What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[JohnSnow]

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.

Actually, I don't say that Fourth Edition D&D is D&D. The NAME on the cover of the books says that. That, and only that, is the definition of whether a game is "D&D" or isn't. We can argue, if you'd like, about whether homages/ripoffs with a different title (such as Castles & Crusades or Swords & Wizardry) ought to count as "variant editions" of D&D. Personally, I count them. Most of them would, I think, happily claim the title.

It's clear to me that you, for whatever reasons, are not content with simply saying you "don't like" 4e. Clearly, you feel some need to denigrate it as being somehow "less" than the game you play so you can...what? So you can feel good about your choice? Whatever.

Play whatever you want. Don't play whatever you want. I don't honestly care if you hate 4e and think it's the worst game since Candyland.

But when you try to kick 4e players off "D&D island" because you don't personally enjoy the edition of Dungeons & Dragons that they prefer, you're being a jerk.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What videogames use Healing Surges?

Yoshimitsu in Tekken, for one, and that's enough.

 

[JohnSnow]

No kidding.

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

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

Nonsense. What I can't abide is someone saying:

"There's nothing insulting about saying the game is 'like WoW.' I play WoW, I enjoy WoW, and if I want that game experience I'll play WoW. But I don't want that experience in my D&D game."

Guess what? That sentence was a roundabout way of saying 4e was "like WoW," in a way that the statement is a putdown of 4e. Again, I don't care if you like 4e or not. Just be aware that when you express your dislike by drawing a comparison to something 4e isn't (a video game), you're inviting an argument.

And "Not D&D" really is the worst attack you can make. Nobody should be surprised when people who play that edition get offended or royally pissed off.

 

[Garthanos]

Yoshimitsu in Tekken, for one, and that's enough.

I would call that video game realistic and cinematic both and rather un-video-game like.(no constantly dropped healing potions or slave healer no everybody with regeneration? that is sacrilege)

Shrug, second Wind is a verified medical phenomena (which I have experienced myself) as well as a strong action movie trope. And "healing" usually meaning something similar to faith healing where poets, priests and politician enable and inspire there heroic allies to access in born deeper resources of energy and morale (read the definition of hit points Gygax said from the beginning next none of hit points represent wounds). And I love healing being proportionate.

A higher hit point character taking more resources to heal... well thats just WoW on wheels dude... totally videogamey

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would call that video game realistic and cinematic both and rather un-video-game like.

And yet, its a video game.

Its one I LOVE, but its a video game, ergo, my comparison. Heck, that's even the character I play 99.99% of the time (that, and in some incarnations, the Yoshimitsu clone, Kunimitsu).

And despite all that love, I have no desire to play D&D with healing surges.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nonsense. What I can't abide is someone saying:

"There's nothing insulting about saying the game is 'like WoW.' I play WoW, I enjoy WoW, and if I want that game experience I'll play WoW. But I don't want that experience in my D&D game."

Guess what? That sentence was a roundabout way of saying 4e was "like WoW," in a way that the statement is a putdown of 4e. Again, I don't care if you like 4e or not. Just be aware that when you express your dislike by drawing a comparison to something 4e isn't (a video game), you're inviting an argument.

And "Not D&D" really is the worst attack you can make. Nobody should be surprised when people who play that edition get offended or royally pissed off.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here we have Exhibit A of the kind of stuff I've been talking about for pages.

Person A: "I don't like 4Ed because its videogamey."
Person B: "Videogamey how?"
Person A: "Its like WoW. I like WoW, but I don't want it in my D&D."
Person B: "Well now you're just tickin' me off!"

The critical statement can't be abided by the person asking for clarification, lighting the fuse. Person B already knew from the first sentence that 4Ed was being criticized by comparison. Once the exact comparison became defined- a comparison to WoW- Person B had everything they needed to become indignant as if it were a personal attack and not merely a critique of the game based on someone else's gaming preferences.

Apparently, it has become impossible to criticize the game without criticizing the gamer. There is an inability or unwillingness on the parts of some people to accept a statement like "I like WoW, but I don't want it in my D&D." or my similar statement about Healing Surges & Tekken at face value. To them, the words are merely a facade to an ad hominem attack.

What purpose did asking for clarification serve? It lit the fuse, and that's it.

And, FWIW, MMMORPGs were among the many sources from which the 4Ed team drew inspiration, so one can hardly claim that those who critique the game on that basis- rejecting those elements- are being trollish.

The Escapist : The Truth About 4th Edition: Part One of Our Exclusive Interview with Wizards of the Coast

 

[JohnSnow]

And yet, its a video game.

Its one I LOVE, but its a video game, ergo, my comparison. Heck, that's even the character I play 99.99% of the time (that, and in some incarnations, the Yoshimitsu clone, Kunimitsu).

And despite all that love, I have no desire to play D&D with healing surges.

And given that there are something like 10 editions of D&D (1) that don't have them, you can. I, for one, like the healing surge mechanic, as it's presented in 4e.

Mostly, I see "healing surges" in 4e as just a way of unifying the multitude of healing mechanics in the game. Other than that, each character gets 1 heal per combat encounter that's under his own control (his "Second Wind"), but very little else has, in fact, changed. Unless we're back to attrition-based gaming again. In which case, there's still 10 older editions that follow that model.



1. By my count, there's Dungeons & Dragons (1974), 2 versions of Basic/Expert D&D, 1e AD&D, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e (& 3.5), Castles & Crusades, Pathfinder, and Swords & Wizardry. That's 10. And that's without counting any of the variant versions of 3e as separate games (like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved or Iron Heroes).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And given that there are something like 10 editions of D&D (1) that don't have them, you can.

And I do.

That truth, however, does not negate the fact that this is a valid critique of 4Ed, as is a similar critique of the game being "too WoW-like"

Just as we can happily enjoy other editions of D&D free of Healing Surges and certain MMORPG elements, you're free to do the same with the edition that includes them.

Just don't overreact when someone critiques the game- not YOU- on the basis of including those elements.

 

[JohnSnow]

Apparently, it has become impossible to criticize the game without criticizing the gamer. There is an inability or unwillingness on the parts of some people to accept a statement like "I like WoW, but I don't want it in my D&D." or my similar statement about Healing Surges & Tekken at face value. To them, the words are merely a facade to an ad hominem attack.

What purpose did asking for clarification serve? It lit the fuse, and that's it.

The problem, as I see it, is that for many people, their attack on the game carries with it an implicit criticism of the gamers who like it. Can we agree that however you feel about any edition of D&D, it is insulting and rude to claim that your version is for "smarter," "more serious," or "better" gamers?

That's the basis of my responses above. It's why I feel so strongly about the "It's not D&D" attack. Because, bluntly, the assertion is terribly rude. You don't have to like the game, or play it, but you have to know you're starting a fight if you make that assertion. Because to some people, it IS D&D. That argument (which can't even be called a discussion) can only play out like this (highly abbreviated):

Old-timer: "Fourth Edition isn't D&D (because of X)."
4e player: "Yes it is!"
OT: "No, it's not."
4e: "Yes, it is."
OT: "Is not!"
4e: "Is too!"
OT: "Is not!"

Played out ad infinitum. Does that sound childish to anyone else? The "because of X" doesn't matter, because it's the first statement that starts the fight. Obviously, it would be the same if some new player said that the old-timer's game of choice "wasn't D&D," but that just doesn't happen. The above does - frequently. And "videogamey," "WoW-like," and others are frequently nothing but a less overt version of the same line of attack. By comparing 4e to something that isn't an RPG, the implication is that 4e isn't really an RPG. And therefore, since D&D IS an RPG, 4e isn't really D&D. This is not a hard, difficult to follow, or even irrational response to predict. And it fundamentally boils down to a "badwrongfun" attack.

Look, I get it. I played the older editions. I liked them. However, I happen to like the new edition as well. And I get ticked when some cranky jerk tells me that the edition I'm playing "isn't D&D" or that it has been "dumbed down."

I have no problem with someone saying: "I don't like it." I have no problem with "4e is too simple for me," (I feel the same way about Castles & Crusades) or "I prefer the nuances of selecting skill points over how 4e handles it," or "I prefer the 3e magic system," or even "I like that 3e has more options in character creation." All of those are valid opinions, expressed in a non-confrontational fashion, for someone to hold. So is, for the record, "I don't like the way 4e handles healing - the surge mechanic doesn't work for me."

Where it gets rude is "D&D shouldn't have a healing surge mechanic. 4e is dead to me (not D&D, or some other similar hyperbole)."

See the difference?

And, FWIW, MMMORPGs were among the many sources from which the 4Ed team drew inspiration, so one can hardly claim that those who critique the game on that basis- rejecting those elements- are being trollish.

Sure, but it's definitely trollish to assert the presence of those elements in a way that you are fully aware is an attack not just on the game, but on the taste of the people who play it.

I freely admit 4e borrowed stuff from WoW. I also know (since I know one of the guys who was responsible for creating it) that WoW borrowed liberally from D&D in the first place. That doesn't make 4e "videogamey." One mechanic does not a system make. I fully expect games to borrow mechanics from other games (as D&D borrowed dice in the first place), both in genre and out. That's simply smart design - trying to learn from what has gone before.

 

[Garthanos]

And yet, its a video game.

Like I said sounds like an incredibly unique thing for it to have so utterly unlike other video games. Calling healing surges videogame like seems very ignorant of the vast majority of video games and of action cinema and even of medical reality.

Like I said the features of healing in earlier versions of D&D were not in sync with the definition of hit points. .. Nor do they seem to be anything but the mechanisms in most video game healing (but you know the reason is they copied D&D). So even though I could call the earlier versions of D&D videogamey I wont be spamming the forum with it... any time soon.

Bloody useless term only a troll would like. ~ don't call people trolls unless you want to be threadbanned: Admin ~