Since the start of 2009, I’ve been in one regular and one infrequent Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition game. During that time I’ve also run a short campaign of Mutant Future, and played in a game of Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry – all of which are various simulacrums of the very first edition of D&D. I played another game of Swords & Wizardry this past Friday, and aside from various observations of the merging of 1974 sensibilities with 2011 technology (just about everyone at the table used a tablet or a laptop to read the rulebook, for example)1, I realized something.
The so-called “edition wars” between D&D players, and indeed between 4e fans and the self-proclaimed “old-school renaissance” are utter bullshit.
We played a specific version of Swords & Wizardry, the “Complete” version put out by Frog God a couple months ago. I didn’t have it, but because I liked S&W, I bought the $10 PDF sight-unseen so I had it to play. I also have a printed version of the S&W White Box from Brave Halfling games, and I purchased the revised edition of Labyrinth Lord, so I’m putting money towards this old-school revival. At one point I also worked on notes for my own LL/S&W background. I’ve also dropped a fair bit of cash on D&D 4e and the new Gamma World stuff, and I’ve noodled around with ideas for a Masque of the Red Death-like conversion to 4e. The conclusion is pretty simple: I like both editions, and I like supporting both editions.
And it’s not just me. Every person I played with in the Swords & Wizardry game is in a regular D&D 4e game. Russell was the person who got me the S&W boxed set as a gift. Granted, I am using a statistical sample of “people in my office,” but I know the few times I’ve talked to my friends who weren’t aware of LL or S&W, they seemed at least interested to try it, even if they were playing 4e.
The reality is, the more you go to each end of the D&D experience, the more they become distinct. AD&D First Edition to D&D 3.5 are a spectrum of complex rules involving a middling amount of simulation and a middling amount of tactics, but at each end you have low simulation and tactics, and high simulation and tactics. Some times, I really like the idea of a very lean set of rules that get out of the way and let me craft the experience I envision with the other players, and other times I like the heroic feeling of my resources and tactics carrying the day against a cadre of villains.
What was most telling to me is where the two games are similar. I’m not talking about aesthetic similarities like the six core attributes on a 3-18 scale, or a numerical representation of hit points. There are more philosophical similarities. Specifically, 0e and 4e both approach the DM with the idea that it’s their world, and make it as easy as possible to let him “reskin” or reinterpret pieces of the game to suit their fantasy world. 0e does this by its sheer minimalism – you have to add texture to the game, and S&W Complete actually turns this into a feature and makes the game a little more reskinnable and toolkit-like to maximize this. Meanwhile, 4e builds this in as a feature and designs around it, so that the relative complexity of the rules give way to allow this reskinning and focus on acting as a well-oiled framework to practice your tactics in.
But even the differences aren’t bad. I like the ease of character creation and the implied fatality that 0e brings – there’s something interesting about taking a random creation and trying to make it work. It was one of the elements I liked in the most recent version of Gamma World, but I had envisioned that 0e was still unbalanced in this regard – certain builds are just better than others. And yet, for whatever reason S&W Complete showed me the truth – you don’t need characters with lots of stats above 13, because there isn’t a whole lot of difference between 13 and 18. Your weapon only does 1d4 (and indeed you might only have 1d4 hit points yourself), but each point of damage means something, and a +1 to damage is a massive thing. I really like the efficiency of that scale, even if I’m still terrified to make a magic-user.
Sadly, I don’t like participating on many D&D forums, because it inevitably breaks down into edition wars. The most inspirational D&D blog/community for me was, surprisingly, Playing D&D with Porn Stars. Zack takes an immensely DIY approach to his own games, combining AD&D with D&D 3.5 and whatever else seems cool to his own games. It does seem like he’s sliding a bit more towards old-school purity lately, but he’s pretty good about making design wank ultimately come back to something he can use at his table. But many other communities break down into edition wars, even if the editions have names now:
- 0e: Swords & Wizardry, et al.
- 1e: Labyrinth Lord, et al.
- AD&D: OSRIC (a surprisingly small community, it seems).
- D&D 3.0/3.5: Pathfinder.
- D&D 4e.
It feels sometimes that each edition getting broken off and branded individually has made the conflict worse, although every pre-Pathfinder edition has come under the banner of the old-school Renaissance (but don’t be fooled – I’ve seen some flamewars of Labyrinth Lord vs. Swords and Wizardry that are blistering). But I’m not seeing a lot of people talking about taking all of these marvelous toolboxes and putting together the best experience for their players. And that’s a shame, because outside of the Internet, I’m seeing these editions co-exist quite peacefully.
- I’ll talk about using a table in gaming in the eventual review of the Galaxy Tab that I’ll do. ↩
Pingback: Tweets that mention Edition Wars are Stupid | Eddy Webb: Writer. Gamer. Usually Not Dead -- Topsy.com
I can’t agree with you more on the idea that edition wars are stupid. I understand that not everyone is going to like a game in it’s new edition but saying that it ruined the game or has no redeeming value is short-sighted and self-centered.
Some time back, the Chatty DM touched on something which I think is rather relevant…
http://critical-hits.com/2010/12/17/beyond-labels-how-each-rpg-serves-and-rewards-specific-needs/
More specifically, he talks about how so many RPGers view D&D as “the game”.
So here goes my thoughts, stemming from that. If D&D is “the game”, then there’s a “right” and a “wrong” way to play it. Each of those different editions represents a new attempt to find the best version of “the game”.
The trick is, there’s no such thing as “the game”, which is the piece the Edition Warriors are missing. I think that the more players become aware of these niche games, the more they’ll understand that it’s okay to like more than one game, that it isn’t “betraying” their beloved RPG nor “cheating on” it to enjoy another RPG.
Thanks for the link!
That’s a fair point: now that each version of D&D is it’s own game, there’s less need for D&D to be any one thing, and therefore each game should be able to co-exist better. And yet they don’t. Is it because our community is just used to having this grudge and won’t give it up?
I think that’s partly it. I have the suspicion that the RPG crowd, or at least the most vocal elements of the community, tends to grow attached to specific systems, whence flows some of the reason for considering each game as “the” game.
You know…when you’re head over heels for someone, or something (in this case), you tend to overlook flaws, and see it as perfect. Any questioning of that perfection is, well…I get the image of the Knight of Chivalry, who says “You dare besmirch the honor of my fair lady? You must die! We duel at sunrise!”
And I think that’s what’s happening in part amongst the RPG community. Players have lived with, played with, and experienced D&D so thoroughly that they develop a strange sort of loyalty/nostalgia regarding it.
Of course, it’s the ones who’ve developed this the most who are the loudest speakers, and the most prolific. The less system-dependent people are usually less out-there about it, because they tend to be content with the status quo, and interested in exploring things. They’re not out for a scrap. They’re usually the friendly forumers who have plenty of recommendations for RPG newbies.
Thankfully, that’s only a tendancy. There are other people, like Chatty, who are more vocal about the idea of accepting multiple systems (and lesser-known systems) of RPG.
although every pre-Pathfinder edition has come under the banner of the old-school Renaissance
Even third edition is part of the OSR now? That’s surprising.
I don’t consider 3.5 to be a separate edition — it was a refinement of Third Edition, according to the the people who produced it. Ergo, I consider Pathfinder to cover the entire 3.0/3.5 design of the game, which is different from every other design of the game.
(I agree that there was probably as much change between AD&D 1st and AD&D 2nd, and that this is largely semantic hair-splitting. However, since OSRIC seems to cover both of those, I think it all nets out.)
Suppose it depends on what you mean by “Edition War”. I never understand the arguments that occur when because *I* like something, you’re dumb for liking something different. Same deal as the Mac vs PC argument.
That being said, there’s nothing wrong with liking one thing and disliking another. I like 3.5 very much, I dislike 4th ed. I think 4th ed leans more to being a skirmish combat game than a roleplaying game. I’m sad that 4th ed came out because it means there’s no future support for 3.5, which is what I’d want based on my personal preference. Not that I don’t appreciate the many flaws in 3.5, but certainly I prefer it.
…this, however, puts me firmly in the old school camp. I far prefer having large numbers of physical books around.
Not that I let players browse through books during a tabletop game. No book policy save with permission from the DM to look up something specific.
Yes, I am referring to “THIS version of D&D that I like is objectively better than THAT version of D&D that you like.”
I’m perfectly okay with people liking games I don’t like and vice versa, but to tell me that a particular game is objectively better, or that I am incapable of liking multiple versions is dumb.
I’m also okay with people who prefer physical books or miniatures or whatever. I just get tired of people telling me that having a laptop or a tablet at the table “ruins” the experience OBJECTIVELY.
I’m just waiting for holograms instead of miniatures and hex maps.
Have you see the work of running D&D on the Microsoft Surface?
http://gizmodo.com/5428620/way-more-dd-on-the-microsoft-surface
Pingback: The (Chaotic) Evil Empire | Eddy Webb: Writer. Gamer. Usually Not Dead
Pingback: I Said This, Didn’t I? Fine, You Tell Me What To Say | Eddy Webb: Writer. Gamer. Usually Not Dead