Which edition of D&D gets the most heated discussions?

[jaerdaph]

Define "discussion", "heated discussion", "argument" and "edition war". You are using them interchangeably, but I don't think necessarily are. A good, civilized and lively discussion or "debate" about the merits and flaws of one edition over another is a lot different than a "your edition sucks" edition war.

I also think "edition war", at least around here, has been mainly between 3.5e and 4e. And I'd hardly call these threads discussions or debates.

I also think that people label all to quickly *any* criticism or attempt to discuss the flaws of one edition an "edition war" far too quickly. Some even shout "edition war!" before we even get that far now. There's a lot of oversensitivity around here. A good, civil discussion or debate never gets a chance to start.

A lot of it has to do with our society's collective need for black vs. white with no shades of gray. Just join one camp, shout out the slogans, and let others do the real thinking for you. It's Yankees vs. Red Sox, Red States vs. Blue States*, Us vs. Them.

But all of this is too deep and too much effort for what amounts to "it's just a game".

*used as an example - not meant as a political comment, just a social observation.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I don't know if 1e generates more heated discussions than 3e or 4e, but I suspect it does generate more contentiousness than the other TSR editions.

I suspect it's because 1E is the game the majority of use grew up playing. Since it's what is remembered from childhood, it is considered to be the best, or "how it should be."

I think that's definitely a factor. I currently play OD&D, but I still consider AD&D to be the de facto standard that defines "this is D&D." If someone said, "tell me what you think of when I say D&D," my answer would be 1e AD&D.

AD&D might also be more prone to contentiousness because of the way its written. One of its goals was to codify and expand the rules to make it more consistent (compared to wild and wooly OD&D) for tournament play and for PCs moving from campaign to campaign. So it includes a lot more details and rules. But, Gary's approach still assumed a high degree of referee judgment, and—for one reason or another—some things were left somewhat ambiguous or open to interpretation. So you have rules that clearly cover such-and-such, but exactly how it works or why it works that way might be subject to interpretation. That can spark arguments.

Contrast that with OD&D, which has such broad lacunae in the rules that it's obvious that the referee will make the call, there, and there is no by the book or right way. There's little point arguing, in that case. Or contrast it with B/X, which, like AD&D, fills in those OD&D holes, but does it in a simpler and more straightforward manner. (I think of B/X as the "you can just sit yer ass down and play it like it is" edition of D&D.) I suppose 2e is kind of like B/X, in that respect, since it's clarifying and removing a lot of the need for DM interpretation and rulings on the rules.

Now, some might say that this clearly means the 1e rules weren't very good rules, because they were not as clear and unambiguous as the B/X or 2e rules. I think that depends on what you're looking for out of your rule set. Personally, I like the style and approach used in 1e AD&D more than I like the style and approach of B/X or 2e. Some of the ambiguities in 1e might be bugs, and some of them might be features, but overall I find the 1e rules to be a much better fit (and more inspiring) for my approach to the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I started gaming just a few years before the 1E to 2E transition, and was young at the time, so I mostly associate 2E with my early gaming experience. At the time, I have to say I was unaware of any edition war, but that is probably because me and my friends all were eager to play the new edition (and there wasn't really an internet). We also didn't meet many gamers outside our immediate area.

I do remember a big war when 3E came out. But again, that was before the internet exploded and you had forums like this everywhere. So most of the complaints I heard were at the game store, and in my own circle. I also recall personally vowing never to play 3E. That vow lasted all of two weeks. Once I got used to the new system, I was fine with it. Everyone in my group made the transition to 3E (we even seemed to get more players).
With 4E I have noticed high emotions on both sides. But I think a lot of that is there are more online arenas for venting about such things. With 4E, only one person in my gaming group made the transition. But that may have more with us now being old men set in our ways, and not reflect any real trend. And I personally was eager to learn 4E, but since most of the people in my group didn't want to use it, never really got the chance. There is still occassional talk of giving it a try. But I think so many books have come out in the mean time, there will be great resistance to it.

So I guess my conclusion is, it is really hard to tell which edition has sparked more war. Presently 4E seems to be invovled in more flame wars on forums, but it is also the current edition, so that is expected. I can recall 3E sparking lots of Role Play v. Roll Play wars, or fights over builds and min maxing just a few years back. My feeling is, play the edition you like and your group wants to play. Or rotate between games. Get a taste of everything.

 

[Stoat]

I also have the sense that Gygax wrote more about AD&D1 than other editions and that Gygax's quotes about AD&D1 are available to more folks here than quotes from him about other editions.

If a poster is going to quote Gygax chapter and verse, the most likely sources are the 1E DMG and his comments in Dragon about 1E. When the discussion turns to "WWGD?" it generally turns to 1E.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I can recall 3E sparking lots of Role Play v. Roll Play wars, or fights over builds and min maxing just a few years back.

My opinion on the answer to this poll is because of this. Whether you're comparing 3.X to previous editions or to 4E a lot of the most heated arguments boiled down into role playing vs. roll playing (right or wrong). I think that sort of discussion is what creates the most heated and volatile arguments. It's one thing to say that edition X sucks, but you can really get someone bent out of shape by telling them that they're "roll playing" and that sort of gaming style sucks, because it transcends the edition itself.

 

[Filcher]

I, for one, have never noticed exceptional fervor around 1e discussions. Now that you call them out, I'm sure they must exist, but they are just not on my radar.

I think we're all most sensitive to arguments against our own favorite edition. I would posit that many of us think that Enworld neglects our favorite edition, in favor of some other flavor of D&D.

Only speaking for myself: while I strive for fairness, I suspect that I fall short of true objectivity.

 

[Umbran]

Unless you specify a time period, this is difficult to answer. What is happening right now is different from what was happening a few months ago, is different from what has been happening over the past year, and so on.

Humans have a drive to separate the world into Them and Us. Gamers are not different in this regard. First off, it was simply Gamers vs non-Gamers.

Then, White Wolf Games got rolling. The D&D vs White Wolf animosity was pretty strong, and it grew when White Wolf brought out live action rules. Then the comparisons between games gave rise to GNS theory, so there were Gamist vs Simulationist vs Narrativist style arguments. Skipping over time, more recently, we've had 3e vs 4e. That has since mutated - we have New School vs Old School, Sandbox vs Tailored, and so on.

I suspect the heat you see this moment on 1e is merely the current front for the same dynamic.

 

[jaerdaph]

I think we're all most sensitive to arguments against our own favorite edition. I would posit that many of us think that Enworld is against our favorite edition, in favor of some other flavor of D&D.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I know I've seen 3e and 4e folks who have said as much here and elsewhere with regards to EN World's perceived "edition bias".

 

[Filcher]

Humans have a drive to separate the world into Them and Us. Gamers are not different in this regard. First off, it was simply Gamers vs non-Gamers.

I wasn't around at the time, but I bet when D&D first picked up speed, a lot of wargamers turned up their noses at the Tolkien fantasy upstarts and their dumbed down, unrealistic rules.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I started gaming a year or two before the introduction of 3.0. I wasn't active in the online community or terribly knowledgeable about the game, but I don't remember anything like the current environment. Our DM posed a question of whether we should stay or go forward, and the vote to convert was unanimous. Never looked back.

Not saying 2e was a bad game (had fun playing it and a BGII fan as well), but 3e seemed to me to be an obvious evolution in the game and was quickly and almost universally accepted. There's no Pathfinder for 2e (no OGL obviously). I am sure there will be people with different sentiments and recollections.

4e has been quite divisive, as the poll voters seem to agree.

I actually think having different gaming styles catered to by different games is a positive in some way (rather than having everyone playing a game based on D&D 3e), but the loss of civility in discussing this division has been really staggering, mirroring an oft-discussed lack of civility in our culture as a whole.

The flipside however, is that it shows how passionate people are about this game.