What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because that's not the problem? It's not the problem that one particular definition is "wrong". The problem is that there are multiple definitions, any one or more of which could be applicable in a given context.

It's not that videogamey is wrong. It's that it's very, very vague.

Its no more vague than any other word with multiple definitions- you can usually discern its meaning from the context.

Here, you can't use context to determine the exact use of the word, but the problem is that all or nearly all of the definitions are irrefutable due to their being descriptive of personal emotional/perceptive reactions to the game...which renders specificity moot.

There's nothing to discuss because you'll just end up circling each other ad infinitum.

Its akin to when all those piracy threads that would pop up, and I'd break out my Black's Law Dictionary and I'd post a definition of "Theft"- a word with many definitions. And despite seeing legal definitions of theft that covered IP piracy/copyright infringement, etc., nobody was convinced otherwise. The specificity didn't matter to those who attempted to argue that piracy shouldn't be criminal. They were not making legal arguments, they were making assertions of perception, "us-vs-them", class struggle, entitlement and emotion.

My BP would boil and I'd get headaches.

My solution was 2 parted: I pretty much stopped reading/posting in such threads, and when it pops up elsewhere, I just note it and keep on going because I know that nothing I can say- over the internet, at least- will change that person's mind.

But, I do like the suggestion that any more discussion of terminology be taken over to the other thread.

Agreed- I'll leave off the discussion of "videogamey" to the videogamey thread, especially in the light of recent postings.

If anyone has further things to address to me personally regarding this, just quote the passage and cross-post it there.

 

[Umbran]

I've heard stories in this thread and elsewhere about friendships breaking up or threatening to break up over 3e versus 4e, and this makes me sad. After all, D&D is just a game, right?

Why do we get so emotionally attached to RPGs?

Why do we (the broad "we", meaning humans) riot in the streets, burning sofas, damaging the property of random people and sending others to the hospital when our favorite sports team loses?

Why do we do exactly the same thing when our favorite team wins?

Those are just games, too. Even more surprising - we aren't the ones playing! Why are we emotionally attached to teams and get so worked up over their performance (or lack thereof)?

We are willing to take sides and become... horridly unreasonable about a great many things.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A psychology professor once said to me:

"People like to think of humans as thinking, rational beings with emotions, when its closer to the truth to say we are emotional beings who can be rational. Sometimes."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Its no more vague than any other word with multiple definitions- you can usually discern its meaning from the context.

Here, you can't use context to determine the exact use of the word, but the problem is that all or nearly all of the definitions are irrefutable due to their being descriptive of personal emotional/perceptive reactions to the game...which renders specificity moot.

When you try to debate someone about their personal perception of a mechanic, you will never be able to convince them they should think otherwise.

I simply disagree here, due to my own experiences with "emotional perception".

I disliked Startrek Deep Space Nine. It was not like Startrek - The Next Generation. I didn't "get it". Then I got a book "Making of Startrek Deep Space Nine". And I learned not just technical details, but also the philosophy behind the story, the different style it had, the story-telling concepts. And suddenly I "got it" and I loved it. Yes, even the first two seasons before the Dominion appeared on the scene. Today, it remains my favorite Startrek Show.

We can't argue with how you feel. But you can try to explain to you how a mechanic can be used (maybe as intendended by the designers, maybe just in a way you might prefer), or describe how we feel about it and why. And you can "get it" too. Maybe. No guarantees. But even if it doesn't work for you, it might work for someone else with similar concerns...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

We can't argue with how you feel. But you can try to explain to you how a mechanic can be used (maybe as intendended by the designers, maybe just in a way you might prefer), or describe how we feel about it and why. And you can "get it" too. Maybe. No guarantees. But even if it doesn't work for you, it might work for someone else with similar concerns...

Except, IME, that that is never what people who are discussing someone's use of "videogamey" are trying to do. Each and every time I've seen the discussion, its been about how that perception is wrong, and they try to show why its wrong, how such an assertion is factually incorrect- with examples- and so forth.

Just like Majoru Oakheart complained- properly- that some people used the term as an insult and it pissed him off, that reflexive posting to "correct" someone's perceptions can be just as insulting.

I don't care about how many other things Healing Surges can be used for other than for healing at all- that initial underlying use is what bugs me, what reminds me of video games. The only way it wouldn't is by its excision from the game.

(And let me be perfectly clear: despite what I just wrote there, I could easily see a game- even a P&P RPG- in which this mechanic was used that I would enjoy. I just don't want that mechanic in my D&D.)

My buddies don't care about how marking and aggro work in 4Ed at all- their inclusion in the game is what bugs them, what reminds them of video games. They like those in MMORPGs, but have no desire to use them at the table.

Its a matter of taste. Some people like the combo of peanut butter and chocolate. Some people like both flavors individually, but don't like them combined.

Those who are complaining of the videogamey aspects of 4Ed are mainly complaining about taste. By harping on why this or that isn't "videogamey", how they ought to rethink or consider how others have used those elements, you might as well be telling them to sit down and enjoy their chocolate covered jalapeno stuffed turdmuffins.

 

[Lanefan]

I am not certain of that at all. There is an argument (Mistwell brought it up most recently in another thread, I think, and provided links to back the assertion) that 1e far outsold anything that has come along since. There is another argument that there are more 1e players right now than there are 4e players.

To this I can only offer my own-eyes evidence:

Currently in our extended crew there are 19 players/DMs.

11 are active in at least one Victoria Rules (1e-variant) game.
11 are active in at least one 3.x-e game.
(3 are active in both and are thus counted twice)

I do not know anybody who is currently active in either a 2e or a 4e game.

As for the term "video-gamey", what it says to me is here is a game where you have the *illusion* of being able to do anything, but in fact you are still limited by what the programmers allowed for; and that sooner or later you're inevitably going to hit the end of the program and realize that no, there are in fact things you think you ought to be able to do but cannot.

A good example might be a car-race video game - you're racing around on a track, and it occurs to you that in real life you'd be able to try driving across the grass as a shortcut; so you try, but the program can't handle you getting more than x distance away from the track...or turning off the track and driving away down the street...and so you run into an invisible wall.

Pen-and-paper games don't have the invisible walls.

Lanefan

 

[DaveMage]

A psychology professor once said to me:

"People like to think of humans as thinking, rational beings with emotions, when its closer to the truth to say we are emotional beings who can be rational. Sometimes."

Sounds right to me.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Except, IME, that that is never what people who are discussing someone's use of "videogamey" are trying to do. Each and every time I've seen the discussion, its been about how that perception is wrong, and they try to show why its wrong, how such an assertion is factually incorrect- with examples- and so forth.

My experience varies. We have had discussions here on ENWorld based on the specifics of "videogamey" aspects that go very well. No one trying to prove the other wrong. Just people sharing their views on the subject. Every time I've seen it go south is when someone cries "Videogamey!" without elaborating their views. And usually this is because the main definition I think people make of "videogamey" is Lanefan's "off the track" example. Any "walls" I've encountered in any edition of any PNP RPG game I've played are put there by the GM, not the rules.

I don't care about how many other things Healing Surges can be used for other than for healing at all- that initial underlying use is what bugs me, what reminds me of video games. The only way it wouldn't is by its excision from the game.

(And let me be perfectly clear: despite what I just wrote there, I could easily see a game- even a P&P RPG- in which this mechanic was used that I would enjoy. I just don't want that mechanic in my D&D.)

My buddies don't care about how marking and aggro work in 4Ed at all- their inclusion in the game is what bugs them, what reminds them of video games. They like those in MMORPGs, but have no desire to use them at the table.

See? You've explained the aspects you find "videogamey" instead of just using the term. And your definition is completely different from Lanefan's. I agree that there is no counterpoint to your definition of "videogamey" because it is a matter of personal taste. Whereas Lanefan's definition applies an attribute to the game I disagree with and I stated my opinion in that regard. With more discussion we may discover what "walls" Lanefan is finding in 4E. And further discussion of how to remove those walls may not help Lanefan enjoy the game, but might help a player of 4E with similar issues enjoy the game more. I'm not trying to prove anyone "wrong."

Those who are complaining of the videogamey aspects of 4Ed are mainly complaining about taste. By harping on why this or that isn't "videogamey", how they ought to rethink or consider how others have used those elements, you might as well be telling them to sit down and enjoy their chocolate covered jalapeno stuffed turdmuffins.

But it's when you relate a particular game or edition to a "chocolate covered jalapeno stuffed turdmuffin" that you start edition wars. Just because one person doesn't like something doesn't make it a "turdmuffin."

 

[MrGrenadine]

D&D is too turdmuffiny.

From now on, I'm sticking with a modified GURPS/FATAL hybrid I created, using Schrodinger's Cat as the core mechanic.

 

[FireLance]

From now on, I'm sticking with a modified GURPS/FATAL hybrid I created, using Schrodinger's Cat as the core mechanic.

Frankly, Schrodinger's Cat is dead to me. Do not want.