What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[Nifft]

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?

i.e.: "Just because you enjoy a game which is designed to be enjoyed by drooling morons, that's not insulting you! To each his own!" <-- note safety emoticon: clearly I can't be banned for this humor, which is totally not a direct personal insult

- - -

My actual answer:

What's at stake in the edition wars is sneering rights. Such things are not really worth having, and certainly not worth protecting.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Paradox]

A very long time ago, I went through "D&D is the ONLY RPG" phase that many go through. I had a friend bring me to her friend's game where they were playing Arcarnum. (IIRC.) I tried it, and had a blast.

I've since tried other games, but what I've figured out was that stripped down, all RPGs are the same.

Yes, they have different mechanics. Yes, they have different settings. At the heart of it all, all RPGs come down to the DM describing the setting, and the players reacting to that setting, and the DM providing the results of the interactions.

The only differences between RPGs are the ways they do things.

In D&D, saving throws have changed and evolved over the editions. But they're still there.

A common "gripe" about 4e is healing surges but they were always used in 3e- We called them wands of cure light wounds. For 315 gp, we'd have a wand with 50 charges. (And yes, we bought more than just one.) After every combat, many of us would need healing. So, one characeter would need to burn off 7 of those charges, another just needed 4. It would be stupid to go to the next encounter while not at full HP while the monsters were fresh.

And it's not like we could go back to town to heal "naturally"- that would take way too long, and the bad guy would either have taken over the world or at least re-enforced his stronghold.

So, healing surges aren't any more or less "realistic" than the wands. It's just a different way of handling the same situation.

 

[outsider]

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!"

Consider me the first then, because that statement annoys the heck out of me. Class roles have been an important facet of almost every version of D&D. Don't give WoW credit for this, as this isn't a case of D&D being like WoW, it's a case of WoW being like D&D.

Which is true of almost every single argument somebody makes about D&D copying WoW, no matter what side it comes from.

 

[rounser]

A common "gripe" about 4e is healing surges but they were always used in 3e- We called them wands of cure light wounds. For 315 gp, we'd have a wand with 50 charges. (And yes, we bought more than just one.) After every combat, many of us would need healing. So, one characeter would need to burn off 7 of those charges, another just needed 4. It would be stupid to go to the next encounter while not at full HP while the monsters were fresh.

You've missed the point. A wand curing a wound doesn't redefine hit points and challenge suspension of disbelief, whereas 4E's healing surges do, being as conceptually ridiculous as the "she turned me into a newt!....I got better" joke in Holy Grail to some of us. Even the term "healing surge" IMO completely sucks, bringing to mind wounds healing over through regaining confidence or a second wind some other such bollocks....???

 

[outsider]

You've missed the point. A wand curing a wound doesn't redefine hit points and challenge suspension of disbelief, whereas 4E's healing surges do

The HP system present in any version of D&D requires massive suspension of disbelief. Healing surges are no different.

 

[Garthanos]

quote=rounser;5109331] bringing to mind wounds healing over through regaining confidence or a second wind some other such bollocks....???[/quote]

Read the definition of hp(any edition) or the longer Gygaxian diatribe about hit points not being wounds.... and how it was ridiculous to think of them that way (the man was often insulting - but gets glorified). I dont have a link to it but I bet a 1e or 2e fan can find it.

Wow you think your character is a walking pin cushion with 100 plus hit points gee that makes me glad hit points actual are about spending energy and luck and even a touch of magic and losing morale ...in other words a buffer of resources all abstract used avoiding taking real wounds.

My imagination just couldn't hold up to your definition, maybe you would like RuneQuest more?

You might even check out medical studies on second wind or if you would rather ...Here is a less um emotional reaction.

"Realistic" second wind should only be something that happens when you were nearly out of hit points (fatigued and pushing it) and only as a daily effect once per encounter is movie hero zone, but it actually involves cellular level healing and clearing fatigue poisons. Even more realistically it might be something that happens after extended high intensity stuff like a chase scene. (been there done that - it feels awesome )

A 4e house rule to make second wind less cinematic would have it fire off only during the spending of an action point... I know kind of weird attaching it to another cinematic element.. but it brings it more inline frequency wise and effect wise (bursts of speed are very definitely a direct impact of a second wind, they were the first noticed effect).

A related phenomena:
"A surge of adrenaline coursed through him bringing him back from the dark edge". Adrenaline surges are the body kicking itself in gear the med techs are artificially doing something with a syringe that the body already has and does, so when they wake somebody dying on the table? its very like giving somebody extra death saves.

Faith healing aka Inspirational healing is both bolstering of morale and tweaking the psyche of the target to do its own thing ie kick the targets own immune system in to action. Believing you can/will heal accelerates healing and I heard a study once where they hypnotized somebody so they would heal a skin cancer.(sounds like bullocks to me too but the body doesn't recognize cancer as being the enemy and we have psychosomatic responses to things all the time... so well shrug )

It never made a whole lot of sense based on there definition for hit points to take days to recover.. and everyone had a cleric and later a wand of healing so that irrationality was probably rarely front and center. The person who should be the most hearty and have fewer hit points whose loss "might" be interpreted as wounds always took way more stuff to heal... one cure light wounds healed a near dead wizard to full hit points and you would have to poor a bucket load down the throat of the heartier higher level warrior ... did that make sense?

Or did players just put on their blinders and hmmm real loud when people said it was stupid.

Abstract hit points have problems ... saving throws were invented partially because you couldnt tell if a hit actually meant the target was even scratched.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Then the problem is in those people who cannot separate game criticism from personal criticism.

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?

I've stated as much in both threads.

It's why I feel so strongly about the "It's not D&D" attack.

IME, I and every other single person who has stated "Its not D&D" has followed that assertion up with "to me", either in the same sentence or elsewhere in that thread.

I'm not saying you haven't seen it, but I sure haven't.

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!"

I think its a valid critique, if strongly stated...except for the last bit. I hate intellectual death spirals.

And "videogamey," "WoW-like," and others are frequently nothing but a less overt version of the same line of attack.

IME, the vast majority of persons using "videogamey" or WoW-like" are making valid critical comparisons that have ZERO to do with a game's "RPG-ness."

By comparing 4e to something that isn't an RPG, the implication is that 4e isn't really an RPG.

That has no rhetorical validity- that something is compared to another thing of a different nature is NOT an inherently an implication that the former is somehow less of itself.

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?

IMO, its a strong critique of the game, but it isn't rude.

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 counter-assert that the mere phrase "4Ed is vidogamey (or WoW-like)" is NOT inherently such, and doesn't rise to the level of an insult unless and until someone actually asks for further clarification.

For most people, its simply an assertion of taste. For the true troll, its bait in a trap. And if the person is the latter, by asking for that clarification, you've fed the troll.

 

[JohnSnow]

You've missed the point. A wand curing a wound doesn't redefine hit points and challenge suspension of disbelief, whereas 4E's healing surges do, being as conceptually ridiculous as the "she turned me into a newt!....I got better" joke in Holy Grail to some of us. Even the term "healing surge" IMO completely sucks, bringing to mind wounds healing over through regaining confidence or a second wind some other such bollocks....???

I could reply that nothing has changed, because abstract hit points have always been part of the game of D&D. I admit that Monte Cook held the opinion going into 3e that hit points represented "real physical resistance to injury." The absurdity of that was shown, paradoxically, by Andy Collins in the Epic Level Handbook, where they talked about epic-level PCs swimming through lava.

That view of hit points as physical resilience was, largely, confined to 3rd Edition. And even 3e waffled a fair bit (the Epic Level Handbook aside). I've quoted Gygax's discussion of the subject from the 1e DMG many times. Gary was clearly of the opinion that hit points weren't purely physical. I admit he also argued (IMO, somewhat paradoxically) that it would take weeks of recovery for a PC to reach their "physical and metaphysical peak" without magical healing. But let's get real. If you're arguing that hit points do NOT represent physical injury (as Gygax did WAY back in 1e), then the amount of time it takes the PC to recover his "luck" is entirely a matter of subjective opinion, and "realism" doesn't enter into it in the slightest.

Yes, the Second Wind mechanic is cinematic, rather than realistic. Whether you like that or not is largely a matter of what kind of "feel" you want in your RPG. Obviously, not everyone likes the one that 4e uses, and again, that's okay.

IMO, its a strong critique of the game, but it isn't rude.

"Your game isn't D&D because it's not MY D&D" isn't rude? Didn't you agree earlier that the statement that your version was for "better" gamers was rude?

I find it amazing that you can believe that it's possible to brand a particular edition of the game as "not really D&D" without that critique being "my version is (objectively) BETTER than yours." How does that work, exactly? Technically, I suppose, it's "your version is inferior to all others," but still.

And you don't see the hypocrisy?

 

[Paradox]

You've missed the point. A wand curing a wound doesn't redefine hit points and challenge suspension of disbelief, whereas 4E's healing surges do, being as conceptually ridiculous as the "she turned me into a newt!....I got better" joke in Holy Grail to some of us. Even the term "healing surge" IMO completely sucks, bringing to mind wounds healing over through regaining confidence or a second wind some other such bollocks....???

I don't think so. Hit points have always been abstract. They weren't redefined.

A character with 30 starting HP currently has 10 HP. That means he needs 20 to get back to his full HP. It doesn't matter which mechanic you use- burn some charges from a wand, get healed by a cleric or use healing surges. Your character is going to get himself up to 30 HP. It's all the same in the end.



And that's my point. The basics of all RPGs is to get together with friends and roll some dice. The mechanics aren't as important as some would like to believe. That's when you get people browbeating and lording over other players. "You MUST play my way."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I could reply that nothing has changed...

And you'd be dead wrong.

The poster said that "suspension of disbelief" had been altered. That's a personal reaction between the person's inner states and the mechanics of the game.

By telling them "nothing has changed", you're telling them that they misinterpreted their own reactions to the game. THAT is rude.

I admit that Monte Cook held the opinion going into 3e that hit points represented "real physical resistance to injury." The absurdity of that was shown, paradoxically, by Andy Collins in the Epic Level Handbook, where they talked about epic-level PCs swimming through lava.

This is the single way in which Kevin Siembieda, the creator of RIFTS, actually demonstrated a better mechanical design instinct than many other game designers who also worked on games with abstract HP systems.

When KS was told that some players would try to intimidate NPCs by having their PCs take unreasonable risks- like shooting themselves in the head with a weapon capable of doing lethal damage to them (IOW, an MD PC "eating" a shot from a MD weapon)- he actually wrote a letter to the fans in one of his RIFTER magazines saying that this was a misunderstanding of the system. A PC who does such a thing, he said, is dead: HP represent a wide variety of ways PCs avoided death (including both physical resilience and turning lethal hits into glancing blows), and by doing such a thing, you circumvent them all.

IOW, no chewing on your gun, no swimming in lava, just because of having a lot of HP.