with David Lee Roth is the one true Van Halen. Van Halen with Sammy Hagar blows DLR out of the water. They first group even calls the second group Van Hagar derisively.

RPG Edition Wars are just like all other kinds of Flame War and they have existed probably as long as multi-recipient email existed. Otherwise it is as old as netnews. When I was in college in the 80s I observed and sadly participated in many flame wars over trivial matters exactly in the same manner as Edition Wars rage across all RPG forums.

Flame Wars are not limited to the Internet. They are simply faster and globally diverse on the Internet. People standing on line to a Van Halen concert can engage in verbal "whose version of the band is best" shouting matches just as easily as gamers in a FLGS can "laugh at the retro-clone".

How does your paper/talk handle the idea that Edition Wars are nothing but a specific instance of flaming?

 

[Anselyn]

How does your paper/talk handle the idea that Edition Wars are nothing but a specific instance of flaming?

No smoke without fire. No flames without fuel.

To categorize it - possibly entirely correctly - as just a flame war doesn't explain why it's an sustainable flame war. That takes us back the the initial question in a different form rather than negating it.