I ask because most of my introduction to D&D forums on the web was the EW forum at dragonsfoot.org (the actual address was dfforum.org back them).

I'm not on any high horse here - I get sucked in by LOLOLOLOLOL GYGAX SUXXORZ THANK NOT-EXISTENT GOD FOR 4E IT IS BETTER THAN ANYTHING EVAR every once in a great blue moon (depending on my mood).

But man I used to start trouble where there was none...

Regardless of your perspective, whether you're a fan of Original D&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, Basic/BECMI/RC, or whatever, what do you get out of it?

I used to see 3e (and early on 4e) as being roadblocks to fun and stepping stones to people who were denigrating the great things about D&D (to wit: Gary's prose, and his modules and the modules of guys like Al Hammack, RJK, etc.) so I felt like I had to say something in response to that.  Also I thought, well, I don't want people coming to D&D to think that this is the only D&D there is (and I still do feel that, I'm just not an evangelist any more) so I gotta say something.  But ultimately, anymore, I just don't care.  The guys I game with aren't going to suddenly go play 3e or 4e*, the people I don't game with aren't going to come to my house to get some of that Olde-School Goodness** - and, again, no matter how reasoned or light-hearted or well thought out anything I might say to promote AD&D might be, there's gonna be haters.  Haters gonna hate.

So, as I've said before "I will fight no more forever".  If I'm asked, sure, I'll flat out tell you six ways to Sunday why I just don't like and won't play 3e or 4e (and I've got my eye on those sneaky 2e and Basic jerks, too) and it isn't just rules, but company management and what they obviously don't know about D&D's history...but honestly, (for example) Justin Alexander is never going to lighten up and go "Oh, okay, no I'm cool with that.  I'd play that." - why bother talking about it any more?  I'm not gonna play a D&D with a unified XP chart - I'm never going to lighten up about that or a great many other problems I see with later D&Ds...

I guess maybe it's rah rah sports fandom for nerds?  Well, anyway I'm not going to jump somebody and leave them comatose over the matter***.


...

*=a couple of my players do but it's not A Thing at the table.
**=not since I quit running games at Conventions - there, I'd have to turn people away I'd get so many sign ups...
***=I'd like to but I quit bothering with usenet years ago so the temptation has subsided.

From the sidelines, it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. :rolleyes:

As an active participant, it's not much more than a personal rationalization to justify one's own beliefs/opinions in a particular edition.  It's similar to individuals rationalizing why they like a particular genre/style of music, or particular music bands.  (ie.  In these scenarios, it's nothing more than  confirmation bias at work).

Free entertainment.

I used to think that it made me think about the differences in the game and, thereby, made me understand what I like and dislike better. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe that phase has run its course, for me. I'm getting more satisfaction discussing the finer details of this or that rule than going on yet another explanation of what I like and don't like with people who don't share my POV and are just waiting for me to trip on my own words.

I don't really care for edition wars in D&D. Have my opinions on various editions. Don't mind others having their opinions. One thing I don't like about edition war threads is you end up with these strange forms of consensus about the rules or gaming in general by the end of the thread. Often these don't seem like the best conclusions, just a product of the most forceful personalities or the best debaters doing a better job of arguing. Don't even find them fun to watch anymore.

If I am involved in a edition war is either correct what I see as misinformation or make the point out that the differences being talked about are a matter of inches.

After 30 years, I played enough RPGs to realize that as long as certain elements are in place, you can handle pretty much anything with any system. It just with some system or editions it involves less prep, less thinking, or less steps to do certain things over others.

That people have preferences for differing levels of complexity and abstraction. They may change over time as the person interest or life circumstances change. But they are not "wrong".

I do think that for specific mechanics there can be a better or simplifier way of accomplishing the design goal. For example Ascending AC vs descending AC. But people still may personally prefer one over the other for a variety of reasons, none of them wrong.

That gamers while talking about gaming overvalue mechanics and undervalue roleplaying.  To be fair mechanics are more concrete than roleplaying and easier to talk about.

While playing with a well designed system is always nice what really makes the game is good roleplaying and good refereeing. The two areas that tend to be discussed the least.

For example my contention is that a good session can be had despite a badly designed system by good refereeing, but always fails even with a well designed system when there is bad refereeing. The same for player's roleplaying.  

System matters but not in the way general consensus thinks it does. If gamers realize that there will be less edition wars.

But the primary reason that edition wars rises is because of the company that publishes the game. Because in order to sell the new edition they have to put down the old edition as deficient in some way.  This continually has caused splits in the gaming community over and over again.

Chaosium does it right with their editions which are similar to how novels and books have editions as opposed to D&D, Traveller, etc which are brands that have new mechanics for each edition.  There are legitimate cases where the initial editions of a system needed a rework but they are few and far between.

Quote from: Benoist;455643I used to think that it made me think about the differences in the game and, thereby, made me understand what I like and dislike better. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe that phase has run its course, for me. I'm getting more satisfaction discussing the finer details of this or that rule than going on yet another explanation of what I like and don't like with people who don't share my POV and are just waiting for me to trip on my own words.

Yeah; I'm much this way.  "Well think about why that rule doesn't work" doesn't hold any water for me.  That rule (whatever it is) works in the context of AD&D.  If I were suddenly to introduce weapon versus armor type into a game of Chess...well, yeah, shit's gon' break.  Or unified XP charts in Wii Fit (bad example; that's computer code, let's say Parcheesi instead), etc.

I just don't give a damn about the opinions of people who aren't really in my game, either literally or figuratively (in that they play the same game as me).  I hear someone who regularly plays AD&D has ditched weapon vs. AC?  That's cool.  Someone who started in 3.5 and has jumped to 4 and bought a 1e DMG to see what the fuss is about?  Yeah not so much.

But this is steering directly towards something I don't want, so best leave it here.

It seems that the OSR and Pathfinder have alleviated the edition wars a bit, since people who like older editions actually get new product. When 3e was released, it was much worse, because the 2e fans were just cut off completely.

Quote from: Benoist;455643I used to think that it made me think about the differences in the game and, thereby, made me understand what I like and dislike better. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe that phase has run its course, for me.

Same here, whether it is rpg games, music bands, etc ... or more generally, anything which is very subjective.

Quote from: danbuter;455659It seems that the OSR and Pathfinder have alleviated the edition wars a bit, since people who like older editions actually get new product. When 3e was released, it was much worse, because the 2e fans were just cut off completely.

You know you're right; that's probably a good release valve for both "sides" of the argument.

Quote from: estar;455650If I am involved in a edition war is either correct what I see as misinformation or make the point out that the differences being talked about are a matter of inches.

After 30 years, I played enough RPGs to realize that as long as certain elements are in place, you can handle pretty much anything with any system. It just with some system or editions it involves less prep, less thinking, or less steps to do certain things over others.

That people have preferences for differing levels of complexity and abstraction. They may change over time as the person interest or life circumstances change. But they are not "wrong".

I do think that for specific mechanics there can be a better or simplifier way of accomplishing the design goal. For example Ascending AC vs descending AC. But people still may personally prefer one over the other for a variety of reasons, none of them wrong.

That gamers while talking about gaming overvalue mechanics and undervalue roleplaying.  To be fair mechanics are more concrete than roleplaying and easier to talk about.

While playing with a well designed system is always nice what really makes the game is good roleplaying and good refereeing. The two areas that tend to be discussed the least.

For example my contention is that a good session can be had despite a badly designed system by good refereeing, but always fails even with a well designed system when there is bad refereeing. The same for player's roleplaying.  

System matters but not in the way general consensus thinks it does. If gamers realize that there will be less edition wars.

But the primary reason that edition wars rises is because of the company that publishes the game. Because in order to sell the new edition they have to put down the old edition as deficient in some way.  This continually has caused splits in the gaming community over and over again.

Chaosium does it right with their editions which are similar to how novels and books have editions as opposed to D&D, Traveller, etc which are brands that have new mechanics for each edition.  There are legitimate cases where the initial editions of a system needed a rework but they are few and far between.

Excellent points. People do get bored though reading play examples which is why we discuss that so little.

I would also agree with ggroy.

However, ( ) I would say that the way a set of rules are written will affect how it's played and the quality of roleplaying you get out of it. In my experience the games that give you the best roleplaying are the ones where mastery of the system is not a requirement, not to say simple systems, but ones where knowing the best way to squeeze a few more pips out of the dice is not a key requirement. Now that gives you better roleplaying, roleplaying is only one aspect of gameplay.

When a game changes that focus between editions people start edition wars. So 2e to 3e was a big change as system mastery was key to 3e. 3e to 4e again changed the nature of that system mastery. If a version of D&D had been relased with the same AD&D base game engine but a load of different races then the edition wars would have been far quieter.

A headache.

A smug sense of satisfaction. :hatsoff:

(As well as entertainment, and sometimes even real insight.)

Valve for the righteous rage against the multi-layered stupidity and bad taste of WotC.

Mostly I just feel left out. It's a reminder that while I may not be into D&D most of the hobby is, and passionately so.