What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[merelycompetent]

My original argument was that 3Ed had conversion guides, 4Ed didn't.

One you can't find- in your situation- or one you have no idea exists at all- my situation- is functionally the same as not having one at all.

Now, why your stores didn't have them, I can't say. Why Wizards didn't direct people to the website via non-web resources, I can- they didn't have any.

Y'know, I posted several times requesting conversion information. No links, no direction, frequently no response, certainly nothing ever pointing to those web pages from 2008. Even from WotC employees.

That page might as well have not existed.

I emailed one of those links that a previous poster graciously provided to some of the 20 or so gamers I know. First response: "Where did that come from?"

No one in my crowd of a couple dozen gamers knew this existed. One of the 4E fans among us was floored. (He's been trying to convince me to give 4E another try.)

That. Is. Sad.

Conversion information... that no one knew about.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Considering that WotC told you couldn't convert (first thing mentioned in the first article!), it made little sense to scour their website for a conversion guide.

 

[Wayside]

I beg to differ. You are always responsible for your own behavior.

Which is why when someone yells the nerd equivalent of "fire" in a crowded theater--in this case, yelling "4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game" in a forum made up substantially of 4e fans--they should be held accountable for the resulting stampede. After all, aren't they responsible for what they say? Nothing constructive ever comes of calling 4e videogamey or Pathfinder a money grab, and to insist that nobody can challenge such claims, as billd91 does, is even more laughable than the claims themselves.

 

[Ourph]

and to insist that nobody can challenge such claims, as billd91 does, is even more laughable than the claims themselves.

No one is saying it's inappropriate to challenge those kind of assertions, just that it's inappropriate to accuse the person making them of being a liar.

 

[outsider]

It isn't coddling when you look for the heart of the issue, instead of being distracted by perceived or actual factual inaccuracy.

Factual accuracy is my stake in the edition war. I really don't care who's on what side or why they chose the side they did, as quite frankly I find the edition war pointless. What I do care about is talking about the game of D&D, and I think it pollutes the discussion if we allow people to spread untruths about it, whether they stem from grognard rage or blind fanboyism.

Could I be less confrontational about it? Sure. But I'm not going to stop telling people they are wrong when what they say is objectively wrong.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Y'know, I posted several times requesting conversion information. No links, no direction, frequently no response, certainly nothing ever pointing to those web pages from 2008. Even from WotC employees.

That page might as well have not existed.

I emailed one of those links that a previous poster graciously provided to some of the 20 or so gamers I know. First response: "Where did that come from?"

No one in my crowd of a couple dozen gamers knew this existed. One of the 4E fans among us was floored. (He's been trying to convince me to give 4E another try.)

That. Is. Sad.

Conversion information... that no one knew about.

Considering that WotC told you couldn't convert (first thing mentioned in the first article!), it made little sense to scour their website for a conversion guide.

I'm quoting these, not to bolster my position, but to point out something else at stake in the Edition Wars:

Regardless of whether we care for the next iteration of the game's design, I'm sure we'd like WotC to learn from the mistakes many of us feel happened in the 4Ed rollout, and this is a telling example.

Hopefully, WotC is aware of this particular fumble and the next edition's conversion guide- if one exists- will be well-publicised.

Even to those of us who don't live on the Internet.

 

[billd91]

Which is why when someone yells the nerd equivalent of "fire" in a crowded theater--in this case, yelling "4e plays like a glorified miniatures skirmish game" in a forum made up substantially of 4e fans--they should be held accountable for the resulting stampede. After all, aren't they responsible for what they say? Nothing constructive ever comes of calling 4e videogamey or Pathfinder a money grab, and to insist that nobody can challenge such claims, as billd91 does, is even more laughable than the claims themselves.

Asked for clarification or challenged for the reasons behind their impressions? Yes. Told that their subjective opinion is factually wrong? No.

A 4e-oriented forum is not a crowded theater. Nobody will or even can be harmed as a direct result of stating an unfavorable impression of 4e. There is no equivalency.

 

[Garthanos]

Asked for clarification or challenged for the reasons behind their impressions? Yes. Told that their subjective opinion is factually wrong? No.

Some of the "lies" I have seen could have been paraphrased very directly by taking a paragraph directly out of the players handbook and wrapping a big CANNOT or SHOULDNOT statement around what it suggests and recommends... and when called on it... they get all offended that it is their opinion and just because they are bad at arguing is no reason to insult them... its opinion and that is all that matters.... I am not buying the innocent act.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Factual accuracy is my stake in the edition war.

There is nothing factually accurate about the statement "4e plays like a glorified miniature game". Nor is there anything factually inaccurate. It is a statement whose truth-value is always subjective.

Trying to defend factual accuracy on the basis of subjective truths is sparrring with a shadow.

"It's all D&D" or "D&D is the same as its ever been" is another one of those subjective truths that I find myself worked up about, so I know how it goes. What I think you and I both object to is the statement of a subjective truth as though it were an objective one. But that doesn't mean that the person on the other side is unaware of the subjective nature of his claims.

I try very hard (but let's be honest....not nearly successfully enough!) to give the other person the best possible reading of what they wrote. But I miss things, and I have bad days, and some posts just rub me the wrong way. Some folks just rub me the wrong way, possibly through no fault of their own.

I believe that very few people in edition wars imagine themselves the aggressor. Almost everyone believes that they are simply defending their point of view, or the game they love. It helps to believe that, because otherwise you will never actually "get" the other points of view.

And sometimes, I have found, getting those points of view really does have benefits.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Some of the "lies" I have seen could have been paraphrased very directly by taking a paragraph directly out of the players handbook and wrapping a big CANNOT or SHOULDNOT statement around what it suggests and recommends... and when called on it... they get all offended that it is their opinion and just because they are bad at arguing is no reason to insult them... its opinion and that is all that matters.... I am not buying the innocent act.

We all know that games recommend things that, in play, never come to pass because what is recommended is not what is rewarded by the ruleset. I am sure from prior conversations that you can think of many, many examples yourself.

We have all seen how "suggested" wealth by level tables became ironclad in the culture of 3e, to the point that people would suggest that the game would require massive work if the DM ignored them.

We have all seen how "status quo" settings, while an option in 3e, became largely perceived as "unfair" (I have been involved in a lot of these conversations!) because the 3e ruleset power curve is so steep that the game offers little hope of escaping a foe who is substantially more powerful than the PCs.

Presenting an option in a rulebook does not mean that the option will play well (i.e., be supported by the ruleset as written) at the table. Need I bring up the 1e DMG unarmed combat rules? And, if the game provides other options that work better, it is almost certain that most gamers will choose the other options.

Likewise, just because an option is not presented in a rulebook does not mean that the option is not strongly encouraged by the actual ruleset. I don't know if disconnecting the narrative from the die rolls is explicitly optioned in 4e, for example, but I do know people who do so to bridge the disconnect between what is being described in the rules, and what happens at the table, with things like CaGI and healing surges.

Someone writing a set of game rules wants to cover his bases. Someone wanting to sell those rules as widely as possible wants even more bases covered, so as to sell to a wider audience. As a result, a rulebook can offer the perception that all bases are covered, whereas the actual ruleset does a poor job (at best) of covering some bases.

And this is true for every ruleset. Even my own. Even the best, most honest, designer is still going to think that something is covered, when it is not actually well covered at all.


RC


EDIT: And, no, I cannot tell you what 4e's flaws are in this regard. Usually, it requires a lot of play with a ruleset before the disconnect between what the rules offer and what the rulebooks recommend becomes apparent. If this isn't the case with a game (and you tell with a casual read-through), it is only because the designer(s) really flubbed the ball.

A charitable reading of the 4e marketing might well be WotC acknowledging the same. "We thought 3e would play like this, but it really plays like that, and we'd like to revise the rules as a result."