I am just curious if anyone here has ever actually changed their mind in an edition war because of another poster's argument. Not talking about acknowledging when you were factually incorrect, but actually reversing a deeply held position (i.e. "You've convinced me, healing surges are awesome!"). My impression is people begin with a subjective reaction (this mechanic bothers me and isn't fun), then try to figure out a reason for that reaction (this mechanic bothers me because isn't realistic). So I think it is nearly imposdible to convince a person they like something. Perhaps I am wrong though.

No.

(Especially when something is very subjective).


Only times I really changed my mind on some rpg stuff, is from playing it for a period of time.  For example, initially I dismissed 4E back when it was first released.

More generally (outside of rpg games), I do pay attention to when older retired individuals I know, change their lifelong held beliefs.  Especially when they have no stake anymore in something, and are speaking their minds freely.

Sort of. Most of my favourite RPGs are ones I started disliking, often intensely. Though actual play experience has more sway on me in changing my mind permanently, I was spurred to reconsider my opinion as a result of listening to the opinions of those I trust (both people I know in person and forumites I have interacted with).

Though not technically just an edition war thing (more a new RPG thing) it has happened with WFRP 2e, Exalted 2e and D&D4e. As said, all three are in my top 5 RPGs now.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;515556I am just curious if anyone here has ever actually changed their mind in an edition war because of another poster's argument.

I was initially very negative about the shift from 3.0 to 3.5. It was primarily online discussions that convinced me to make the switch after all.

My interest in OD&D as something that was a distinct experience from BECMI or AD&D was spurred by various OSR blogs. Actual play then convinced me that it was offering something worth spending time with (in a way that BECMI and AD&D largely don't).

Online discussion has largely convinced me that 4E was even worse than my initial reaction and playtesting suggested. But I don't think that counts.

Once we grant that talking about a RPG and playing it are two highly distinct and often unrelated activities, we might as well grant that the difference between talking to someone on- or offline about a RPG doesn't matter beyond a certain point.

The issue is rather who you talk and listen to. Skywalker mentioned something vital here - "listening to the opinion of people [one] trusts."

So how is trust established? A lot of people look out for agreements - they'll start to trust people they regularly agree with. Enworld's and RPGGeek's thumbing/XP system contribute enormously to this.

On the other hand, trust is established by people one can take seriously even if one doesn't agree with them. There's nothing like a carefully constructed argument when it comes to changing people's opinion. And that takes a lot, as it does in real life, because the vast majority of people cannot recognize a good argument when it's staring them in the face, much less write one up themselves, and would much rather drain a discussion in noise.

I've always found this makes matters easier, not harder. While continuing or conducting an edition-related matter takes extra energy to see through, the fact that people so readily declare themselves to be the fools they are has made the whole 'Who can I trust? Who can I take seriously?' exercise a lot easier to resolve than in real life.

I've been playing RPGs since 1975. For the most part, I know what I like and what I don't. Therefore, someone is going to have a hard time convincing me that I might like something I've basically tried in the past and disliked every time (e.g. games were combat averages more than 10 minutes of real time).

However, back in the 1970s and early 1980s people did convince me that something I thought I might not like based on reading it might be worth trying anyway. New things, however, not things I had tried and found wanting that had been modified slightly in some new game.  This was all offline, of course.

Yes, I did change my mind on a few things as a result of harsh debates around edition this and edition that. Some aspects of 4e after discussing them with Abyssal Maw on this very board come to mind. It's not a total waste in some cases, even if I don't fundamentally change my mind over this or that issue. It helps me understand better what I like and do not like, in many ways, and why, sometimes days or even weeks after an argument has been dumped to the can.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;515556I am just curious if anyone here has ever actually changed their mind in an edition war because of another poster's argument. Not talking about acknowledging when you were factually incorrect, but actually reversing a deeply held position (i.e. "You've convinced me, healing surges are awesome!"). My impression is people begin with a subjective reaction (this mechanic bothers me and isn't fun), then try to figure out a reason for that reaction (this mechanic bothers me because isn't realistic). So I think it is nearly imposdible to convince a person they like something. Perhaps I am wrong though.

Nope. I've tried/read the games I dislike.

Nope, I do not give a shit about any gamer's limited opinion concerning whatever edition with any game because I have to make the ultimate decision based on MY player's needs.

Online discussion really helped me give various versions of TSR-D&D another shot, it turns out that they're a lot more fun when the DM isn't a middle school student

Nope.

I played a lot (too much) of 3e and 3.5 to ever think highly of them again.  Played 1 session of 4e.  Arguments that this or that rule "just makes sense" or "is objectively better, can't be argued" in the face of my experiences have an opposite effect to whatever the people making them desires.  I know from where I speak when I say this is bad or that is bad or even just not to my taste.

I personally find all of the metadiscussion really boring, and wish more people here would spend their time actually talking about games they play.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;515556I am just curious if anyone here has ever actually changed their mind in an edition war because of another poster's argument. Not talking about acknowledging when you were factually incorrect, but actually reversing a deeply held position (i.e. "You've convinced me, healing surges are awesome!").

No.  

I have had my opinion about a system soften over time, but never completely reverse.

I've only ever been involved in one Edition War, the 3E/4E split. Still don't consider 4E to be D&D. So, nope.