What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Vyvyan Basterd]

That's not what I said.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in that I was not attributing this sentiment to you. I was merely using your euphimism as a way to point out how someone takes the criticism too far and insults fans of a particular game.

To tone down the example a bit- I wrote it that way because I'd had enough of people telling me to try chocolate covered jalepano stuffed turdmuffins for the day- imagine trying to convince a 4 year old to eat asparagus and/or brussels sprouts after they've already complained "They taste nasty!" (And have, in fact, tasted the veggies.) No matter how much you tell that kid to try that asparagus, you're going to meet resistance because he's already made up his mind. Now, its possible he may change his opinion some time in the future- usually if he experiments with them of his own free will. But every time you try to feed the kid asparagus, you're in for a war.

Using children in your analogy hurts the analogy because as a father of two wonderful boys I know that children are extremely difficult to reason with. If I instead use your example with adults I could get this exchange (as I actually have IRL):

Adult 1: I hate brussel sprouts!
Adult 2: Why don't you like them?
Adult 1: They're bitter and nasty.
Adult 2: How have you had them cooked?
Adult 1: Boiled.
Adult 2: Try frying them with seasoning and butter, baking them with this seasoning, or even roasting them on the grill.
<Later>
Adult 1: I tried frying the brussel sprouts.
Adult 2: How'd you like them?
Adult 1: Surprisingly good!

Just like someone who currently dislikes 4E for certain reasons may hear of a way that others who play but dislike the same aspects of the game have made changes to arrive at the feel they desire. Or they may "fry 4E" and still not like it.

When it comes to things like Healing Surges and other videogamey mechanics, I'll paraphrase the words of Theodore Geisel, "I do not want them in the box, I do not want them with a fox, I do not want them, 4Ed lovers, now try to change the views of others."

I can't speak for others, but I'm not trying to change anyone's views of 4E when I talk about it. I'm just sharing my opinion.

You're assuming I was defining the term specifically in relation to 4e, which is not the case.

Sorry, again I was only using your analogy and did not mean to imply that that was your view on 4E.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

When it comes to things like Healing Surges and other videogamey mechanics...

What videogames use Healing Surges? I've seen it posited that fighting games use those, but I've played many of those over the years and don't remember Healing Surges. I do remember something very similar to Healing Surges in Earthdawn, and being a huge fan of that game I didn't find the inclusion in 4E to cause me any hiccups.

 

[JohnSnow]

It seems to me that edition wars usually start with someone making a "badwrongfun" attack.

That can take one of two forms. The first (and I think more common) is fans of older editions criticizing a particular new version using some pejorative phrase such as "dumbed down," "video-gamey," "WoW-ish," or, my personal favorite "not really D&D." The second is those who play a newer edition criticizing an older one using similarly pejorative language such as "limited," "overly complicated," "boring," "slow," or "old-fashioned."

It can be very hard for some people to believe that someone can honestly hold a different opinion without being WRONG. The ideal roleplaying game system (even the ideal D&D) is largely a matter of personal taste. However, I generally think Edition Wars get started by a fan of a previous edition explaining that they no longer play the current edition because they don't like it. But rather than just admitting the game has changed in a way that they don't like, they try to justify their decision by saying that the game "is no longer what it once was."

In a culture such as ours where most people like to have "the newest thing," I think some people feel the only way they can feel good playing an "old" version is to claim that it's inherently superior. And since it is "logical" (and in keeping with societal expectation) that things improve over time, the only way to assert superiority is to criticize some aspect of a new edition as having become "inferior" because of a BAD decision. Since not everyone agrees with the assertion that the decision is "bad," it starts a fight.

Similarly, when something gets changed that a particular person thought was "fine" as it was, they start quoting the aphorism that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If someone else asserts that it didn't work at their table, some folks, rather than admitting that everyone has different preferences, decide that the other people are somehow playing the game "wrong."

So I guess I'm saying that differing playstyles and preferences, and the inability of some folks to admit that those other than their own are equally valid, are ultimately responsible for Edition Wars.

My (slightly more than) two coppers.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But rather than just admitting the game has changed in a way that they don't like, they try to justify their decision by saying that the game "is no longer what it once was."

So, rather than just admitting that the game has changed, they say that the game isn't the same?

 

[JohnSnow]

So, rather than just admitting that the game has changed, they say that the game isn't the same?

In common parlance, "It isn't what it once was" (which is the exact phrase I used) generally implies that something has degraded from its heyday. It's frequently used to refer to once great athletes, or a run-down car, or something similar.

By contrast, "the game has changed" is generally a much more value-neutral statement.

By way of example, I would suggest that many of the folks playing, for example, Pathfinder would say that it "has changed" since Third Edition D&D, but would, by contrast, say that Dungeons & Dragons (in its current edition) "isn't what it once was."

By contrast, I don't think you'll find anyone who plays Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons who would argue that "the game has changed" because, well, it has. What they'd probably argue with is the implied value judgement of the latter statement in the paragraph above.

Make sense?

 

[Ariosto]

I've seen plenty of people who are definitely not petulant children get awfully fed up with getting told that they have not given 4e enough of a chance to decide that they don't like it. As soon as one reaches this or that goal post, along comes someone to move it yet again! It sure can end up looking as if nothing is going to be "fair" in the eyes of the partisans except joining them.

Here's a suggestion: Try playing with your local non-4e fan a game he actually likes. If you like it, too, then the sum of fun is greater than making him play something he dislikes. If you are not willing, because you already know that it is not for you ...

... then let sauce for the goose be sauce for the freaking gander already, eh?

What videogames use Healing Surges?

Here's a tip: If you know enough to answer that, then you probably like the latest thing in video games a lot more than someone who's using "videogamy" both negatively and (at least arguably, and without really much caring) inaccurately.

Dunno, but maybe that's a clue as to what "videogamy" means, eh?

 

[Ariosto]

some pejorative phrase such as "dumbed down," "video-gamey," "WoW-ish," or, my personal favorite "not really D&D."

Of those, only "dumbed down" appears to me inherently pejorative. The others are negative only because someone doesn't like what he or she doesn't like!

Frag is "video-gamy" by, IIRC, explicit intent. If "like a shooter video game" was a selling point for giving it a try, then that is hardly pejorative!

Frag is also "Wiz-War-ish" in that it involves players moving pieces around a board to blast each other and pick up cards that provide special ways to move, blast, or avoid getting blasted. If one happens to like Wiz-War, then that's no put-down.

Frag, finally, is none at all the worse for being "not really D&D" -- for all that it might in some aspects fairly be called "dungeon-y" or "RPG-ish", and is with no ambiguity at all about "killing things and taking their stuff"!

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Here's a tip: If you know enough to answer that, then you probably like the latest thing in video games a lot more than someone who's using "videogamy" both negatively and (at least arguably, and without really much caring) inaccurately.

Dunno, but maybe that's a clue as to what "videogamy" means, eh?

I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. I was asking a question in honest curiosity because I am no longer a videogame player and never saw a mechanic in videogames when I did play them that resembles Healing Surges. I'm not looking to argue, just looking for an answer from someone who has played such a videogame.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm not looking to argue ...

Other people often are, and will go to great lengths to demonstrate that -- surprise, surprise! -- people who consider "videogamy" a negative are often not experts on videogames.

I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

I am talking about the facts I mentioned above, and about what seems to me the very high likelihood that in such cases "videogamy" is not really meant as some sort of objective correlation of fine technical points between one game and another to be "proved" or "disproved" as if it were a matter of fact.

I think it is more often meant to reflect a subjective impression -- maybe more an induced affect than a discrete feature -- that somehow (perhaps in no way one can quite pin down) reminded someone more of videogames than of anything else that came to to mind. That person might even like some videogames, in their own rights and including this (maybe nebulous) quality.

The critical point is that the impression in question is not what that person wants to get from (in this case) a game of "Dungeons & Dragons".

 

[JohnSnow]

I'm going to ignore comments about Frag because, as far as I'm aware, since the topic is "Edition Wars," the assumption is D&D (or some other roleplaying game with a legacy). Ergo, what is, or is not, pejorative relative to some other experience is irrelevant.

Of those, only "dumbed down" appears to me inherently pejorative. The others are negative only because someone doesn't like what he or she doesn't like!

I will admit there's a distinction between a phrase that is "inherently pejorative" and one that is "implied pejorative." It's pretty easy to tell from context whether the comparison is intended to be pejorative or not.

Not liking something is fine, but people fixate on using those comparative statements to imply that the game is something it isn't - a video-game, WoW, or "not really D&D." Someone who disagrees on what constitutes similarity to a video game (or WoW, or older editions of D&D) isn't going to concur with one person's assessment that a particular edition is one of those things. And again, a fight starts.

Clearly, Dungeons & Dragons 4e is neither World of Warcraft nor any other video game. It's a roleplaying game, and it's as much D&D as any other edition of the game (except arguably, the original - and I mean the 1974 white box here). Fourth Edition's similarity (or lack thereof) to WoW, a video game, or earlier editions of D&D is largely a matter of OPINION.

Now, has it drawn on some of the developments in game design (RPG and otherwise) over the last 35 years for its changes? I dearly hope so. Do those changes make it "video-gamey?"Not in my opinion. In someone else's, perhaps, but they need to recognize that I (and many others) will take that comparison just as pejoratively as they intend it.

Nobody who likes 4e that I've seen ever gets mad at positive comparisons such as (egregious over-simplification) "D&D 4e has well-defined roles just like WoW - about time!"