While edition wars are common to most games I'm aware of that do more than two, D&D seems to have the longest-running and most bitterly divided arguments about it. With other games people seem to argue either mechanical preference (Shadowrun editions) or advancing metaplot, but D&D sees the most "It's not even the same game!" arguments.

Great. Groovy. They're totally different games (except 1e -> 2e, where they just ruined a good game). Why is it so rare for people to play several different editions? I mean, if they're so different, they'd scratch different itches, right? If I wanted to wrestle a black dragon to the ground and hit someone with an ox, I'd play 3.5 with a half-dragon goliath monk. If I want to ambush gnolls, clash with the minions of mind flayers, fear drow, and found cities in the wildness of the hinterlands, I'll play with the Rules Compendium or 1st Edition. I don't grab my copy of Call of Cthulhu if we want to play werewolves, so what's so bizarre or alien or offensive about using the version of D&D that best suits your adventuring goals?

Discuss.

...actually there's no mind flayers or drow in Rules Compendium.. and OH MY GOD I'm DOING IT TOO!!!!

I did say "or 1st Edition". Converting backwards doesn't look that tricky to me, and it's not 1e without the Fiend Folio.

The orthodoxy wars are also staggering to me.
Dragonsfoot is a prime example of that kind of high weirdness.
Theres people who can draw the fine lines of differences out in unmatched detail.
But they do not use that insight to "scratch different itches". They use it to build larger and larger walls around their darling edition.

I´m a heretic, I like all versions of D&D.
Except 3.0
Haste was just too ridiculous.

3.5, now that´s a game...

Ok, serious response:

I actually play both 3.5 and Basic (Rules Compendium) D&D too, although I haven't done RC lately. They are indeed different games, and I don't see the conflict, really.

 But I guess it's out there.

One of the reasons is no matter what edition we are talking about, they all share the long-term campaign model. So if you only get together once a week (or less frequently), you probably will, in fact, be forced to choose one or the other. That's kinda what happened to me.

Addendum: I should make this it's own post: in a long term campaign, the minimum frequency is (really) weekly. You can do once every other week or monthly if you want, but you miss out on most of the benefits of continuity.

Now, kids, college students, etc.. can get away from that, because I recall gaming two or three times a week during the week when I was young-- and nearly every day during the summer. And nobody had a set schedule. We would get together, go to the pool, swim, play some ball and then get together for D&D, or Gamma World, or Star Frontiers or whatever. EVERY day we did that.

QuoteEVERY day we did that.

Ahh!
The memories!

Even today, anything under weekly scheduled campaigning is just not the real thing.

I think part of the problem is that the games really aren't as dissimilar as lots of folks really, really want them to be.  The different editions share enough of the same vocabulary and have enough small differences that it's difficult to keep them all separate on different weeks.

OTOH, if I'm running a D&D3.5 game and a WFRP game, the mechanics are different enough that they're easy to keep separate.

-O

Although I have my preferences, fighting over editions has always seemed like a stupid idea to me.  I've had a good time playing them all.  The fact that I don't like this or that rule tweak has never outweighed the basic fun of dungeoneering with pals.

One of these days I need to try 2nd ed with the later books like Skills & Powers.  That's about the only one I haven't played at least once.

Quote from: Christmas ApeWhile edition wars are common to most games I'm aware of that do more than two, D&D seems to have the longest-running and most bitterly divided arguments about it.

Traveller, man.  I got a pal who swears that when TNE came out he attended a ritualistic book burning.

Your pal would be right because, as Joe Fugate said: First they build a setting, and then they destroy it.

TNE IS NOT WAS NOT AND WILL NOT EVER BE TRAVELLER!!11!

Ahem.

Anyway, Trav edition wars are alive and well, and we can look forward to a climax when Marc eventually publishes the disaster that T5 must surely be.

What's infuriating about bad editions is very simple: they're too close to good editions. Like Highlander 2, they sully a good thing with the expansive aura of their badness. But this is easily remedied--don't watch Highlander 2.

Highlander - there should have been only one! :duel:

They scratch different itches, but sometimes people itch in different places on different days. I like all editions of D&D, Earthdawn, and Warhammer FRPG. They're all different roads to the same destination.

If I may suggest a proximate cause for edition wars...

When a new edition comes out for a game I like and may or may not be playing, I tend to buy it. In fact, I prefer to use the newest edition as the 'updated' version.  I'll get frustrated if the changes between editions are too minor to notice or are merely cosmetic, and I might get upset if the changes are so drastic it's not the same game any more.

Because naturally, the old edition is obsolete. It'd (shudder...) dead.

Ah, but I still have those old books, certainly I do. I could, in theory, overcome this not uncommon psychological block and continue playing the old edition just fine.

Only, its not just my psychological block, it's everyone elses.  And if I'm the only local player that has a serious issue with a new edition it will be harder for me to find players. Thus new editions can be feared by people who either do not naturally want to 'keep up' with the 'newness curve' or who have been seriously burnt by changes in the past, leading to a 'seige mentality' about their favorite edition.


Make any sense at all?

Quote from: Christmas Ape. . . so what's so bizarre or alien or offensive about using the version of D&D that best suits your adventuring goals?

Nothing. That said, the folks in thread that I pointed to elsewhere don't do that. They go out of their way to attack the edition that they dislike on a forum ostensibly dedicated to the target of their ire. It's not well-intentioned discussion, but a deliberate attempt to rile people up.

Simple discussion is great. Edition wars aren't simple discussion, though, as the name suggests -- they're wars. They're heated arguments in which two groups go out of their way to offend the other in some misguided attempt to prove themselves and their personal tastes superior.

You're being disengenuine when you try to dress up that kind of poo flinging shitstorm as some kind of laid back diplomacy.

Quote from: obrynI think part of the problem is that the games really aren't as dissimilar as lots of folks really, really want them to be.  The different editions share enough of the same vocabulary and have enough small differences that it's difficult to keep them all separate on different weeks.

I agree, but would add that the similarities make the differences all the more polarizing to people for some reason. Sort of like shiites and sunis.

I would play any edition of the game, really. I don't own any 3e stuff, though. I've reached a point where I feel like I own enough versions of the game to justify saving my $$. That and the inclusion of "double weapons" pretty much decided it. Maybe it's a generational thing.

I tell you what gets in my craw with these discussions, is when people start trotting out the analogies to technology, like newer is automatically improved. We aren't talking about microchips, we are talking about something more analogous to a "directors cut" or "cover song". It reminds me of how the US spent a ton of money to create a fountain pen that would work in zero gravity while the Soviets just used pencils...

Heres another one: D&D is a big pizza, but we all like different toppings. I've seen some pretty heated arguments about that too.

Quote from: jdrakehNothing. That said, the folks in thread that I pointed to elsewhere don't do that. They go out of their way to attack the edition that they dislike on a forum ostensibly dedicated to the target of their ire. It's not well-intentioned discussion, but a deliberate attempt to rile people up.

This is what bothers me as well.  I would never log onto dragonsfoot.org and drop a "You folks need to get over this new edition thing," bomb.  dragonsfoot has a well defined purpose, to discuss older editions of D&D, and they do it well.  I can do without the "TETSNBN" (or whatever the hell the acronym is) nonsense but I suppose its all part of the internet fora team-building exercise.