The only edition war that I've been a part of (if you could even say that) was the WFRP2e vs that new Warhammer Fantasy game that has the audacity to claim to be the third edition. It spits in the face of the WFRP legacy. There is no way that I'm going to change my mind about it. There is no point for me to accept and play it.

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;516033The only edition war that I've been a part of (if you could even say that) was the WFRP2e vs that new Warhammer Fantasy game that has the audacity to claim to be the third edition. It spits in the face of the WFRP legacy. There is no way that I'm going to change my mind about it. There is no point for me to accept and play it.

Both sides were wrong in that fight. 1e = best.

Quote from: Rincewind1;516034Both sides were wrong in that fight. 1e = best.

1e may be the best but at least 2e was not an insult.

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;5160361e may be the best but at least 2e was not an insult.

True, and though I much prefer the setting as in 1e ( the mechanics did not change that much to be a subject of real argument), Balthasar Gelt does kick ass. His mask should be imo this

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;516033The only edition war that I've been a part of (if you could even say that) was the WFRP2e vs that new Warhammer Fantasy game that has the audacity to claim to be the third edition. It spits in the face of the WFRP legacy. There is no way that I'm going to change my mind about it. There is no point for me to accept and play it.

There's three versions of WFRP, and they're all good RPG's.

But I reckon I prefer 1e over all of them. It's not fair and it's not balanced, but it's bloody good fun.

Edition wars helped me articulate my frustrations (or elation) with various systems, and for that I am grateful. Sometimes you're just searching for the right word to encapsulate your feelings, but don't have it properly structured yet.

The other thing was a tangential effect where I could read where another person was having fun with a game in a manner I was not seeing. After a time I tried to shift my perspective to see what they see. And while I may not have come to the same conclusion that the game was any better, it did help me see where the game had its +/- attributes. In time that allowed me to either come to a peace with the system or find where my houseruling (in the pursuit of perfecting my favorite toy) became futile and let go to "embrace its own suck."

I know, not a popular response. But it helps when I assume that I don't know something from all possible angles. After that though it usually helps cement my stance.

Quote from: Benoist;516017About (2): not PCs?

I count PCs are creatures.

Quote from: Ladybird;515976I see them as being different games, that happen to share bits of their name.

That's one model of editions. In the 80s, the general idea was to clean up and improve things come the time for a reprint. No one talked about editions for CoC, Runequest, Rolemaster etc etc in the way that we do now. It was more like "hey, your version of Character Law is a little newer and there's some more pages..." No-one thought of them as different games. The idea of an incompatible reboot primarily to spark new sales didn't turn up as the general model I'd say until DnD3e, although there were some cases before that.

I actually have changed my mind.  Second, third, and fourth edition D&D have convinced me that Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition wasn't so bad and the Rules Compendium is as good as D&D ever got, though I'd like the wider range of spells and magic items from AD&D.

Actually the funny thing is that ten odd years of playing Warhammer Fantasy Battle sold me on AD&D.  Really it's a shame they didn't develop it in that direction more.  No, Battle System doesn't count, and I think Battle System second edition is brilliant, however it actually supports miniatures battle play less well than AD&D 1e, which has campaign rules, troop costs, and siege rules, not to mention naval combat.  Sure, the attribute system is a mess and level limits are just plain out stupid, and then there's unarmed combat but compared to what followed, well at least the guy who wrote it understood how D&D works.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;515818Philotomy's site completely changed my mind on OD&D.

Philotomy's site is a gold-mine.  Really good deconstruction of OD&D that you can tell was borne out of lots of actual play.  Philotomy and Aos are probably my two favorite posters/bloggers of old-school things.

That said, I'm sure I've changed my mind about some things, although I don't know if I've changed my mind on an edition whole-cloth due to an argument -- I was already sorta interested in older editions when I came here, I was just trying to piece things together since I didn't grow up with them.

I did realize a long time ago from actual play that I love 4e for one-shots and mini-series, but not so much for campaign play.

Quote from: The_Shadow;516115The idea of an incompatible reboot primarily to spark new sales didn't turn up as the general model I'd say until DnD3e, although there were some cases before that.

Traveller, Shadowrun, and World of Darkness are a few easy counter-examples. (Not the nWoD, which obviously post-dates D&D3, but the revamping of the various game lines frequently meant rebooting chunks of the supplement line, too.) The second edition of AD&D, although largely compatible with previous modules, also notably saw TSR take all the old rule supplements out of print and replace them with a new line-up of redesigned products.

The point isn't ever to really change someone's mind; but in the process of argument one can refine details and even get new perspectives on the details of the disliked edition(s) that can lead to productive intellectual growth.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;516238The point isn't ever to really change someone's mind; but in the process of argument one can refine details and even get new perspectives on the details of the disliked edition(s) that can lead to productive intellectual growth.

RPGPundit

In the heat of combat, one's own arguments are reforged anew, eh?

Quote from: The_Shadow;516115That's one model of editions. In the 80s, the general idea was to clean up and improve things come the time for a reprint. No one talked about editions for CoC, Runequest, Rolemaster etc etc in the way that we do now. It was more like "hey, your version of Character Law is a little newer and there's some more pages..." No-one thought of them as different games. The idea of an incompatible reboot primarily to spark new sales didn't turn up as the general model I'd say until DnD3e, although there were some cases before that.

There were a lot of cases before that, even with the games you mention.

* The big D&D edition wars started with the release of AD&D 2e (1989)

* Traveller: The New Era (1993) not only was a huge change and a giant edition war, but nearly killed the Traveller brand.

* Runequest 3rd edition by Avalon Hill (1993) was also a big change, a big edition war, and also nearly killed an up-until-then popular brand.

* Rolemaster Standard System (1995) was another case where an older rule system changed, people hated it, and it caused lots of issues.

Really, the CoC method of "a new edition is largely just a reprint" is more in the minority.


Back to the OP, all of the edition warring / OSRing did make me go back and take a closer look at 1e. I will say that there is a lot I've found about the rules that I didn't realize before and that I think are cool. That said, my overall opinion that the books are disorganized messes of bad writing hasn't changed and I still think AD&D 2e took most of what was good about 1e.

No.  Because once I've decided I actually dislike or hate a game as opposed to being merely indifferent to it, I take the time to play it a few times and/or run it myself.

Very few are the games I dislike or hate just like I have 5-10 games I like or love. The vast majority I'm just indifferent to.  Hence willing to give a chance in the right circumstances.