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.
Philotomy's site completely changed my mind on OD&D.
Perhaps if WOTC D&D practiced hard every day.............
No.
No. Edition wars exist for trolling. 4e is shit and I hope it is always remembered as such.
Quote from: B.T.;515956No. Edition wars exist for trolling. 4e is shit and I hope it is always remembered as such.
(http://noplan.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/dave-silverman.jpg?w=300&h=220)
Yes. I'm much less excited about 4e today. While I still consider it superior to 3.5 in most ways, I wouldn't play it without certain houserules anymore.
I've never changed my mind, but on the other hand, the only "edition war" I've ever been part of is WHFB 5 to 6, and you will never convince me that 6 was an improvement. I can't remember why you'll never convince me, of course, because it was a decade ago, but that's not the point.
I just... can't bring myself to care enough about RPG editions. I see them as being different games, that happen to share bits of their name.
For me it was more of the reverse.
I started out as a big fan of 4e (still have almost all the books), but the more I played, the more I saw what the 'haters' were talking about in their arguments, and the more I read of the 4e fanbase's arguments, the less I wanted to be associated with such ilk.
I almost reconsidered 4e for Essentials, but that wasn't really because of arguments so much as some of the arguments made me aware essentials existed. A similar experience nearly occured with Gamma World.
In both cases though, I ultimately said fuck it, and in the end I've more or less abandoned all D&D editions.
I liked the idea of Essentials, but in the end that didn't make me play the game. It's just too "meh" for me.
D&D 4e Gamma World, on the other hand, I would play.
Initially I thought 4E Essentials looked better (relatively) on paper.
But in practice after playing it for several months back in late 2010, I found that it wasn't really much better than the original Heinsoo 4E. Especially when it came to the length of the combat encounters.
4E Essentials still had the problem of combat encounters taking too long. The simpler martial 4E Essentials classes, didn't reduce the length of the combat encounters. At the time I (incorrectly) thought that the long combat times for the original Heinsoo 4E, was due to the dithering many of the players had in choosing which power to use. (In my previous Heinsoo 4E games, I noticed this dithering was a problem even with experienced players).
Quote from: ggroy;516014Initially I thought 4E Essentials looked better (relatively) on paper.
But in practice after playing it for several months back in late 2010, I found that it wasn't really much better than the original Heinsoo 4E. Especially when it came to the length of the combat encounters.
4E Essentials still had the problem of combat encounters taking too long. The simpler martial 4E Essentials classes, didn't reduce the length of the combat encounters. At the time I (incorrectly) thought that the long combat times for the original Heinsoo 4E, was due to the dithering many of the players had in choosing which power to use. (In my previous Heinsoo 4E games, I noticed this dithering was a problem even with experienced players).
The long combats in 4e are almost entirely due to the absurd amount of Hit Point inflation. Grind, grind, grind.
House ruling this is simple, depending on how much quicker you would like it to be:
Rule 1) Halve all Hit Point and Surge Values in the game.
Rule 2) Once bloodied, creatures take double damage.
Quote from: misterguignol;516016Rule 1) Halve all Hit Point and Surge Values in the game.
Rule 2) Once bloodied, creatures take double damage.
About (2): not PCs?
I liked the look of Essentials because the class writeups looked more like something out of 3e, they felt like a D&D class, not a thin framework attached to a bunch of heavily genericized powers.
But the publication was such a fucking mess that I couldn't even figure out which books I was supposed to buy to get a complete game, and the Red Box was a fucking disaster.
Edition war type stuff is more likely to make me think less highly of a game, regardless of my initial stance on it.
They have changed my mind about the amount of time I spent discussing games. Which was 'way goddamn too much'. Lessons learned.
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
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/096/044/trollface.jpg?1296494117)
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.
Ehhhh....yes and no.
My position on 4E is that it has a few good ideas, but for the most part is a dull, ponderous, bloated piece of shit much like 3rd edition.
However, I recently started playing in a good friend's 4E campaign, which is like a mashup of spelljammer/planescape. He manages to eschew a lot of the things I hated about 4E (the grid and minis, the slow, long, grindy combats, skill challenges, fiddly character-build munchkining, etc.) the result being that his game plays fast and loose, and we have more time to focus on exploration and mysteries.
He even let me kitbash an Essentials-style Warlord class so I wouldn't have to worry about digging through a mess of feats, powers, backgrounds, etc. every level.
The caveat to this is that the DM managed to get me to like the game by tossing out a lot of 4E rules. For instance, I can tell that he's not tracking movement, positioning and monster HP as fastidiously as 4E usually requires, which would cause most rules lawyers to menstruate verbally, but results in a much better play experience for ME. However, the fact that he's heavily modifying the system to make it playable can only logically be seen as an indictment of 4E rather than a defense of it. I suspect that I would still dislike the game a lot if it were played by the book.
The caveat to the aforementioned caveat is that I never play games by the book anyway, because everyone I know who plays AD&D/BECMI houserules the shit out of them anyway, so it doesn't really matter to me as long as it results in more fun at the table.