What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Raven Crowking]

Make sense?

Sure, but I think there is an equal reader bias involved. "It wasn't what it was" implies, perhaps, that the speaker liked what it was, and doesn't like what it has become.

But that is a fair opinion to hold, and doesn't imply that people who dislike something are wrongbad.

******

As an interesting side to this discussion, has anyone else read the interview in The Escapist about 4e design? There's a thread discussing it here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/272911-truth-about-4th-edition.html


RC

 

[Ariosto]

"limited," "overly complicated," "boring," "slow," or "old-fashioned."

These are also all in the eyes of the beholder, but "overly complicated" and "boring" are certainly negative. (Yes, imagine that! People use negative terms to describe what they don't like -- and positive ones to express like. Funny how that works.)

One man's "overly complicated" can be another's "not robust enough". Heck, one man's "overly complicated" can even be another man's, "You must be joking! You consider more time spent crunching more numbers to apply more rules less complicated?!".

Opinions may likewise differ on which game is more "limited", quite apart from whether limitation is inherently bad.

Is 4e "boring and slow", or "fascinating and fast-paced"? That seems to depend in part on whether 10 minutes or 50 spent on a typical fight better suits one's taste.

"Old-fashioned" may be a negative to people who place a high value on being "up to date" -- but it is probably not so to self-styled members of an "old school"!

 

[billd91]

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.

But why does the fight have to start because someone posted their subjective views of the game? The answer is: it doesn't. If I feel that, after 20 years of playing the game through 3 differen editions, 4e isn't really the same game any more, I don't see why that has to start a fight. But it has been my experience that someone will pick a fight based on that statement no matter how I couch it in subjective terms. I will be told by someone that my opinion is wrong. Which, of course, it is not.

 

[JohnSnow]

Of course it's a fair opinion to hold, but would you not agree that it's less confrontational to simply say "I prefer the game the way it used to be" than to say "the game isn't what it once was."

I, for one, play Fourth Edition. I don't want to go back to 3e (or 2e, 1e or Basic D&D) for all sorts of reasons, and no amount of arguing is going to change my mind. Similarly, I accept that some people prefer those editions and aren't going to play 4e.

What I take issue with is people who refuse to give 4e a chance, or cast aspersions on it without playing it. I had my issues with, for example, Castles & Crusades, but I gave it an honest try. I don't want to try Pathfinder because it is, by everyone's account, largely a modified 3e. And since I don't want to go back to 3e, I don't want to try Pathfinder. However, those are, on my part, informed decisions. I'm operating from a space of knowledge and experience - not supposition.

Anyone who gives 4e an honest try and then says "nope, sorry, not my cup of tea" earns my respect. I may still agree to disagree with things they like or dislike about the game, but they're entitled to their opinion. I enjoy, and even look forward to, an honest back and forth about the relative merits of different editions with such a person. And all the while I recognize that we may perceive the same issue from different perspectives.

I realize that not all fans of 4e are as tolerant. But given the amount of vitriol many (most?) Pathfinder and other older edition players toss their way, I hardly find it surprising.

Play what you like. It's when people go about trying to justify "why" they play what they do that someone gets insulted, and a fight usually starts.

Again, my two cents.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But why does the fight have to start because someone posted their subjective views of the game? The answer is: it doesn't. If I feel that, after 20 years of playing the game through 3 differen editions, 4e isn't really the same game any more, I don't see why that has to start a fight. But it has been my experience that someone will pick a fight based on that statement no matter how I couch it in subjective terms. I will be told by someone that my opinion is wrong. Which, of course, it is not.

"4E isn't really the same game any more" is a subjective opinion that carries less implied baggage, IMO. "4E is not D&D" carries an implication to many readers that one is claiming ownership over what is and is not D&D and that they seek to throw out 4E players from the "D&D clubhouse."

 

[Ariosto]

Dungeons & Dragons is "videogamey" and "WoWish" to the extent that those other games are D&D-ish -- which seems to me quite a bit for the simple reason that they were inspired or influenced by it. The spell list in Telengard sure didn't come from RuneQuest. Imitation is the highest form of flattery!

It's a roleplaying game, and it's as much D&D as any other edition of the game.

Says you, and of course you can appeal to your own authority to convince yourself that you are right.

If it is "not really D&D", then it is as little an "edition of D&D" as is Tunnels & Trolls.

Is Labyrinth Lord "an edition of D&D"? Do you really expect the people who have fun playing it to give a pile of flying figs what your answer may be?

 

[billd91]

"4E isn't really the same game any more" is a subjective opinion that carries less implied baggage, IMO. "4E is not D&D" carries an implication to many readers that one is claiming ownership over what is and is not D&D and that they seek to throw out 4E players from the "D&D clubhouse."

It is, nevertheless, what I mean - though I'd probably qualify that further by saying it's not in the AD&D line anymore, while 3e pretty much was despite WotC dropping the "Advanced".

As far as throwing people out of the clubhouse, see how that turns around? For those of us who don't feel 4e is the same game, it occurs to us that WotC has thrown us out of the D&D clubhouse by changing the game to something that no longer appeals to us.

 

[rounser]

For those of us who don't feel 4e is the same game, it occurs to us that WotC has thrown us out of the D&D clubhouse by changing the game to something that no longer appeals to us.

It'll be interesting to see in time if WOTC have thrown themselves out. They can keep the name, and can put it on a packet of crisps if they like, but have already ceded much of the D&D territory. E.g. Unless you chuck out lots of stuff that's assumed to be there by default, 4E is not what I'd consider a generic fantasy construction kit. Pathfinder or a retroclone are a better choice for that. Thus 4E retreats from what should be a core competency for D&D.

 

[Ariosto]

I don't want to try Pathfinder because it is, by everyone's account, largely a modified 3e.

Don't believe those lies! It's totally new and improved, just the thing for someone who disliked D&D so much he almost left the hobby before discovering Vampire: the Masquerade!

It's still the same game, though, so if you loved the game the Vampire fan hated then you've got to love Pathfinder even more!

Do you like 4E? Pathfinder is the same, only better!

Do you not like 4E? Pathfinder is so much different!

Just glancing at an advertisement can be enough to prove that it's the best RPG since Tales of the Floating Vagabond. However, you absolutely have to play for at least 300 hours before you can say that you don't like it, because obviously that requires thorough investigation of all the nuances of every build including the upcoming ones from PHB4.

Well, either that or the announcement of the next edition, which of course will instantly demonstrate that this one is a piece of Anti-fun "designed" by fume-addled hacks.

 

[Ariosto]

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!"

No kidding.

It's not "like WoW" that bothers you.

That someone happens not to like 4e is what you can't abide.