What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Mistwell]

So, let's say your wife changes her hair color and walks into work and a coworker might say, "You dyed your hair? What was wrong with the old color?" That would be a valid thing to ask. The fact that your wife changed it implies something was wrong with the old color.

For your expansion on the hair dye example, it does not imply that. The coworker would be making an inference, not picking up on an implication. And yes, some women would take offense at the inference that there was something wrong involved with changing hair color. It's a conclusion someone is drawing based on insufficient information to draw that conclusion.

Note that "imply" doesn't equate to "true meaning". Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with 3e, nor do I think Wizards thought that when they released 4e. But the simple existence of 4e implies (probably incorrectly) that 3e is somehow wrong. It's certainly not a far step for someone to assume that's what WotC was thinking.

It really does not inherently imply that. Again, change can happen without something being wrong with the prior choices. You're just asserting that as fact again, without supporting your assertion. Why does the simple existence of 4e imply that 3e is somehow wrong?

I'd also like to point out that the restauraunt order, movie choice, and book choice are all examples of picking something different, not necessarily changing something that already existed.

D&D 4e can be seen as picking something different rather than just a change to an existing thing.

A change to something that already existed would be 3e errata, not a new edition. 4e doesn't change 3e. It doesn't do anything to 3e, or any prior editions for that matter.

A new edition is like ordering something different at a restaurant you've ordered from before. You're still eating, you're still doing that eating at the same restaurant, maybe even the same table with the same wait staff at the same time of day with the same companions, but can still make different choices than you made last time you ordered something at that restaurant (a change). You might still order an appetizer, drink, main course, coffee, and desert. But you can change which appetizer, drink, main course, coffee, and desert you order this time around, or you can leave some of those off, or add something entirely new like a salad course. That doesn't imply there was anything wrong with what you ordered last time. It's just different.

Much like the game designers are still designing D&D rules, still doing it from the same company and with a basic recognizable brand and similar structure and some recognizable terms and concepts, from the same building and perhaps with even some of the same people and playtesters and miniatures and game aids and such, but choosing different things this time around to design the rules than they did last time around. It does not imply there was something wrong with what they ordered from the rules table last time they designed D&D rules, just that it's different.

If you were making a meal at home, and the second time you made it you added more salt it implies that the original recipe didn't have enough salt (it was wrong, in your opinion).

Or it could mean you want to see what it tastes like with more salt. Maybe you just are in a salty mood that moment, and next time you make it maybe you are in a more peppery mood and you add pepper. None of that implies something was necessarily wrong with how you made it the first time. Not all change implies something was wrong before.

If you were writing a movie script or a book and you changed a character's dialog it implies that you thought the original dialog was wrong.

Or you are just trying out the new dialog to see how it works, and see if it maybe inspires you to do something else.

I do not understand why you are coming at these issues with just one possible conclusion when there are many conclusions one can draw from the examples. We both play a game about imagination. Imagine the various possible scenarios one can come up with to try and fit this change into a "does not imply something was wrong before" mode of thinking and I bet you can see where I am coming from on this. Try and come at the topic from the opposite perspective for a moment. If there is more than one conclusion you can draw - doesn't that mean that in fact not all change must imply something was wrong before?

 

[Wild Gazebo]

SpiderMonkey:

Please excuse me if I’m repeating stated views or misunderstanding your intent: I didn’t read the whole thread.

I fail to understand what the sociological (and philosophical) implications of role-playing and a planned obsolescing business model have to do with the study of Rhetoric. So, I guess I’m wondering why you are talking about Hegelian shifts of art applied to Marketing theory while speaking at an English Graduate Panel discussion.

Are you interested in New Genre Theory? And even if you are, I fail to see how the ‘stake’ of genre community discussion could reveal anything beyond the mode of rhetoric used in that community. Which I think is very interesting: but has absolutely nothing to do with your assumptions--or even questions.

As a Sociological (or even Philosophical) discussion I think some of these questions have some merit: especially regarding the parallels between art, sport, and games. But, you seem to come across more as a fan with an agenda rather than an academic ready to study ‘taste culture’ or ‘frame of reference.’

I would suggest you extrapolate your theory based on observations rather than searching for a theory that can be saddled into the given situation. Look at similar communities such as professional sports, literature, art criticism, and even popular music. Each of these communities has a large amount of discussion regarding relevance and taste (even involving shared experiences) that concomitantly reflect the types of discussion you find on these very boards. The ‘stake’ might not be (as a fan might think) the trueness of the experience so much as just belonging to a community.

So, if I have understood what you are trying to present, I would avoid correlations between community discussions with marketing, the trueness of experience, and the development of the game. The crux of the situation is that any shared community involvement will evolve the understanding and working of any shared experience simply through the process of community.

Hope that helps.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

When is it incorrect to assume that the other person is a rational, sympathetic human being?

Well, maybe in business, in law, or in politics, but as far as two people talking to each other goes...

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?

What's the worst that can happen in ENWorld? You loose some time. You're discussing something on ENWorld, you've probably got some time to loose.

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.

People have reasons for the things they do. If you assume that other people are at least as rational as you, and treat them how you would like to be treated in a conversation, you can, at the very least, uncover those reasons (even if it was "I was in a bad mood and responded poorly," in the end).

4. There is value in not feeding trolls.

There's also value in getting to why the trolling works in the first place, and what actual issues are touched off by the trolls. Lulz can only be had with a passionate reaction by others. Why do those others get passionate, and what are they telling us about what they want?

I don't think it's too hard to assume, on ENWorld at least (4chan would be a different story), that people generally are not trolls, even if they are highly critical of Edition X.

Throwing down the word "TROLL!" at the drop of a hat treats the message board community as some sort of witch-hunt for who deserves the torches and the fire, and actually hurts functional conversation as much as "fanboi" and "hater" do (because those are all basically saying that conversation is pointless).

But ultimately, it boils down to this:

Nobody is an internet psychic.

Nobody knows what another poster is truly thinking.

In assuming that they're cogent, and getting to the meat of their post, you can get past the inflammatory rhetoric toward something functional ("what did you mean when you said 4e was like WoW? What specifically keyed you off to that? Why do you think that specific thing was like WoW? Was that accurate, or might there be a different way you can say 'I don't like this'?"). And if they're not, then you don't loose anything you're not losing by being on ENWorld in the first place anyway.

 

[Cadfan]

Kamikaze- Sometimes the reason a troll has is just sheer, simple, stupid, brutal malice.

slacktivist: False witnesses

 

[I'm A Banana]

The slacktivist article deals with facts.

The Edition Wars are rarely, if ever, about facts.

They are about feelings, emotions, senses, "fun," and other nebulous, subjective, interpretive, fluffy things.

I can't say that an agoraphobic is wrong to be afraid of going outside. They are afraid of it, and that is what matters. The useful thing is discovering why, and then using those root causes of phobias and the outdoors to reveal more about human beings and our complex brains.

I can't say someone who hates 4e with the burning passion of a thousand suns is wrong to hate 4e. They do, and that is what matters. The useful thing is discovering why, and then using those root causes of hate to reveal more about gamers and the games we play.

There's some more thoughts I have about the supposed malice of people in the slacktivist article, but those don't really pertain to this thread or D&D, so I'll let those lie. But, basically, how one feels about a given edition of D&D is a subjective thing, not an objective thing, and logical deduction rarely plays a major part in figuring it out.

Again, you don't know what the other person is thinking. Assuming malice can only lead to witch-hunts, and makes the general atmosphere cowardly and reactionary.

And if malice is shown, that is why we have moderators and the Report This Post button.

 

[xechnao]

Kamikaze- Sometimes the reason a troll has is just sheer, simple, stupid, brutal malice.

slacktivist: False witnesses

Malice is personal. This is not what edition wars are primarily about, I think.

If the target of my malice liked 3e, I would bash 3e. If, later on, the target of my malice changed opinion and did not like 3e, I would praise 3e. This is not what edition wars are about, I think.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, you don't know what the other person is thinking. Assuming malice can only lead to witch-hunts, and makes the general atmosphere cowardly and reactionary.

KM,

If I ever doubt you again, please remind me of your participation in this thread. I would give you XP if I could.

RC

 

[Cadfan]

Edition wars aren't about facts?

They may be motivated by emotions, but I think they're quite frequently about facts. Whether elder dragon minions exist in 4e is a factual question. If someone repeatedly creates threads, or sidetracks threads, by attacking 4e's elder red dragon minions, they are making a factual assertion that is not only incorrect, but easily shown to be incorrect. It might be plausible to assume that the first time they posted they did so in error, or because they were misinformed. But after the fifth or sixth, I feel justified in making negative judgments of their character. The most plausible explanation is that they are trying to make people mad by lying.

The alternative explanation, that they are dumber than rocks and incapable of recognizing that their factual assertion is completely wrong even after having chapter and verse cited to them to prove it, is not actually the charitable position you are making it out to be.

You can actually go quite further in the criticism when you begin to address people who make assertions they have no reason to believe are true, but which they hope will make others miserable.

 

[Garthanos]

Edition wars aren't about facts?

They may be motivated by emotions, but I think they're quite frequently about facts.

No they are about emotions and facts or false facts are just sometimes used as ammunition.

Does anybody recognize the first fallacy as pertinent? To being excessively forgiving of Edition Warriors... I only have 3 on my ignore list.

Five Geek Social Fallacies

 

[Merkuri]

For your expansion on the hair dye example, it does not imply that. The coworker would be making an inference, not picking up on an implication. And yes, some women would take offense at the inference that there was something wrong involved with changing hair color. It's a conclusion someone is drawing based on insufficient information to draw that conclusion.

Perhaps I'm using "imply" in the wrong sense. Let me rephrase.

What I meant is that when one changes something it is easy and natural for someone to infer that the thing that was changed was wrong, or that the person doing the changing thought that the thing that was changed was wrong.

I am not saying this inference is right or logical. It's a gut feeling. It's a very human reaction. When you see something change that you liked, your reaction is probably going to be, "Aw, what was wrong with the old way?"

D&D 4e can be seen as picking something different rather than just a change to an existing thing.

A change to something that already existed would be 3e errata, not a new edition. 4e doesn't change 3e. It doesn't do anything to 3e, or any prior editions for that matter.

For you or me to switch to 4e is picking something different. For WotC to stop marketing old D&D books and begin again with a whole new ruleset is making a change. This is the change I'm referring to, not whether an individual gamer decides to make the switch or not. This is the change that people are having a gut reaction to.

I do not understand why you are coming at these issues with just one possible conclusion when there are many conclusions one can draw from the examples.

I'm not saying that's the only conclusion someone can draw. I'm saying it's a very natural conclusion that a person can come to, based on gut instinct and emotion.

Some people might have that reaction and then say to themselves, "Well, they can't take away my books. I'll just keep playing the way I've always played." Other people might not bounce back as easily and choose (consciously or unconsciously) to take it as a personal affront from WotC and anyone who expresses a liking for 4e. Those second group are probably the ones who contribute to flame wars.